1914-03-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 107, respecting The Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Fowler.
Bill No. 108, to incorporate The Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Boyce.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Teport of Canal Statistics for the season of navigation 1913.-Hon. J. D. Reid.
Annual report (English version) of the Postmaster General for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. L. P. Pelletier.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department received a petition for a rural mail delivery route from Meadowville to Hodson, thence to Toney Mills and back to Meadowville?
2.	If so, has the department decided to grant the petition?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is now under inquiry and until such is completed and the inspector's report is received, the department is not in a position to say whether or not the petition will be granted.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor from Meadowville to Toney Mills, Pictou county?
2.	Is the contractor working under a permanent contract?
3.	If so, by whom was it signed and what is the length of the term?
4.	What amount is paid him by trip?
5.	Were tenders called for the said contract?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	William Fraser.
2 and 3. The arrangement is temporary and there is no signed agreement.
4.	He is paid at the rate of $100 per annum or about 64 cents per trip.
5.	No, the price being reasonable and the amount under $200 per annum, the department has not considered it necessary to invite tenders.


SENTENCE OF RONALD CURRIE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When was Ronald Currie received in custody in Dorchester penitentiary on the sentence for perjury?
2.	When was he discharged therefrom?
3.	What were the reasons of his discharge?
4.	Who applied for his discharge?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Sentence, 7th January, 1913. Received
in penitentiary, April 21, 1913. The department's information is that he was in jail in the interval.
2.	16th January, 1914.
3.	Official reports, especially the recommendation of the trial judge which is as follows: ' I have no doubt that the ends of justice are fully met by his conviction and the time already served- I doubt that any good would result from further detention of this man and I would consider that under all the circumstances of the case his release on parole will serve all purposes better than his detention.'
It is not in accordance with established custom to give reasons. In this case, however, the judge has consented to his recommendation being given.
4.	The prisoner himself.


MODUS VIVENDI LICENSES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How much was collected from United States fishing vessels for modus vivendi licenses for the calendar year 1913?


Mr. HAZEN:: 


FRENCH RIVER DAM CONTRACT.
Mr. MURPHY:: 
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 10th February, 1911; (b) $13,365; *(c) J. F. Boyd.
3.	$1,500.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) Not yet but will be.
5.	No, work was completed by day labour.


PURCHASE OF REFRIGERATOR CARS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Di i the Government purchase any refrigerator cars from The Armstrong Refrigerator Company or from E. E. Armstrong, of Fal-1913t-'h' Hants county, in the years 1912 or
2.	If so, how many and what prices were paid?
3.	Has anything been spent for repairs to said cars since their purchase? If so how much?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes; from E. E. Armstrong, in January and March, 1913.
2.	Five; at $1,300 each.
3.	No repairs other than the ordinary [DOT]operating repairs.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY STATIONS.
Mr. ROULAY:: 1.	Who has heen awarded the contract for the construction of the stations on the Transcontinental Railway, between Doucet and Parent stations?
2.	What amount has been paid to the contractors for each of the stations up to this date, including material and work?
3.	Have these buildings been erected by subcontractors?
4.	If so, is the Government responsible, or has it any control over the paying of the subcontractors?


Mr. REID:: 1.	John King, of Fort William, Ont.
2.	Paid on stations at Timbrell, $2,520; at Strachan, $2,520; at Greening, $2,250; at Oscalanea, $2,250; at Clova, $2,401.87; at Coquar, $2,250; at Monet, $2,250.
3.	The Department has no information.
4.	No.


FRASERVILLE HARBOUR WORKS.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works, or the acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Postmaster General, interviewed a delegation from Fraserville, comprising Messrs. LeBel, Riou and J. P. Michaud, in connection with the works at the harbour at Fraserville?
2.	If so, is it true, as reported by these gentlemen, that the above mentioned Ministers or any of them have promised to have said works started during the summer of 1914?


Mr. CODERRE:: No such official interview took place. *Mr. GAUVREAU:
Has the Postmaster General recently telegraphed to anyone at Fraserville, ordering him to come to Ottawa in company with a delegation of members of the Board of Trade, in connection with the improvements! to the harbour at Fraserville? If so, to whom?


Mr. PELLETIER:: There is no such official correspondence.


ISLE VERTE WHARF.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has Joseph Collin, superintendent of the improvements to the wharf at Isle Verte, County of Temiscouata, received from the Government, the Department or any officer of the Public Works, any order for the purchase in advance of the necessary wood in connection with said works?
2.	Are the superintendents of improvements to wharfs allowed to buy, in their own name, wood, in order to sell it back to the Government when the improvements are afterwards ordered?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION ATTORNEY.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has Mr. Stewart, attorney for the Quebec Harbour Commission, been replaced? If so, by whom ?
2.	What is the salary attached to the position?
3.	Was it increased in favour of the present holder?


John Douglas Hazen: The Department has no information.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. What are the names of the Board who investigated the claims of applicants under

the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act and the remuneration paid to each to date?
2. Has this Board completed its work? If not, when does the Department expect that the work of the Board will be completed?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	(a) This information is contained in the Report of the Board of Inquiry laid on the table of the House on the 9th instant.
(b) No remuneration, except $6 per diem subsistence allowance to the President of the Board, and $5 per diem subsistence allowance to the members. The fees of the legal adviser to the Board under consideration by the Department of Justice, as per Order in Council contained in Report of the Board of Inquiry laid on the table on the 9th instant, page 30..
2.	Yes.


ALBERTA IRRIGATION WORK.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Did the Irrigation Branch of the Department of the Interior have a survey made of a portion of the country between the Belly and Little Bow rivers in Alberta?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of the survey?
3.	Has the department any intention of providing an irrigation system in this section of country or any part of it?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To determine the feasibility and approximate cost of irrigating any portion of that district.
3.	Full reports of the work are not avail-ab'e, and therefore the question has not been considered.


LITTLE SANDS BREAKWATER.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Have tenders been invited for the construction of a breakwater at Little Sands, P.E.I.? If so, how many tenders have been received, what is the amount of each, and what are the names of the tenderers?
2.	Has a contract been entered into with any of the tenderers? If so, which one?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, two tenders, from:	Phillips,
Mutch & McLean, $17,468.60 at unit prices; A. F. McQuaid, W. H. Tovvnshend & A. L. Fraser, $19,276.
2.	Yes, with Messrs. Phillips, Mutch & McLean.


HONORARY MILITIA OFFICERS.
*Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: How many colonels, honorary colonels, lieutenant colonels, honorary lieutenant colonels, and other officers, honorary and otherwise, have been appointed to the Minister of Militia and Defence from October, 1911, to the present1 time?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	This information
is contained in General Orders, which are promulgated from time to time iin the Canada Gazette, which the hon. member regularly receives.


James Joseph Hughes: How long is it
since the Canada Gazette was last published!?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	The Canada
Gazette comes out every Saturday.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It comes out every Saturday, but would it be an extraordinary request to make of the Government that they should give the answer?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I shall be glad to let the question stand as an order for return.
Stands as an order for return.


MR. STEVEN PAYNE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What position has Mr. Stephen Payne, of St. John, in the Public Works Department?
2.	What is the salary attached to the position?	.
8. What qualifications has Mr. Payne for this work, who recommended him, and what examination did he pass before he was appointed?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Assistant accountant in office of Superintendent of Dredges, St. John, N.B.
2.	$1,500 per annum.
3.	Application made by Superintendent Blenkinsop for Mr. Payne's appointment, with statement that he was fully qualified for the position. No examination required.


VEGETABLE AND FRUIT CANNERIES.
Mr. ETHIER:: What is the number of vegetable and fruit canning factories in each province of Canada?


Mr. FOSTER:: Alberta, nil; British Columbia, 5; Manitoba, nil; New Brunswick, nil; Nova Scotia, 1; Ontario, 66; Prince Edward Island, nil; Quebec, 10; Saskatchewan, nil; total, 82.


CANNED TOMATOES AND CORN.
Mr ETHIER:: 1.	What has been the total value of the tomatoes and corn for canning purposes produced in Canada since 1900?
2.	Has Canada imported or exported tomatoes or corn for canning purposes since 1900?
3.	If so, what have been for each year since 1J00, the import or export of tomatoes and corn for canning purposes in Canada?


Louis Coderre: There is no information on record in the Customs Department as to the purpose for which tomatoes and corn



are produced, imported or exported, nor do the census schedules of 1901, 1906 and 1911 specify the various kinds of vegetables canned in the canning factories.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sinclair.-For a reutrn showing whether Christian L. Ehler, postmaster at Queensport, N.S., has been dismissed; if so, when; and if the charges against this postmaster were In writing, by whom the said charges were signed; what the charges were; who conducted the investigation, if any; whether the investigation took place after the dismissal or before; whether the commissioner, recommended the dismissal of this postmaster; the names of the witnesses examined; the expense of the investigation in detail; whether the Postmaster General is of the opinion that the evidence taken at the investigation justified this dismissal?
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a return showing how many colonels, honorary colonels, lieut. colonels honorary lieut. colonels and other officers, honorary and otherwise, have been appointed by the Minister of Militia and Defence from October, 1911, to the present time.
Mr. Carvell.-For a return showing what firms or persons are or have been engaged in dredging for the Government in the harbour of St. John and upon the St. John river and its tributaries since October 1,	1911; what
amount has been paid to each firm or person for this work from October 1, 1911, to the present time; who the officers, president, manager and secretary of each of these corporations are.
Mr. Carvell.-For a return showing what tug boats, steam or gasolene tenders, have been employed by the Government since September 21, 1911, in connection with the dredging operations in St. John harbour and in the river St. John and its tributaries; who the registered owners of these boats are and from whom is each hired; the sum paid per day for each tug boat or tender and how many days each has worked in the period referred to ; what amount of money has been paid for the service of each boat in the period referred to and to whom it has been paid.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a return showing whether Louis Philippe Thibault, Alphonse Poirier, J. A. Morin, C. F. Rioux, Thomas Thibault and Adjutor Demers, of D6vis, have been appointed to positions under 'the control of the Postmaster General of Canada; if so, to what positions they have been appointed, what their duties are, when they were appointed and their salaries, respectively; the names of the officers who have been dismissed and replaced by the above ; the total amount of the annual salaries of said dismissed officers.

Mr. BORDEN moved:: That on Monday next, the 16th of March, and on subsequent Mondays to the end of the session, Government notices of motion and Government orders shall have precedence after questions and notices of motion for production of papers.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope my
right hon. friend will amend this motion

so as to cover not from next Monday but from the Monday following, the 23rd.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend
is urgent about it, I will agree. But I have had suggestions more or less from both sides of the House that we should get on with business as fast as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are one or two questions to come up next Monday. Moreover, it is St. Patrick's Day or thereabouts.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of the last suggestion of my right hon. friend, I agree to the amendment.


Mr. McCRANEY:: Does the Prime Minister intend to give the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) the opportunity to move the second reading of Bill No 5, respecting the pollution of navigable waters? That Bill was considered important enough last session to be referred to a special committee which committee- held sittings and took evidence, and I believe that a recommendation of the committee was made that it was desirable that further sittings should be held this session. So important was the matter considered that the members of the committee were invited to come to Ottawa last fall by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I received a letter from the hon. minister asking me to come all the way from Saskatoon to Ottawa to attend the convention. It is evident that if anything is to be done it ought to be done soon. The present motion is to take away Monday from the private members, and as the Government has already taken Wednesday, there will be very little time left for the consideration of this measure.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite concur in the observations of my hon. friend. I spoke to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Plazen) some days ago, suggesting that a notice of motion should be given for the appointment of a committee to take the subject into consideration, and to that committee might be referred the Bill on the subject that has come from the Senate and also the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk. I have just now spoken to the Minister of Marine, and he tells me he intended to have the notice given before, but in. the pressure of other important matters it escaped his attention. He will have it done at once.
Motion amended to read 'on Monday, the 23rd of March,' and, as amended, agreed to.



A MILITIA POSTER.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. SAM. HUGHES (Minister oi Militia):	Yesterday, the hon. member for
Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) brought before the House the matter of a circular issued in his county A>y a very enthusiastic young officer. The Adjutant General of the department wired yesterday to know what the matter meant, and the following telegram has been received in reply:	[DOT]
Sackville, N.B., March 12, 1914. Adjudant General,	[DOT]
Ottawa.
Telegram received. Issued circular at my own expense as easiest means of obtaining information asked for by A.A.G. 6th division, as to resources in recruiting company to full strength if ever necessary.
L. C. Carey,
Captain 74th Regiment.
I may say that the department had nothing to do with it.
Mr. EMMERSON:: Will the hon. minister lay on the Table the request or instruction which that officer states he received from the department?


James Joseph Hughes: I shall have great pleasure in furnishing that to the hon. gentleman.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. KYTE:: I desire to thank the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) for his promptness in bringing down the return regarding the Fenian Raid Bounty applications, but I would call attention to the omission from the return of the claims rejected, with reasons for rejection.


James Joseph Hughes: I brought the return down in part because I thought it would suit the convenience of the hon. gentleman, but the rest of the return will take a long time to prepare. There is a great deal else ahead of it. We will bring down as soon as possible a list of the rejected claims, and also those received since.


Mr. MURPHY:: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to what I assume is an oversight. An order was passed by the House about a month ago for a return giving the number of honorary appointments made by him, and that has not yet been brought down.


James Joseph Hughes: There is no oversight.
The matter will come on in due course; everything in its turn. Although we greatly appreciate the importance of my hon, friend 1021
(Mr. Murphy), he must take his turn with others.


Charles Murphy: I am quite willing to do that. I did not know the return would be so voluminous,


James Joseph Hughes: There are other returns ahead of it that are very voluminous, and I presume that the hon. gentleman's name is not yet on the list of honorary colonels.


Charles Murphy: Well, that is a distinction that, it would appear, very few of us will be able to enjoy for long. There are other orders which have not been complied^ with. One was made on the 2nd of April, 1913, almost a year ago, respecting the water lot leases on the Lachine canal. A partial return was brought down on the 22nd of January. Since then I have twice requested that the return be completed, and have also written to the Minister of Railways and Canals about it. I hope I have only to draw the attention of the acting minister (Mr. Reid) to the matter to have the return completed. Another return was ordered this session showing the number .jf citizens of the United States employed by the. Government, and also those appointed under section 21 of the Civil Service Act of 1908. Only four departments have complied with that order.


Mr. REID:: Have you heard from the
Department of Railways and Canals?


Charles Murphy: Partially; from the Intercolonial railway and the Transcontinental, both of which are under the Department of Railways and Canals.


John Dowsley Reid: I believe they are the only
ones that have made such appointments.


Charles Murphy: I would like the hon.
gentleman to make inquiries about that. Another order was passed on the 23rd of February for the list of appointments made under section 21 of the Civil Service Act of 1908. I suppose I should direct the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Coderre) to this matter as he will collect the information from all the departments. It will expedite the business of the House to have these brought down.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 105, to consolidate and amend the Canada Shipping Act, was read the second time.
Mr. HAZEN moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I observe that this Bill is not printed yet.


John Douglas Hazen: This is being done 'by consent and arrangement.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Is it under this Bill that the provision is made which prevents or permits a vessel to leave a Canadian port, or, is that a customs regulation?


John Douglas Hazen: Speaking generally, that would be a customs regulation.


William Findlay Maclean: I would suggest to the minister that probably under this Shipping Act we have control of the freight rates that are now such a grievance in this country, and I would direct his attention to the fact that he may find relief for that situation by legislation in this Bill. I propose to discuss it from this point of view later on.



BINDER TWINE FOR EXPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved, that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, by providing that "binder twine manufactured for export only, and not to be used in Canada, need not be labelled with the name of the dealer and number of feet of twine per pound in the ball marked or stamped thereon, and that the minister may make regulations to prevent the sale or use in Canada of unlabelled binder twine manufactured for export only, and that any person violating such regulation shall be liable Vo a penalty.
Mr. GRAHAM:: What is the object of
the resolution?


George Eulas Foster: The object really is. explained by the resolution itself. As the law is at present, all binder twine manufactured in Canada, whether for use in this country or for export, has to be labelled as set out in the resolution. The object of the Bill, which it is intended to introduce, is to make it possible that binder twine manufactured in this country for export only, not for use in the country, need not have that label; and that the minister may have power to make such regulations as are necessary to prevent any twine manufactured for export being sold within the bounds of Canada. The reason for it is that large orders come from foreign countries for binder twine, but they do not want the twine with any label or mark on it, and the fact that it has to be labelled and marked under our present law prevents the orders being placed in this country. It is to expedite manu-

facture in our own country for export, whilst at the same time maintaining every restriction necessary to prevent the sale of untagged binder twine within Canada.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend then
admits that we do export binder twine? I heard an argument once in this House that any article which was manufactured and not really strongly protected stood a very poor show of having any export sale; and I am glad to hear that the export of binder twine is so great that we have to do something to meet the expanding market. I thought perhaps the intention was to meet the conditions where they have to have marks that we do not have.


George Eulas Foster: I am delighted that my
hon. friend is delighted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. NESBITT:: Would this not be rather an inducement to the manufacturers for export, to deceive? The minister guards against any deception at home, which I am glad of, but would not the rescinding of the regulations requiring branding of binder twine be rather an incentive to the manufacturer to deceive the foreign buyer? Has the department looked into that phase of the question?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, so far as it is necessary. A buyer in foreign countries has his own views, his own tastes, maybe his own purposes. He is quite willing to place the order for goods if you put them up as he wishes as to marks. The object" of this legislation is to enable the foreign merchants to put their own marks on the binder twine. It would be easy to tear off the marks required under the Canadian law, but that would toe an expensive operation when the, balls are all done up in large cases. I think we go as far as necessary if we protect our own buyers and consumers, and allow those of other countries to protect themselves.


George Perry Graham: If the foreign buyer sells our binder twine as Canadian twine and puts a false mark on it, it may leave a bad impression as to Canadian manufacture. If he sells it as his own without any country of origin being marked on the twine, then no injury would be done.


George Eulas Foster: That is his purpose; he does not want any mark on it to show the place of origin.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The binder twine
factory at Peterborough could not sell its twine in foreign countries if marked. The Russian importer would not take it if it was marked in any way, and it is to provide for that that this legislation is introduced.


Mr. OLIVER:: I am a little afraid that this is general legislation to meet a special case, which is always dangerous. In the case of other articles of export we have passed drastic legislation as to marking so that the goods shall he identified as Canadian goods, and so that they shall be known to have a certain standard of quality.
I am quite aware that it would be dangerous to draw absolute, general conclusions from that particular instance; but it seems to me that under ordinary circumstances, if we are doing business on a proper basis, it must be in our interest that the world should know it, and that the people with whom we are doing business should have that assurance. ^ As to binder twine which is to be marketed and used in Canada, we have legislation providing for the marking of the length of the twine. That has been found absolutely necessary, and an active inspection has been instituted to see that that legislation is lived up to. It seems to me remarkable that what is found to be so urgently necessary in Canada should be so entirely objectionable in some other countries. I think that the minister would be well advised to take the matter into fuller consideration, possibly, than he has done, and not Test his case on the representation of a single twine factory, but rather take advice from all the twine factories, and then take into consideration all the general conditions as they would affect the interests of the country and its reputation. With all due respect to the manufacturing interests concerned, I am afraid that their suggestion has a very strong air of suspicion connected with it. I would be very much more in favour of a policy that would take every means to establish the quantity and quality of Canadian goods sold in foreign countries.


George Eulas Foster: I proceeded on the exact lines that my hon. friend has laid down. I looked into this question thoroughly, and came to this conclusion after having given as full consideration as I thought was necessary to the subject. It is not a very abstruse one; I do not think there are any very great difficulties connected with it. In the first place, we inspect and mark not for
quality, but for the length of the twine in the ball. The primary object of the legislation was to protect the Canadian farmer against short lengths. He received his ball of binder twine; he could not unravel and measure it for himself, and this legislation was planned and placed on the statute book for the purpose of protecting him in that regard, and, I think, for that purpose only. I do not think the legislation had in view at all the protection of people of other countries. It seems to have been unnecessary at that time to do anything: else in the legislation than to protect our own people. However, that was the way the legislation went on the statute book, and that is the way it is to-day. If by this new legislation we absolutely protect' our own farmers, there is no fault to be found inside the boundaries of Canada. The same regulations will be effective,, there will be the same inspectors, the same inspection, and the same care will be taken, and therefore the same advantages will come to our own farmers. No other country in the world that I know of makes any provision having regard to the export sale of binder twine, as to whether the twine shall be of a certain quality or of a certain length. We were not, as in the case of butter, cheese and the like, trying to establish in outside countries the name of an article manufactured in Canada. The United States has nolegislation like this. Mfhen the Russian buyer comes into the market, he is willing to place an order in the Canadian factory, but the Canadian factory puts its own marks upon the goods. He says: I do not want any marks upon my twine; when it goes to Vladivostock or other ports, I put my own marks and tags upon it. But, says the Canadian manufacturer, the law prevents us from leaving them off. The Russian buyer accordingly gives the order to a United States firm; in one case an order was given to the United States partner of a firm here. Sometimes it is difficult to know why people respect certain marks and object to others, but that takes place in thousands of instances in the course of trade. It is a question of whether you are willing to cater to the desires of the buyer in the foreign country, or whether you are willing to lose the trade. We do all that is necessary when we take the proper steps to protect our own people. If, by taking this course, we can get more wages and more labour for our own people, I think we ought to do it, and that is the idea upon which I have taken action.


George Perry Graham: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Minister of Trade and v Commerce, for the reason he pointed out in his last few words. One of the difficulties complained of by our agents abroad is that the Canadian manufacturer does not yield sufficiently to the whims of his customers in foreign countries. If you wish to sell goods in South America, you have to manufacture and put them up the way the people an South America want them. Perhaps we prefer to follow our own inclinations and our own patterns, but the South American people will 'not have them, and it is just the same, I suppose, with countries that buy our twine. The invariable view of those who take an interest in the expansion of our trade is that one reason why that trade does not expand more rapidly is because the Canadian producer, particularly the manufacturer, is slow to yield to the desires of foieign customers. The trade cannot be got in that way; you have to meet the ideas of your customers. I am inclined to the belief that so long as the Canadian people are absolutely protected against fraud and get good value for their money, in order to expand our trade we ought to^ meet as far as possible the desires of tnose whom we are trying to get as purchasers. I am not sure that we are altogether responsible for what the Russian is going to do with his twine. He has his own way of doing business, and if he sells the twine to his customers as his own, we are not bound as a country or as a government to protect them. If we want to try to make a name for Canadian twine through that customer, we ought to stick to some distinctive mark that would hold our manufacturers responsible for turning out the proper article on the one hand and protect our good name on the other. However, I am rather inclined to the view that the idea of the minister is a good one so far as assistance in the expansion of our trade is concerned.


Mr.   POSTER@: In connection with the
last remark of my hon. friend, I want to say that all other countries, more especially those which are less advanced-[DOT] not speaking slightingly of any country- pay more attention to marks and signs than we do here, and in many cases upon the nature of the sign or the mark depends the decision of the customer as to whether or not he will take the article.
A lesson which we may learn from Japan is that in their large commercial museums 
one of the exhibits consists of articles from almost every country in the world with which the Japanese desire to establish a trade-articles taken right out of the area of use, and just in the form, style and appearance in which they are used and sold. These exhibits are studied by the manufacturers of the cities, the designs are copied and the article, whatever it is, is manufactured and sent out to those countries. I am having my trade commissioners obtain particulars concerning the grades, styles and patterns of various articles in current sale in other countries, and having been brought here so that our manufacturers will see exactly what they are and may copy them if they want to go after the market in those respects.


Frank Oliver: How much twine do we
export?


Mr.   POSTER@: I have gone through
orders which have been received by several companies, and the orders are effective provided the Canadian manufacturer will make the article according to instructions; otherwise, they are not. As to how much we really do export, I will get the information for my hon. friend when we come to the Bill. The hon. gentleman must not be too skeptical in the matter; he was very skeptical the other day about my Chinese flour market, but I am going to convince him that there is a better way of looking at these matters.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps my hon. friend
does not appreciate the point at which I am driving. What I want to find out is: Are we selling twine to any other countries besides Russia, and if so do those other countries demand the same requirements as Russia?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: I have seen prospective
orders placed, with exactly the same conditions, from the United Kingdom as well as from Russia.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr FOSTER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109, to amend The Inspection and Sale Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCHE moved second reading of Bill No. 98, to amend' the Volunteer Bounty Act and amending Acts.
Mr.-OLIVER: Perhaps the minister will give an explanation of the Bill.
Mr. ROCHE:: The hon. member for Edmonton was not here the other day when I gave all the information I had at hand.
I	promised then to submit answers to certain questions that were -asked, and which I was not in a position to answer at that time. In the first place this Bill provides for an extension of time in which certificates can be surrendered in order to secure the $500. The hon. member for Edmonton will remember that last session an extension of time was granted until October 31, 1913, within which time those who had these land certificates might file upon the land or secure the $500 provided by the appropriation of last year, upon the surrender of the certificate to the department. We are not asking for an extension of time such as was provided in other amendments. Many of the men were unaware that they had to surrender their certificates prior to October 31, 1913, in order to 4 p.m. secure the $500, and the extension of time now asked for is to give these men an opportunity to surrender their certificates. There are forty-eight certificates still outstanding. Of these, twenty-eight are recorded in the names of duly appointed substitutes who cannot assign the certificates or appoint other substitutes. The remaining twenty-with the exception of five were not delivered, having been returned to the department because of insufficient addresses-are, so far as is shown by the records of the department, still in possession of the original grantees, as no instruments appointing substitutes in
these cases have been received. I was also asked how many had filed upon their lands under the extension of last year and how many received their $500. Under the . extension of 1913, which expired on the 31st October, one hundred and twenty South African Volunteer Bounty Land certificates were located upon land and thirty-eight were redeemed for $500 each. Of these thirty-eight, thirty were redeemed by substitutes. The hon. member for Moosepiw asked whether during this extension there had been any cases of men filing upon land which turned out to be of an inferior qua -ity, being allowed to change to other lands. I was not aware at the time whether there were any such cases, but the departmental reply is that in a few cases where a certificate has been located upon land whic r upon inspection has been shown to be unnt for agricultural purposes, the entrant has been permitted to transfer the entry to land. I am told these cases will probably not exceed ten in number. I think this 'information covers all the questions that were asked the other day.


Frank Oliver: There is no extension of
time for land location?


William James Roche: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second ime, and the House went into Committee hereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: Have any instances occurred since the last amendment, of scrip having been lost and new scrip issued? If so, wlmt. is beine done in reference to them.


William James Roche: There have been no further instances, I think.


Frank Oliver: All those that occurred
previous to the amendment have been disposed of?


William James Roche: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Immigration-Salaries of agents and era->l"in Canada, Great Britain and foreign
n/MnitniaQ SfiftO.OOO
["The minister does not care to say what action the Government proposes to take, whether they will depend upon the two amended Orders in Council or not. For my part, I believe that if it is not possible to secure the exclusion of these people by the Orders in Council already in existence before this one of December 8 was promulgated, or the amendments, it would be very much more in the interests of Canada that a regulation be passed simply excluding these people. I think this Order in Council of the 8th of December is a very unfortunate one unless it is intended to cover some point other than Hindu immigration. It covers all classes of artisans and labourers, and its effect is to exclude white men while admitting Chinese and Japanese. I think the Government was anything but well advised in passing such an order, and I think it would be much better, if they think they could not depend on the orders already in existence, simply to pass an order declaring the mind of the people of Canada, that Canada can get along better without these people than with them, and take action accordingly.\nI have another little matter to bring to the attention of the minister, not of general interest but of particular interest, and I will occupy only a minute or two in dealing with it. I have not troubled the House or the Government much in regard to the dismissal of officials in my constituency, and I do not intend to' take up time with it to-night. A great deal of discussion has gone on in the House with regard to dismissals and the reasons for them. I moved for papers, and the returns have been brought down. These relate to three dismissals of officers of the Immigration Department in the constituency of Edmonton. One is the dismissal of Mr. Webster, immigration agent at Edmonton. Another the dismissal of Mr. Jacob Mohr, interpreter at the Immigration agency, and the third the dismissal of Mr. Shinbine, caretaker of the Immigration hall at Edmonton. These papers do not show that there was any suggestion of accusation of any kind against any of these men, whether for political reasons or for reasons connected with their work. I take it for granted, on the authority of these papers,\n\nbrought down by the Government, that these dismissals were made simply and solely for the purpose of finding salaried positions for friends of the Government of the day. I do not intend to take time to deal with this matter further than to say that these three instances are an exhibition of atrocious disregard of the public service of this country fox the benefit of friends of the gentlemen who are now in office.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.\nFriday, March 13, 1914."]
Frank Oliver: I suppose that on this item the whole question of the immigration policy will come up for consideration.

If the minister has any statement to make ;t might be well to make it now.


William James Roche: As a matter of fact, there has been very little change in connection with the immigration policy which I found on coming into the department. We still pay our bonuses on the classes of immigrants who are admitted under the Act. Domestic servants and agricultural labourers are the classes that are specially encouraged to come to Canada. We impress upon our immigration agents, not only in the old country, but in all countries from which we draw immigration, that no other classes are to be encouraged to come to Canada; in fact, we rather discourage them unless they are coming to assured employment. This is the policy, in the main, that has been enforced for some years and it is being continued under the auspices of myself as Minister of the Interior. During the past year our immigration has increased very materially-I think, in the neighbourhood of 50,000. The immigration for the last fiscal year amounted to 402,000 and of these immigrants there were 150,000 from the British Isles. Immigration from the British Isles has increased very materially, and continental immigration has also increased. The United States immigration fell off somewhat. There may be several reasons for this. The hon. member is aware that the United States press has had very alarming reports about conditions in Canada, and the United States railways, and several states have taken very strenuous efforts to prevent their people emigrating to Canada. Very glaring mis-statements of the condition of affairs in Canada have been published in the United States, press from time to time, and which we have endeavoured to correct, as far as we possibly could. Our agents have reported that while our immigration from the United States has to some extent fallen off, the immigrants we are now receiving, are superior to those we received in past years. As a matter of fact, I think that holds good in regard to immigration from the British Islands and from northern European countries.
1 do not know that there is any particular feature of the immigration policy to which I should make any more particular reference. I have heard my hon. friend refer to the fact that there is not as large a proportion of immigrants going upon the land as he would like to see, and that the homestead entries have fallen off to a con-

sidera/ble extent. It is very true that during the past two or three years there has been a reduction in the homestead entries although there has been a large increase in the applications and issue of patents. During the past fiscal year there were between 32,000 and 33,000 patents issued for homesteads, and during the present fiscal year there have been issued
30.000	patents, which may be increased before the close of the year by another
4.000 or 5,000. There have not been so many homestead entries made, but I would not be at ail surprised if there' is a diminution in the number of homestead entries m the future. Most of the land south of the latitude of Edmonton.-that is land available and in large quantities-has been disposed of in one way or another, either by way of homesteads, preemptions, purchased homesteads, sales to railways, or other methods of disposal
I do not know that it will be the part of wisdom to have a large increase in the number of immigrants going into those northern and more distant parts of the country, or away up in the Peace River country, prior to transportation facilities being provided. In fact, numerous complaints have been addressed to us as well as to the preceding Government, that many of those who have gone in there already have gone in by reason of the literature distributed by the Government representing that particular portion of our country as being a suitable place for immigrants. Some who have gone in there, because of hardships and privations, have had to be grubstaked by the Dominion Government during the winter. Transportation facilities will be afforded in there as time goes on, and naturally the country will fill up but the further you get away from transportation facilities the fewer homestead entries there will be I attribute the falling off in the number of homestead entries to another fact. The various towns and cities in the western part of Canada have had publicity bureaus established and they have been rivalling each other to see whicn city or town could attract the greatest number of immigrants, not only to the city and town itself but to the surrounding country. As a result, many of the .labouring classes, who probably did not intend to go on the land have been attracted to those cities and towns, and as a consequence we have had more unemployment than heretofore. Owing to the fact that the best of our land in the settled districts has been provided with

transportation facilities and owing also to the fact that somewhat strenuous efforts have been made by cities and towns to attract immigrants there have not been so many homestead entries. People do not want to go 100 or 150 miles away from a railway line if they can avoid it.


Frank Oliver: I have given some consideration to the results of the immigration efforts of the Government of the day, and while I am glad to know that the principles which were followed under the previous Government are still continued by the present Government, it would not, I think, be fair to the country if I did not take the opportunity of pointing out that, according to the records as I read them, the results of the immigration efforts of the present Government have not been as fortunate as those of their predecessors.
I do not wish to be understood as making an essentially unfriendly criticism, but we are here for the purpose of considering matters that . are for the welfare and progress of our country. If it is found that the results achieved under the administration of the Government are not satisfactory, it is the business of the members of the Opposition to call public attention to that
fact.	,
Looking through the returns, and particularly the reports of the Department of the Interior recently issued, I find on comparing the immigration with the occupation of new land, this somewhat startlingly unsatisfactory condition. In the year ending March 31, 1911, we had 311,000 immigrants and 44,479 homestead entries. In the year ending March 31, 1913, we had 402,432 immigrants and 33,699 homestead entries; or in 1913, we had practically 90,000 more immigrants and over 10,000 less homestead entries. When it is considered that the announced policy of this Government as well as of its predecessors, is that the purpose of immigration is to secure the effective and profitable occupation of the vacant lands of the country, it is not necessary further to emphasize the fact, as the record shows that we have been going in the wrong direction. Our increase of immigration in the past two or three years has been an increase of our town population and not an increase of the strength and force, with which we are bringing into productiveness hitherto vacant lands. That fact is emphasized by the reports contained in the Labour Gazette. I have here the Labour Gazette for January, 1914, from which I quote:
The Winnipeg secretary of the Winnipeg' Typographical Union states that the present membership is 483, about 100 of which are at present out of work or working a day a week, and that twenty men have left to seek situations out of Winnipeg.
That is to say, in one of the trades of Winnipeg, more than one-fifth of the total membership is out of employment, and some tradesmen have to leave the city.
Regina: Labour, especially in the building trades, has been unusually quiet, and the number of unemployed is steadily on the increase. December compared unfavourably both with the preceding month and the corresponding, period of last year.
Calgary:	The civic labour bureau haveadopted the plan of employing men by the week for civic work to minimize the hardships of the unemployed as much as possible. The men are employed for a week, then discharged, and another number taken on.
Lethbridge: The close of the year saw conditions exceedingly dull in many lines in Lethbridge. The state of employment was even quieter than during the last month.
Brantford: The condition of the labour market has not improved since last month; if anything, more men are unemployed.
Hamilton: The condition of the labour market during December was more quiet than during the previous month, there being a large number of skilled and unskilled workmen out of employment.
I need not go farther. The conditions-are well known, and it will be generally admitted that we have in our cities at the present time a larger proportion of people out of employment than we have had for many years On the other hand, I find that we have brought 100,000 more people into the country than we did two years ago, and that 10,000 less people have gone on to the land than two years ago. It is evident, therefore, that whatever measures of administration have been pursued by the department in the past, will have to be very seriously revised if the country is to have a return to conditions that prevailed some-years before, when we were receiving a smaller immigration, but having a larger occupation of the land.
About the beginning of last session, as I was informed by the minister, an order was issued by the Immigration Branch relieving immigrants from the necessity of having in their possession $25 between the-lst of April and the last of September, 1913. On the 3rd of May, a month afterwards, it was withdrawn so far as railway and general labourers going into British Columbia were concerned; and it ran until the 6th of June in Tegard to other immigrants.
I thSnk the Government was very well' advised in withdrawing their relaxation of

that regulation, and I commend them very highly for having done so. But a mistake was made, and they by their action admit it, when that order for relaxation was issued. Clearly the department was looking rather to numbers than to quality when they withdrew that twenty-five dollar regulation, and there is no dou'bt that the policy of the department during the preceding year or two was influenced by that idea of numbers rather than quality. The consequence of that policy is that while we have the numbers we have not got the people we want. I quite appreciate the desire of the department to make a record in the matter of numbers of immigrants, but I have always held the view, and I state it here most emphatically, that numbers will not compensate for quality. It is vastly more important that we should have the right kind of people, the people who will meet our needs, and who will find in the country a field adapted to their ability, than to have a great number who are not adapted to the country, and for whom the country is not adapted. My suggestion is-I do not wish to make it in any degree, offensive-that it is because the Government have been guided by the idea of numbers rather than quality that we find ourselves in our present condition for which the Administration is responsible. I am glad they did shut down the lid, but they should never have opened it; they should never have departed from the policy of restriction, selection and direction, which they found in force when they came into office.
There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. There is nothing more terrible in the administration of the Immigration Department than the necessity of enforcing the law as to deportation and rejection at ocean ports. It is hear|| breaking to any man of ordinary sentiment to have to be responsible for what has to be done in order that the welfare of the country be protected:	It is therefore
especially necessary that in every effort that is made to secure immigrants, those who aj;e not desirable should be warned away; that they not only should not be induced to come, but that means be taken at the very source to let them understand they are not wanted in Canada, and th'at they come at the risk of deportation or rejection as the case may be. I am sorry to say that the returns would indicate that the Government have been lax in regard to that matter. Answers given to questions that I have asked, show that in the year 
1910-11 the total number of deportations was 784; in 1911-12, the number was 989; in 1912-13, the number increased to 1,281; and in the first nine months of 1913-14, the latest date for which figures were given me, the deportations numbered 1,503. These people had come into Canada, had been found unsuitable, and had been deported to the countries from which they came.


Mr. PAQTJET:: What is the meaning of
that?


Frank Oliver: The meaning I draw from that is, that, in the first place, the Government in its administration was not careful to thoroughly inform the immigrating public to whom they were appealing, that this class of people would be deported. I presume there was some slackness at the ocean ports.


Eugène Paquet: Does the hon. member
think this clause of our immigration law should be changed?


Frank Oliver: No, I am not asking that it be changed, but I am asking for a change in the methods of administration. I am charging, if you like to put it that way, that the Government in their anxiety to secure a large immigration did not cause their . officials to properly inform the immigrating public that if they were found undesirable on coming to Canada they would be deported. Therefore we find that in the first nine months of the current year, we were under the terrible necessity-and it is a terrible necessity in the large majority of cases-of deporting 1,503 of these immigrants. I find no fault with the Government for having deported them. No doubt,, there were eases in which deportation might not be justified, and in all cases there are terrible hardships; but it is the responsibility of i the Government to protect the very life of this country by keeping out undesirable people. The Government was justified, I am assuming, in making the deportations, but the failure was in not having properly warned the people who were in the mind of coming, that if they came and were found to be undesirable they would be deported.
Besides the power of deportation, there is also the responsibility and authority of rejecting immigrants at ocean or boundary ports. As an immigrant comes to the shores of Canada there is a responsibility upon the officials, and authority vested in them, to reject that immigrant under certain fixed conditions. I find that in 1910-11, the last year of the late Government, they rejected

at the ports of Canada, 2,210 persons. These were people who had come to Canada _;and-jyho, having been found unsuitable at the ocean ports, were turned back. Better *do that than allow them to establish themselves here, and finally ha've to send them *out again under the deportation law. In
1911-12, although we had a large increase of immigrants, there were only 972 rejections. It is inconceivable that there should he such a radical difference between the class of immigrants who came in the fiscal year, 1912, and those who came In
1911,	and that more than twice as many -should require to be rejected in 1911 as in
1912.	In the year 1912-13, although there was a still further increase in the number of immigrants, the number of rejections was only 756, but in the nine months of the year 1913-14 thfc rejections were 1,622. That is to say, the Government had discovered their mistake, they had been lax in allowing undesirable people to come in, and in the last nine months they put on the lid and made a number of rejections at the ocean ports corresponding to the number that was made in the last year of the Liberal administration, on a considerably smaller number of immigrants.
I am quite aware that the minister is not personally responsible for all that has taken place since the present Government came into office, [DOT] but he is constitutionally responsible, and he is responsible now for what is to be done in the future. I have desired to show him that the condition is undesirable, and to urge upon him such changes in administration as will carry out effectively, under conditions as they exist, the policy which he himself has declared to-day to be the policy of the Government. Unless we are to have the right kind of people in Canada, we do not want immigrants at all. There is no necessity, however, for assuming that if we adopt a policy of restriction and selection, we will not get immigrants. My view is that if we adopt a proper policy of selection, restriction and direction, together with a proper policy of publicity, we can get, in the present condition of the world, all the immigrants we can properly assimilate, and who from year to year can find a suitable field within our borders. Not only is there no necessity to open the doors wide to let in people who are not fitted for conditions here, but I maintain that by opening the doors wide and Getting in undesirables, to a certain extent we keep out desirable people, thereby injuring the cause for which we are supposed to be working. By being careful in
our selection and definite and strong in our restriction, if we take proper methods of publicity, we can get all the immigration we can usefully employ.
Our immigration from the United States has not shown the increase within this last couple of years that it did in former years, while our immigration from continental Europe does show a very substantial increase. I do not think anybody will question that the immigration that we have hitherto received from the United States, being largely composed of farmers-men who have sold their land in the States and come to Canada fully equipped for the occupation of our new land, or men who have been in farming employment there, and who also come well equipped

are essentially desirable. But that immigration has fallen off within recent months, while the immigration from continental Europe of people whose intent is to enter upon city life rather than the improvement of the soil has increased. To my mind there is a relation between the two conditions, and in proportion as you flood your country with immigrants whose activities you do not desire, to that extent you render the country less attractive to the people whose activities you do desire. On that point, let me give the House the figures. In 1911 we had 123,013 British immigrants, 121,451 United States immigrants, and 66,000 others. In 1913 we had 150,542 British, 139,009 United States, and 112,881 immigrants from other countries. In two years the increase from continental Europe was greater than the united increase from the United States and Great Britain. I must insist that that is not a satisfactory condition. It does not show that the .activities of the department were properly directed, and I bring the matter to the attention of the minister for the purpose of urging on him that in the administration of his department he will so direct his activities as to increase the immigration of those who are best suited to our country and to whom our country is best suited, so that their places shall not be occupied by people who are less suited to the country and to whom the country is less suited.
Mr. PA.QUET: The hon. gentleman was at one time Minister of the Interior; can he give the committee any information as to the best way to remedy the condition with regard to immigration coming from the United States?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that I have any suggestion to offer at the moment. I

am dealing with the subject of restricting immigration rather than of encouraging it. My argument to-day is that we have not had the restriction which we should have had, and contrariwise and as a consequence of that in a measure, we have not had the flow of immigration to the sections that we desire. I have no doubt that the minister is using due endeavours to secure people from the United States. I was not urging him to use greater endeavours in that particular at the moment, for we can take that up at some other time. I was urging him to use restrictive measures against people who are less desirable and who are occupying the country to the country's detriment and to the detriment of the desirable immigrant, whether he comes from the United States or from any other country.
I wish to point out that there is no question about the number of people in the United States available to be induced to come to Canada as the record of past years has shown. It is a mere matter of the publicity given to the advantages of Canada. I have no doubt that the present conditions in the agricultural industry in western Canada do not offer that inducement to immigration from the United States that they would under other circumstances. I do not wish to bring that question into this argument, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that, we have not by any means exhausted the British field. I find from the last report of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration that the United States secured last year from England 43,363 immigrants, from Ireland, 27,876, from Scotland, 14,220, and from Wales 2,745. To these very people do we look for the filling up of this country, and the perpetuation of'our social and governmental conditions, and yet we find that in the last year over 75,000 of them went to the United States. If other people are able to secure immigrants from these British Isles so should we, and it is only a matter of the system of publicity that is followed by the department and of advantageous conditions here. It appears to me that the department has been following a policy of numbers rather than of quality in their immigration propaganda both in the British Islands and on the continent of Europe. In the interests of Canada I would urge very strongly that they change not the law, but their policy under the law.
I wish further to allude to a matter that has been up for consideration

in this, House on several occasions *and is sufficiently important to warrant the attention of the minister. The report of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, deals at considerable length with the question of emigration from the United States to Canada and of immigration from Canada to the United States, and the -figures given in the report are certainly remarkable. The matter was brought to my attention when I was minister by the present Prime Minister; and I am bound to say that I did not tnen give it that attention it possibly merited. However, the circumstances being as they are, the Government should take notice of the conditions. The present Prime Minister urged very strongly that the matter should be considered" thoroughly by the Government, and now that he has control of the affairs of the country, of course we would naturally expect that he would take the course he then laid down for us. In the year 1911, this report states, the movement of population from -Canada to the United States was 105,512, while the movement from the United States to Canada was 119,753; and that in 1911-12 the movement from the United -States to Canada was 143,251, and the movement from Canada to the United States 107,953.


Eugène Paquet: Does the hon. gentleman think that those statistics are correct?


Frank Oliver: I would hesitate to challenge an official statement such as this, but I must -say that it does not impress me as being correct. However, it is a -statement that has been given wide publicity and I would suggest to the minister that possibly the department has information in Tegard to this matter, and that it would be well that he should give to the House such information as he has upon the subject. If we take the figures as authentic, it certainly puts us in a very unfortunate position so far as immigration bom the United States is concerned. I would think from my own observation that the figures given cannot be correct. I think the minister should inform the House and the country as to how far those figures are correct and give what information he lias in regard to the matter.


Mr. BELAND:: Has the Department of
the Interior any system whatever of inspection, medical or otherwise, at the ports of debarkation?


William James Roche: I understand that immigrants coming from foreign ports have to

submit in their own country to an examination much the same as that held by the Board of Trade in Great Britain, where- they are examined by the steamship companies, and by the British Board of Trade doctors.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are they examined when they land here?


William James Roche: Certainly.


Eugène Paquet: Has the Government a
medical inspector at Portland, Maine?


William James Roche: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But the department has
no regular inspector in foreign ports. My hon. friend from I/Islet (Mr. Paquet) is my authority for the statement that the Americans have a strict medical inspection of immigrants destined for the United States at the port of embarkation. That is very important because there is nothing more painful than the deportation of an immigrant as every one will admit. A deported immigrant when he gets back to his own country produces a very sorrowful impression upon his neighbours. The deportation of one immigrant, perhaps deservedly deported, may mean the loss to Canada of ten or fifteen most desirable citizens. A system of medical inspection in foreign countries, of immigrants destined for Canada would be of great benefit. It would not require a very large outlay of money as compared with the immense amount we are spending on immigration, and I urge the department to consider this matter and to introduce legislation if necessary. In view of the number of unemployed in this country, we should keep closer watch than ever on our immigration. A few days ago I was travelling from Montreal to an American town and I noticed the American immigration inspector making a most thoi-ough examination of all the passengers on the train. Three travellers who, in my opinion, had a very attractive appearance were deported at St. Albans by the inspector. He was not a medical officer but that incident shows, I think, that the American system of inspection is much more severe than ours.
I understand that these three travellers, who were Canadians, were turned back because they stated they had secured employment in some American city. If we had a system of medical inspection in foreign countries, it would prevent the sailing of many people who think they may escape inspection on this side of the ocean, and encourage wholesome immigration. I hope the minister will take this suggestion of mine
in good part and that legislation to this effect will be introduced, if he finds it advisable.


Mr. VERVILLE:: My hon. friend has referred to the unemployed. The minister must, I am sure, have received a circular which was sent to him and many other members explaining why there are so many unemployed in this country at the present time. Without commenting on it, I wish to put that circular on ' Hansard.' The steamship companies are inducing men to come here by promising them all kinds cf good things. Nobody will class me as a partisan for saying that, as I said the same thing when the Liberals were in power, and I have voted against them time and again on that question as the record shows.
I do not say that the Government are responsible for it, but they should prevent these companies from doing such things, if they are receiving so much per head for bringing immigrants into this country. Men are men and companies are composed of men, and the almighty dollar is just as good to them as to anybody else. If they are bonused for anything of that kind, and I am not saying they are, it should be stopped. The circular to which I have referred reads in part:
The General Agency-The Transatlantic in London, England, has been commissioned to place 1,500 men in the following works: The Dominion Steel Corporation and Dominion Coal Company, Limited, in Glace Bay, and the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Limited, in Sydney, Canada.
The following men are required. Miners (cutters)-possessing certificates. Payments by the ton. Cutters earn from 60 to 100 roubles a fortnight (1 rouble equals 51 p.c.). Assistant cutters-payment by the ton, an average wage of 4 roubles a day and even more. Unskilled workers-(1,000 to 1,500) for work above and below ground. Wages, between 14 and 15 cents per hour. Nobody is bound to work underground but the better wages are paid for this work.
Coke oven workers for Sydney-wages about 15 cents per hour. Work time 11 hours but work is light. Foundry workers for Sydney- work 10 hours. Wages the same as coke oven workers.
Workers for stone quarrying-in Marble Mountain. Work time 10 hours. Wages about 15 cents per hour. Life in the Marble Mountain is very pleasant.
No experience and no knowledge is demanded. Every healthy and willing man will be engaged. The following are also required. Stokers-4 roubles a day. Iron turners, carpenters, and foundryworkers and others.
Every unskilled worker who is in communication with the general agency, the Transatlantic, may be sure of employment the first day of arrival. A minimum wage of 2.8 roubles (Jl-43) will be guaranteed to begin immediately. Later 4 roubles a day can be earned. Skilled

workers can earn 4.8 roubles a day (about $2.80).
The works management looks after board and lodging. The necessary outlay amounts to 80 kopecks (approximately 40 cents a day), so that each worker can save out of his own wages 2 roubles a day (about $1.03). In cases of sickness the workers receive medical attendance and financial assistance to the extent of 10 roubles a week. The travelling expenses must be borne by the workers themselves. No money will be advanced by the works management. Knowledge of the language is not necessary. In Canada, and especially in the trades in question, there are many Russians and many workers from Austria and the Balkan States, so that every worker can get along with his mother tongue.
Every worker who wishes to emigrate to Canada should write to the office of the general agency, stating his name, age, nationality, and the name of the ship in which he will sail, and the date of the sailing to Canada. He will then receive a certificate of employment gratis from this office. Whoever possesses a certificate will experience no difficulty in landing in Canada.
The circular says that there is no trouble in landing in Canada, but I hope that the immigration law will not allow immigrants to land here unless they have the amount of money they are supposed to have. 1 read another article on this very subject to-day, published in the British Columbia Federationist, a labour paper, under date of March 6 of this year. We find that Mackenzie and Mann, who have a kind of immigration line themselves, also send circulars of the same character throughout Europe. They are anxious to get men to work in their mines iin British Columbia and on their railways throughout Canada. This sort of propaganda is being carried on notwithstanding the fact that we know that there are a lot of men idle. If the company that issued this circular say that we are in need of skilled mechanics they are the worst liars that I ever met in my life, because every day almost it becomes more and more apparent that we do not need any skilled mechanics and there is a surplus of other labour in the country at the present time. I would call upon the Government to see if they cannot prevent others from coming in. If it was proper for the Government to pass an Order in Council to prevent immigration going into British Columbia for a certain period, which wall soon expire, then similar legislation should be passed with reference to other parts of the country when there are so many idle people with a poor prospect of getting work even when the spring opens.
I may be told that railway construction and operation will start again in the 
sprang. Railway construction and operation will not give employment to all the idle men in the country at the present time, and with the present financial situation it is doubtful if the resumption of building operations will provide work for all the -skilled mechanics who are at present unemployed. That is one reason why we should be very careful about doing anything which will encourage men to flock to the cities as they have done in the past. I read in the House some years ago a statement with reference to the manner in which men are brought to this country. I visited a portion of Europe in 1910, I went into different immigration offices and I saw a great many men whs were preparing to come to this country. While 1 would not under any consideration ask them not to come, I am convinced that there is a great deal of misrepresentation, as is evidenced in this circular here in which it is -said that from 1,000 to 1,500 men are wanted, a statement which is absolutely incorrect. This circular which I have read was reprinted from the Daily Province, of Vancouver, of January 7, 1914. The Government should do all in their power to prevent any similar action being taken by any other company. The other night I saw a statement in the Federationist, and if my hon. friend the minister will look at that paper he will see that the guilty party i-s one who used to be in the employ of the Salvation Army and who has done a great deal of harm bringing immigration to this country by misrepresentation. These letters and circulars originate in Toronto and they are sent broadcast in the old country and in Europe in order to induce immigrants to come to British Columbia and other parts of Canada, a propaganda which is absolutely unfair.


John Hampden Burnham: I would like to call
the minister's attention to the fact that an anomaly exists in connection with the duties of some of the immigration agents who are paid so much per head for distributing the immigrants who are brought into the country. It frequently happens that these men, for -some reason or other, do not stay in the situations in which they are placed. Other people come to the Government immigration agent knowing that he has to do with immigrants and employment, and they say:	'We will take those
men,' or ' We will take men.' It so Imp-pens that the Government immigration agent is precluded from taking a fee from

those men for placing them in positions. The consequence is that, as they get their income in that way, if they place them there, they are cutting themselves off from their income. The net result is that either they must forego the simplest duty of their office and refuse to place these men in positions that are waiting for them, in order that they may place men who are brought out from the old country in the spring in those positions, and that they may get their pay per head, or else, they must place them and assist in settling the difficulties of the employment problem' in the country without receiving any pay for doing so. That really is a hardship that ought to be remedied. In Peterborough, we have a very fine Government immigration agent in Mr. Miller, who has time and again placed men who have not been able to stay in the positions which he has found for them, after remaining there from one, two, three or six months. They may have left either owing to the fault of the position or of themselves, but Mr. Miller says: ' I cannot see these fellows going around idle when I know of places where I can place them.' Therefore he places men in those positions, but he gets nothing for it; and in that way, when immigrants-come out in the spring, he may have no places for them, so that he is between the devil and the deep sea. There ought to be some solution of this problem, although I do not know what it is.
Whether it is a problem for the Minister of the Interior or for the Minister of Labour, I cannot say; but the balance between supply and demand should certainly receive a greater degree of superintendence. It frequently happens that in different centres of the country there are more men than are necessary for the work, and still they keep coming in. What are we to do? They have either to be taken care of by the municipality or become burdens of a worse class on the community. At the present time, so far as I know or can find out, this superintendence is not exercised at all. The great cry is: Bring on your immigrants; fetch them in; fill up the country, so that we can say that the statistics show that the population is rapidly increasing. Population increasing in that irregular way is simply an absurdity. If in trade, supply and demand maintain more or less of a balance and adjustment, there ought to be something of an automatic character with regard to men; but, strange to say, in the whole theory of public employment,
the man, that is to say the life of the individual, is given no consideration at all. The whole thing is treated on a basis of trade, of goods, of bargain and sale. Until we have reformed this, and remember that the life of the men, women and children of the country is the first consideration, we shall never have reached even the primary Stages of civilization.


Mr. MICHAUD :: A few days ago I, asked the following questions of the Department of the Interior:
1.	Has the Government rented an office to be used by the immigration agent at Edmunds-ton, N.B.?
2.	If so, why is said office not occupied?
3.	How much rent was paid to the lessor till the 31st of December last?
The answers were:
1.	Yes.
2.	Department understands office is used for purposes for which it is rented.
3.	$100, at the rate of $10 per month, heat, light and telephone included.
This office has not been occupied for one hour since it has been rented, and yet the Government has been paying ten dollars a month for over a year. I draw the attention of the minister to this fact,, because I do not think that he is aware of what is going on in my constituency. The office is owned by a Mr. Boudreau, a barber, who is a good friend of the gentleman in charge of the patronage in my constituency. The inspector of the Immigration Department was in Edmundston before this office was rented, and he went around the town and picked out a decent office for our immigration agent. He had almost completed the arrangement when it was found out that this good office belonged to a Liberal, and consequently the latter gentleman could not get any money from this Government. Therefore the gentleman who has charge of the patronage-


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is his name?


Pius Michaud: Mr. Cormier, my last
opponent. Mr. Cormier met the immigration agent and made him change his mind, and the inspector had to call upon Mr. Boudreau, the barber, and rent the office which is located behind the barber shop. You have to walk through the barber shop in order to reach this little office, which is about six feet square.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Amongst the razors.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the barber shop six
feet square?


Pius Michaud: No. The office rented
for the immigration agent. A large number of the people who call on the immigration agent are priests and professional men. Sometimes one of our priests, who has difficulties in connection with certain immigrants coming from the state of Maine to our country, has to visit the immigration agent, and he would have to walk through the barber shop to arrive at the office of the immigration agent. I suppose the first question the barber would ask the priest would be:	'Do you want a shave or a
hair cut? ' More than that, I am informed *that the immigration agent at Edmundston has refused to occupy that office, because he tells me that alongside of it there is a water closet, and the partition between the hall and the water closet is only half way up to the ceiling, so that there is an open space for an atmosphere to spread not only along the hall but pretty close to this office. I know, of course, that the hon. minister is not aware of all these facts; but I ask him that he stop payment at once, because I think that our barber is making a good business out of his shop and is not entitled to an annual rent of $120. The Government have been very kind to their friends, but I do not think they would care to go so far if they were aware of what is going on. In the upper part of New Brunswick, the gentlemen who are handling the patronage are not always looking after the interest of their party or of the Government. I desire, [DOT]therefore, to ask the minister not to tolerate this monthly rent of $10 any longer.


Mr. H. BOULAY:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made, a few days ago, by the hon. member for L'Islet and the hon. minister of the Interior, concerning immigration, as well as to the remarks made to-day by hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to the same matter.
That question of immigration is of vital importance, from the standpoint of our country's future, and it is time the Government should step in and provide some wise enactment with a view to shutting out that class of immigrants that is swarming into our cities, those Jews who are a curse to the trade; those ruffians and thugs who terrorize our peaceful citizens; those criminals whom we are constrained as a last resort, to confine to our penitentiaries, after costly lawsuits, at the expense of honest people.
Last year, I noticed a resolution passed by the Montreal Chambre de Commerce concerning immigration, which appears to me to be very much to the point. It seems to

me the Government should not overlook the matter. It reads as follows:
The Council of the Chambre de Commerce
of the district of Montreal respectfully submits :
1. That, within the last few years, immigration to Canada has been increasing rapidly;
2. That Canada is especially interested in admitting such immigrants only who are worthy of sharing with its inhabitants all the rights and privileges granted by its constitution ;
3.	That Canadian business men are particularly concerned with the business reliability and solvency of such immigrants;
4.	That under the present system of immigration and naturalization, foreigners are admitted into the country under an assumed name, which they are free to change one or several times, when starting some new business;
5.	That business men have no means of protecting themselves against such abusive substitution of names, which oftentimes is the occasion of huge frauds detrimental to the trade;
6.	That often the rights of citizenship are conferred on foreigners without previously making enquiries as to compliance, or otherwise, with the requirements of the law;
7.	That foreigners are granted the rights of British citizenship, though they have not resided three years in Canada as required;
Wherefore the council of the ' Chambre de Commerce du district de Montreal ' humbly requests the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, and his hon. colleagues, to so amend the immigration and naturalization acts as to require:
(a.) That every immigrant show on entering Canada, his identification card and his passport, signed by the authorities of the place whence he comes, and bearing his name, surname, age, profession, nationality, the name of the sailing port and of the company which brought him here, together with a description of the bearer of the card ;
(b.) That the said card and passport should be taken down verbatim in the books of the immigration officials, on his admittance into Canada, and that there and then an indentifl-cation card be handed to the said foreigner by the Canadian authorities; the said card to be the exact copy of that entered in the book of the immigration office;
(c.) That the said foreigner wishing to do business in Canada should again show the said card on registering the name of his business firm, thus giving his actual name, together with the firm's name; that the same card should be available in connection with real estate transactions ;
(d.) That in order to be granted naturalization, every foreigner should exhibit his identification card showing that he has resided in the country for a period of three years;
(e.) That his application for naturalization should be made personally, and that he should moreover show certificates from two British subjects certifying to the good reputation of the applicant;
(f.) That a heavy penalty should be imposed for any violation of the law in this respect.
And you will do justice.
La Chambre de Commerce du district de Montreal.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

That resolution was surely very well taken, and should the Government act on it, some serious mistakes which are very hurtful to our trade would be avoided.
In connection with that immigration question, I may say that in visiting of late the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul, I found on going over the long list of inmates that 50 per cent of the names entered in the book are those of people hailing from Montreal, or who had been convicted there. How explain that Montreal, which represents only one quarter of the whole population of the province of Quebec, is responsible for such a high proportion of those criminals? Montreal's everyday people are surely as honest and peaceful as those inhabiting the country districts or the other cities of the province. Therefore, I say, if Montreal is responsible for a larger proportion of criminals, that is due evidently to outside causes, to causes which might, it seems to me, be kept under control to a certain extent. The primary cause is the large number of undesirables who come in by the hundreds of thousands every year, a goodly proportion of which select Montreal as their settling point, I refer particularly to workingmen. If the high rate of crimin-alty in Montreal is due to the influx of foreign labour at that point, would it not be wise to impede, or even to bring to a complete standstill that inflow of immigrants? Such a state of things is highly detrimental, in the first place, to our own workingmen who very often have in the winter months to suffer through unemployment, and, besides, the number of criminals is being increased in alarming proportions.
The general [DOT] feeling throughout the country is, I believe, that these aliens should be entirely excluded from this country, and that we should grant admittance to those only who come with their families to reside there. Thus we would be sure to get a better and steadier class of immigrants.
We have trade commissioners in Great Britain whom we pay most liberally; why should they not act as immigration inspectors at the sailing ports, previous to the departure of the ships that carry these immigrants?
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche), judging from his recent utterances, seems to be quite satisfied with the numbers of immigrants reaching our shores from year to year. As for me, I find we are getting them in too large numbers; their numbers should be reduced materially, and quality be made to make up for the reduction in quantity. Our legislation should 103
be more exacting, and the regulations carried out in every respect as regards aliens coming from those countries whence thugs and tramps are despatched. It should at the same time provide for the exclusion of Jews, as well as of Chinamen and Hindus. Every immigrant should be required to show, previous to being admitted into Canada, a certificate from the municipal authorities of his country, and be the possessor of several hundred dollars at least in cash, whenever he seeks admittance in any other capacity than that of agricultural settler; and lastly, none should be admitted unless they come with their families and with the intention of settling on farms.
In that way we would avoid being overrun by the rabble of European countries, and we would protect Canadian labour, which at times is out of employment, while those aliens are at work, pocketing our cash with a view to sending it over to their own country.
I shall now deal with the immigration originating in the republic to the south of us. There exists a certain immigration made up of our own people who are returning from the United States. That movement is kept up for the most part by repatriation agents appointed by us to work in that country and who take their instructions from the Department of the Interior.
After looking into certain reports and witnessing certain facts, I am under the impression that such agents are not doing the work which they were appointed to do, and that the country does not profit by their services in proportion to the expenditure entailed. I do not say that such agencies should not exist, but I attribute their failure to inefficiency on the part of several of the officers appointed to fill those positions, and who are not possessed of the knowledge and qualifications required to properly carry on the work. A clipping from an editorial which I hold in my hand shows that I am not alone in being struck by such inefficiency. It reads as follows:
Why did the Dominion government appoint an inveterate ' monolinguist ' to discourage the repatriation of French Canadians settled in the United States? Does the immigration policy of the Government consist in excluding Frenchspeaking people? How is it that French Canadians in Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine are unable to make themselves understood by the man whom the Government has appointed to look after their interests? Why has not a man speaking at least two languages been appointed to that position?
And further on, in the same editorial:
It is high time that Mr. Baulby should be removed, if he is to continue discouraging people.



while the French Canadian agent is ' left ' to exert himself in a state where he has not much chance of success.
Mr. Baulby is immigration agent at Boston; he was appointed previous to the coming into power of this Government, but I understand that conditions have not changed in the meantime. Boston is a very large centre where numbers of French Canadians go by. It seems to me there should be at that place an agent understanding both languages.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the name of the paper you have just quoted?


Herménégilde Boulay: It is La Justice, published at Ottawa. That Mr. Baulby is head immigration and repatriation officer for the New England States, where the people to be repatriated are largely French Canadians, notwithstanding which that officer does not speak a single work of French.
How is it that for the purpose of repatriating people who for the most part are French Canadians, men are appointed who are unable to understand them, who do not speak a single word of the language spoken by those with whom they are supposed to be in daily intercourse? For that state of things, this Government should not be held responsible; we found things in that very situation when we came into power. Unfortunately it may fairly be urged against us that we have done very little toward bringing about a change, and Mr. Baulby'3 case is not the only one of its kind in the New England States.
But that is not the whole story. While we are thus spending large sums in the interest of immigration, we are apparently, on the other hand, doing all in our power to prevent any results accruing from our efforts, and our own agents are not alone in taking that stand in complete opposition with the country's public interest, Let me quote certain facts in support- of my contention.
For some years past, we have had on all our railway lines connecting with the United States immigration inspectors. Last year, I applied to the House for a list of the inspectors who were on duty over the railways operating in the province of Quebec, and the_information supplied was that immigration inspectors number altogether eighteen, viz.: six English-speaking, eleven French-speaking, and one Italian. So then, out of a total of 18 men doing service in the province of Quebec, where nine tenths of the immigrants entering Canada from the United States are French Canadians re-

turning home, there are, as will be seen, seven men who do not speak a word of French, while the 11 French Canadians fluently speak both languages. Now, according to my contention, those eighteen inspectors should be able to fluently speak both languages.
To show you how inefficient are those who do not speak the French language, and under what difficulties they must labour at times in the performance of their duties, I once put to one of them the following question: What Government are you working for, the United States or the Canadian Government? He was unable to answer that simple question, a proof that he was utterly ignorant of the French language. On another occasion, I put to an immigration agent, or rather immigration inspector, by the name of Stahl, the following question, three times in succession: What is your name? Surely a very simple question, and he never understood- or let on that he did. Can it be supposed for a single moment that such men have the necessary qualifications and the necessary knowledge to gather information, form opinions or enquire about French Canadians, several of whom do not speak English?
Would this Government keep for a single day along the United States boundary a man who did not speak English? How then under such conditions can these men properly fulfil the duties incumbent on them?
Our fellow-countrymen, while crossing the line, are oftentimes subjected to a good deal of unnecessary hardship, and they may esteem themselves fortunate if those allpowerful office holders do not shut them off entirely from Canada. What is the use of spending thousands of dollars in an effort to repatriate our people, when we have at the boundary government officers who impede our efforts and even defeat them in 'some cases.
I have just mentioned the name of Stahl. I happened to be once on the same train, and an incident occurred under my eyes concerning which I would like to have some explanations from the hon Minister of the Interior.
I would like now to ask the hon. minister a question, and in order that he may understand it well, I wish to read an extract from certain correspondence I had with the department with regard to the refusal of an immigration inspector tp allow a certain lady to enter into Canada from the United States. When I reported the case to the minister he communicated with his officer and asked him for an explanation. In the

letter written, by Mr. Scott with regard to the matter, I find this paragraph:
Eva Boucher was a passenger in the first class coach, she was of good appearance and neatly dressed, travelling by herself, and had a ticket from Berlin, N.H., to Montreal. Her parents were French Canadians, but she herself was born at Lewiston, Me., and is now twenty years old and not married. Her father and mother have not been living together for the past two years. Her father is at Kamouraska, P.Q., and her mother at Lewiston, Me.
What I want to know is whether under these circumstances the immigration inspector had the right to put that girl off the train.


William James Roche: If she had not conformed with the Canadian immigration laws, most assuredly the inspector was justified in doing so. I understand she did not conform with the laws.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what respect?	.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman has
not told the whole story. This girl was an undesirable born in the United States, and, being a United States citizen, she had to conform with our immigration laws. There was another reason for her rejection not disclosed here, and which I do not care to mention.


Herménégilde Boulay: In what way did she fail to conform with the immigration law-s? Her parents were born in Canada, she was under twenty-one years of age and had a ticket to Montreal.


William James Roche: My understanding of the
law is that a ticket to Montreal or any other point of destination in Canada will not permit any person bom in the United States to come into this country under conditions which contravene our immigration laws.


Herménégilde Boulay: Does the minister affirm that a persofi who is under twenty-one yeaAs of age and whose parents were born in Canada, is not a Canadian?


William James Roche: No, I affirm that that girl, born in the United States of French-Can-adian parents, is a United States citizen.


Herménégilde Boulay: On what article of the
law does the minister base that opinion? I find in the Revised Statutes of 1906, volume 2, chapter 93, page 67, a definition of what is a British subject and what is a Canadian subject. I find that so long as a person is not a United States subject and is under twenty-one years of age, he is, if 103J
born of Canadian parents, a Canadian. I am not a lawyer, of course, but under this law I do not see any reason why the inspector should shut the door of this country to any person under these circumstances. This girl could not choose to be a citizen of the United States until after she was twenty-one years old. If there has been any ' change in the law, I would like to know of it.


Pius Michaud: Is the mother of that girl a citizen of the United States?


Herménégilde Boulay: No; from the conversation I had with the girl on the train, I understood that her father and mother were both French-Canadians, born in this country. I would like to be well posted in regard to this matter, because such cases may occur in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend is right. If that girl was born of French-Canadian parents who were born in this country, until she attained the age of twenty-one she would be of the nationality of her parents.


William James Roche: She was born in the United States.


Wilfrid Laurier: Even so, if her parents were horn in Canada she would follow the nationality of her parents until she could choose for herself.


John Douglas Hazen: Would not something
depend upon whether or not her father had become naturalized in the United States?


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly, but the assertion made by the hon. member for Rimouski is that the girl was born ot
British subjects residing at the time in the United States. Legally*, she was under age, therefore her nationality was that of her parents. Her parents being British subjects, she was a British subject also, unless, being twenty-one years of age, she chose to become a citizen of the United States. I think my hon. friend's contention is strong, that until this girl attained the age of twenty-one years, she would follow the nationality of her parents.
Mr. BOULAY': I reported this case to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, and asked him for an investigation, which was refused. At the time, I asked the inspector to give me his name, as well as the reason why he was putting the girl off the train. I tried to speak to him in a gentlemanly way and to make him under-
<624

stand that I thought he was not complying with the law, but he was impolite enough not to listen to me, and even threatened "to have me arrested if I continued to *question him in any way. In his letter, the travelling inspector said:
It Mr. Boulay had informed Mr. Stahl who he was and had asked him on what ground this girl was being refused, Mr. Stahl states he would have given Mr. Boulay the information, but as he did not know Mr. Boulay and took him to be one of the passengers who had no right to interfere with him, he felt it his duty to let him know that he had instructions to carry out with reference to such cases without giving any information to any passenger who might come along.
This is not the truth at all. He would not even give me the opportunity to tell him who I was although I tried to do it, because I did not want to interfere in any way with the exercise of his functions. All I wanted to know was the ground on which he was rejecting her because from the explanation given to me I was sure that the girl was a Canadian citizen and had a right to come to this country without being molested by a Government officer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would like to emphasize what the hon. member (Mr. Boulay) has said regarding the immigration inspectors on the international trams between the United States and Canada. A good many of those inspectors cannot speak the French language, and this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works last year. I would not say, as my hon. friend from Rimouski his said, that the large majority of the passengers on the trains from the United States speak French, but I fancy he meant the repatriated Canadians. I understand that the majority of the passengers as a rule are English speaking, but quite a proportion of them are of French origin and do not understand English at all, and many of those officers who cannot speak French are in consequence unable to perform the duties of their position. The inspection, therefore, is quite inefficient in many cases and I would urge upon the minister to see that, whatever his nationality, every inspector should speak both languages, because he is liable to meet people who do not speak in any other language but French.


George Ewan McCraney: I have here an editorial taken from the Toronto Globe of January 26, 1914, in which reference is made to an article in the London Times regarding a convict who was allowed to go with twelve months in jail on the promise that he would

come to Canada afterwards. The name and other particulars are given. Perhaps the minister could briefly tell -what action has been taken by his department to prevent such action by magistrates and other authorities in the old country, because apparently this is not the only instance in which criminals have been given consideration if they would come to Canada.


William James Roche: No matter of that kind has ever been brought to my personal attention. 1 am aware that in years gone by the newspapers reported cases in which magistrates in the old country had allowed criminals to go on the promise that they would emigrate to some of the colonies; but I thought that was rather out of date now. I do not think that practice now prevails. This may be an isolated case. Of course, there is no justification, for it, and the only way we can get back is to let some of our criminals go on condition that they will move over to England.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: 
William James Roche: In all those laws there has to be exercised common sense on the part of the officials. I do not think that any officer, knowing his duty, would reject a member of a family, if the father or mother were already in Canada, by reason of one member of the family having lost an eye, or being lame or something of that kind. In a case of tubercular trouble, for example, we would not allow them into the country, not only owing to the danger of infection, but because they might marry and have diseased children. In cases such as those referred to by the hon. member for Brantford, it is not necessary to change our laws. I think our officers do exercise discretion, and they are experienced men who have these cases coming up every day. I feel quite sure that they would not reject any person under such circumstances, because of some minor defect.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister refer to the matter of inter-migration between Canada and the United States, about which I was speaking before 6 o'clock ?


William James Roche: The hon. member for
Edmonton has pointed out that the immigration from the United States is larger than formerly, but that fewer immigrants are going on the land. I have already given the reasons so that it will not be necessary for me to go over them again. The hon. member seemed to blame the Government to a certain extent for the falling off in our immigration from the United States and for the large number of continental immigrants coming in.. He stated that we were getting numbers but not quality, and that this continental immigration was the cause of the falling off m our immigration from the United States.
It is true there have not been so many homestead entries during the past two years as heretofore, and I should not be at all surprised if we have reached the maximum number of homestead entries for any one year, at all events until we can get better transportation facilities into that portion of our country where a large area of homestead lands still exist. We must not forget, however, that according to the reports I have from the officers, a great many
of the American immigrants of last year brought considerably more cash than those coming in previous years. Having money, these immigrants have not taken up free lands but have purchased farms from the Government, or from companies or individuals and have located nearer to the towns and cities. That accounts to a considerable extent for the falling off in homestead entries. Other factors have been the propaganda carried on in the United States, misrepresentations in the United States * press, as well as the fact, which .1 did not touch on before, that recently liberal concessions have been made to homesteaders in the United States. They are now offering in the state of Montana! what are known as enlarged homesteads, consisting of 320 acres of land, instead of 160 acres as formerly, and the homesteader can get his patent in three years instead of five. This tends to keep some of the- people at home. They have adopted the regulation: That the homesteader has to be m residence on his land ' seven months in each of the three years, instead of six as formerly, and this provision is intended to do away with what is known as the professional homesteader. Our regulations compel a homesteader to reside six months on his land in each of the three years, before getting his patent, and it is to prevent a man qualifying in Canada for a homestead and then going across to the United States and qualifying there that the seven months' residence has been insisted on.
The hon. member for Edmonton has referred to certain statistics in regard to our American immigrants who return to the United States and I was very glad to hear the hon. member state that he did not believe the American, figures were correct. I am quite convinced they are not. Their system of counting immigrants is different from ours. When a homeseeker comes to-the Canadian Northwest from the United States and spends two or three moitths in our country he is not counted by our agent's as an immigrant. When he returns to the United States after spending a few months in Canada looking for a home he is considered by the American authorities as a . returned immigrant. It can easily be seen, how that would swell the figures of returned immigrants to the United States. We-have followed up this n.-estion very closely and I have a memorandum on the subject, extracts of which I shall read:
On account of the head tax charged by the United States upon immigrants entering that country, the tendency is to class as immigrants many who have not really decided to reside-

in the United States but may be going there for a visit only. Similarly, regarding United States citizens, the United States officials count as returning to the States to settle many who have never been included in Canadian immigration statistics but who have been merely in Canada to look over opportunities for investment, etc.
The department secured some time ago from the United States officials a list of the names of the parties who were reported as having gone to the United States in November, 1910, and w'ho in their statistics were classed as Canadians settling in the States. A large number of these people were interviewed by Officers of this department, and out of a total of S49 who were classed in the United States returns as going to settle in that country 416 were found to have gone on a visit only or for merely temporary employment and had at the time of the investigation already returned to Canada. A similar investigation was made of Canadian citizens reported in United States statistics to have gone to the United States in August, 1912, to settle there, the result of which investigation was to show that 50 per cent who were classed as settlers for the United States had already returned to the Dominion.
In the comparison of various sets of statistics it is absolutely necessary that due regard should be given to the basis upon which they are prepared. In this connection I would call your special attention to the different standards existing in the preparation of Canadian immigration and United States immigration statistics. In Canada a new arrival is counted as an immigrant only upon his first arrival in the country, and if he returns year after year to his native land and at a later date comes back to Canada, he is on the second and each succeeding return classed for statistical purposes as a returned Canadian or non-immigrant irrespective of the length of time which he may have lived in the Dominion. In the United States statistics, on the other hand, persons other than United States citizens are classed as immigrants upon each arrival. It is well known that many Canadians yearly spend the winter in the lumber camps of Maine and Michigan, while at all times it is common for families in the eastern provinces to go to the eastern States for periods o( varied lengths to secure employment in the cotton mills or other manufacturing industries there without intending to permanently settle in the republic. If a lumberman of Quebec were to go each year for 10 years to work in the woods of Maine, he would be classed in the Uhited States statistics for that decade as 10 immigrants; and from this explanation it is clearly apparent that many Canadians are counted as immigrants to the United States who in reality go there for a temporary purpose only, and that year afteiv year, at least in some cases, the same persons are counted twice or oftener as settling in the United States. This system results in an apparent loss to Canada which in reality does not exist, at least to the extent which the United States immigration figures would lead one to believe.
Of the United States immigration to Canada only about 60 per cent, according to Canadian statistics, were born in the United States, and yet we find, according to the censuses of 1901 and 1911, that the United States born in Canada has increased from 127,899 to 303,6S0. On the other hand, United States statistics
IMr. Roche.]
which are quoted to create the impression of a large movement from Canada to the United States claim that this alleged movement contains 43 per cent Canadian citizens, but when we turn to the United States censuses of 1900 and 1910 we find that during that decade the Canadian born residents of the republic have increased from 1,179,807 to only 1,204,637, or a total increase of 24,830, certainly a small number upon to base a story of any immense movement of population.
And so I might go on to the same effect, but what I have read is sufficient to show that the method of compiling statistics in the United States differs very materially from that in Canada, that you get no correct grasp of the movement of population from those statictics, and that they are not compiled in anything like as correct a manner as are our Canadian statistics.
My hon. friend from Edmonton has spoken about quality being overlooked in our efforts to get numbers into the country. I am quite ready to agree, as I am sure my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland), a brother medical man, is, that there is nothing to be gained by allowing great numbers to come into the country if it is going to be at the expense of the quality of our population. I am sure we are all sincerely desirous of seeing the standard of our citizenship maintained. I personally would not grieve to see our immigration diminished considerably in numbers,- if as a result, we were to get superior quality. - Everything has impressed itself on my mind to the effect that we are getting superior quality. Our own officers say so, the United States officers admit it, and our officers in England say so. We have had the same officials here in charge of our immigration movement as those who were in charge when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, these gentlemen have had experience of the immigration propaganda and the way it should be conducted and they are not, by reason of a change of minister, or a change of government, going to fall so far short in the discharge of their duties as to bring about the dire results which my hon. friend from Edmonton would make us believe, have been brought about in the administration of the Immigration Act. There has been no violent change in connection with the administration of that Act.
Another thing which the hon. gentleman pointed to was that we had relaxed, for a short period during the early portion of last season, the money qualification. Surely, that would not make so great a difference and if it is to be laid as a fault at our door

well, we have had valu-

able precedents. We did so by reason of the fact that, owing to the Balkan war which had been going on, and draining our country of thousands and thousands of the labourers and navvies who are accustomed to work on our railways, the railway companies made representations to the Government that there was apt to be a scar-' city of railway labour in Canada last season. It had occurred during the preceding season. They said that they had been considerably handicapped by reason of not securing a sufficient supply of labourers, and it was urged that the money qualifica-'. tion stood in the way. This is not a new departure. Every year since 1908, for a greater or lesser period, there has been a relaxation of the money qualification. Owing to representations made to us the relaxation of the money qualification existed for little more than a month, but as soon as it w'as seen that we were going to have an abundance of labour for the season, the qualification of $25 for the summer months was restored. I do not think any grave violence was done to the interests of the country by reason of the relaxation. But we have sent a circular to each of our agents, to each steamship company, and to each port agent, which reads:
Sir,-As you are aware, the department has on some occasions relaxed the money qualification and other regulations when it was clearly apparent that sufficient immigrants could not be secured without such action. This year it is anticipated that there will be sufficient arrivals of immigrants fully complying with monetary and other regulations, and consequently it has been definitely decided during 1914 no relaxation of regulations will be made for labourers, skilled or unskilled, whether going to assured employment or not. The extra privileges conferred upon farmers, farm labourers and female domestic servants under P.C. 924 will be continued as in the past.
The department trusts that you will make every effort to have all your agents thoroughly familiar with the attitude of the department so that there will be no necessity for rejecting upon arrival persons seeking entry into Canada.
This circular was sent out on the 10th February of this year in order to forestall any influx of immigrants not belonging to the bonused, or the domestic servant, or agricultural labouring classes. We have taken every precaution to discourage immigrants coming to Canada, even although they come upon their own responsibility, unless they are able to pass the medical examination and money qualification as well.
My hon. friend from Edmonton has stated that the immigration from southern Europe has increased and is still increasing in very large proportion. The Government are not doing anything to encourage those immigrants coming to the country. The fact is that those people have been preceded by their fellow-countrymen who came out under the auspices of the preceding Government, and they, having made good, are sending back money for relatives and friends and are encouraging them to come to Canada. We are not paying any bonus for these people. How are we to exclude them unless we pass a prohibitory Act entirely, if they are able to pass the monetary qualification and the medical examination? Under these circumstances, I do not think that we can be blamed for this large number of southern European immigrants.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) has touched upon a point regarding the medical examination of immigrants coming to Canada from foreign countries.
I realize, as he does, how important it is to have a rigid medical examination, but I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that if we were to attempt the policy of having our own medical examiners in a great many of those foreign countries we would find it impracticable. We could hot enforce such examination, because most of those countries prevent us from carrying on an immigration propaganda of any kind within their borders.
If we are not allowed to induce immigration by any m earns from those countries,
[DOT] we would surely not be allowed to have medical examiners there. Many of those countries have examinations by their own medical examiners similar to those exacted by the British Board of Trade. And in addition to that we have our own medical examination in Canada which is much stricter than that exacted by the British Board of Trade. I am desirous of seeing that examination conducted in the most rigid manner. If you saw .some of the correspondence I am in receipt of protesting against the medical examination, such as the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-sbutt) spoke of before .six o'clock, you would find that we are charged with being far too rigid in our exactions so far as the medical examination is concerned. On the boundary our examination is much the same as that of the United States. They have quite a rigid medical examination; but still last year on our boundary inspectors' examinations, we rejected upwards of 17,000. That speaks volumes in favour of the manner in which our medical examination is conducted.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is from the United States?


William James Roche: Either coming through
United States ports or from the United States. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) compared the number of deportations and rejections with the number cf immigrants coming to Canada, but the more rejections we have the better it speaks for the examination. In 1907-08, when there came to this country 120,182 immigrants, there were deported 825; whereas the very next year, 1908-09, the number of immigrants coming to Canada fell from 120,182 to 52,000, but the deportations numbered 1,748 so that with less than half the number of immigrants, the deportation more than doubled. This is exactly on a parity with the illustration which my hon. friend gave. While our medical examination may be improved and I hope to see it improved from time to time, I think if is even now a very rigid examination. With more immigrants coming to the country, necessarily there will be more deportations. The Government has not been to blame for this. The steamship companies probably are in very many instances to blame, perhaps by not being circumspect enough and allowing many undesirable immigrants to board the boats at the point of embarkation. We threatened the steamship companies with legal proceedings unless they exercise greater precaution, and they have been doing so. By keeping them* up to the scratch, I have no doubt that we shall have a material improvement.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) referred to a circular that is being sent out by certain companies to induce immigrants to come to uur country, and which states that certain certificates will be furnished them upon presentation of which at the Canadian ports of entry they will be permitted to enter Canada without the necessary medical qualification. I have not seen that circular before; it has never been brought to our attention. I can assure my hon. friend that those companies have absolutely no justification whatever and no authority from this Government for such conduct. The people they may bring into this country, if they bring any, must conform with the monetary regulations. The Government are not assisting that class of immigrants by way of bonuses to come to Canada. It must be a misrepresentation on the part of any society or company who are endeavouring to bring these people to Canada on the ground that there is plenty

of employment and that the immigration regulations will be waived in their behalf.
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) referred to the fact that certain of our commission immigration agents who receive two dollars a head for placing immigrants with farmers, are denied the privi-* lege of exacting a similar fee on those whom they could find in other employments. It was not the policy of the department under the preceding Government, or under this, to.pay a commission to any of those agents for securing employment for immigrants except in agricultural work. Otherwise we would be converting our staff into employment agencies. There are employment bureaus, for which we have appointed inspectors, whose duty it is to protect the immigrants from undue exactions. We are not, however, turning our agents into employment bureaus to find employment in the various industrial walks of life for immigrants coming to our shores.	.
The hon. gentleman also thought that it would be quite proper for us to allow these immigration agents to be paid two dollars a head to secure employment for those who are not immigrants. Our immigration agents are not expected to do that. They are paid for looking after the immigrants who come to* Canada who are desirous of securing positions on the land; and they get two dollars for every person whom they locate on the land.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Michaud) spoke about an office located in a town in his constituency. My information is that that office was selected by our travelling inspector, and he claims that it is absolutely necessary for our immigration agent at that point, who is waiting there for the ferries to come in and out, to have some place for shelter in the bad weather, and I suppose he might even sit in the barber shop and await the arrival of the ferries. Occasionally he has to take in an immigrant for examination, and he desires to have some room which he can use as his own. There was a room at the back of the barber shop which he rented for himself for this purpose, paying ten dollars a month, with light, heat and the telephone thrown in. I do not think that is an exorbitant rent. I do not know anything about what the hon. gentleman states, other than, as we are informed by our travelling inspector, that this office is being used. My hon. friend states that it has not been used, but the information in the department is that it has been. I

will, however, make further inquiries and see if the hon. gentleman's allegations are strictly in accord with the information which we have secured.


Pius Michaud: I have the words of the immigration agent himself that he was not going to use the room because it was not fit to use. He said that he was using a room in his own house as an office.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is not suggesting that the immigration agent wishes us to rent his room instead of this office?


Pius Michaud: I think it would be preferable to do so.


William James Roche: If the agent is looking upon it in that light, I can see that his judgment might not be as impartial as it might otherwise be.


Pius Michaud: The department should rent a room out of his apartment; he owns a large apartment house.


William James Roche: The hon. member for
Beauce (Mr. Beland) and two hon. members on this side of the House referred to the necessity of having our 'boundary inspectors competent to understand and speak bo$h languages. I think that -is very desirable. Most of those boundary inspectors understand French, and speak it, though, in some instances, they may not be able to do so. At those places where the French-Canadians migrate from the United States to Canada, I think, upon the whole, the boundary inspectors understand both languages, although there may be some individual exceptions. It has also been said that we should have a French-Canadian attached to the Boston office. We have a very efficient officer there in the person of Mr. Bowlby, and there are not many French-Canadians in Boston with whom he is brought in contact. We had a report on this subject from our inspector of United States agencies, Mr. White, who reported against the suggestion as unnecessary. We have a French-Canadian, Mr. Laferriere, in charge of the office in Manchester, which is only a few miles from Boston, and he travels through New Hampshire amongst his fellow-countrymen in the endeavour to repatriate as many as he can. I do not know that it is necessary for me to speak longer; I think I have covered, as succinctly as I could, practically all the points which have been brought to my attention.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Can the hon. minister give me the name of the agent at St. Albans?


William James Roche: I think it is Mr. Demers.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: How many special immigration agents have been operating in the past year from Nova Scotia?


William James Roche: What does the hon. gentleman mean; operating where?


William Chisholm: In the old country.
I may explain that in the constituency I have the honour to represent, when a disappointed office seeker begins to play the baby act and they have to give him soothing syrup, they make him . either a food inspector or an immigration officer, and he goes over to the old country for three months or so at a salary of $100 a month and expenses. I know one gentleman, a very respectable gentleman, indeed, but not qualified at all by education, experience, or otherwise to be an immigration officer- though a disappointed office seeker-who was sent away for three months, and his expenses were $794 or thereabouts. I think he was supposed to go to the land of my forefathers in the interests of immigration, but I have not seen any of the good sturdy Scotch people coming to the county of Antigonish as the result of his propaganda. What do these gentlemen do for their money-what are the duties of these special immigration officers? Others have been sent from Cape Breton, and I presume with about equal qualifications with those of the gentleman of whom I speak-a very estimable man. Personally I am glad to see him appointed to a position of that kind, because he wanted it. But, so-far as the minister's duty goes, there is no justification for such appointments.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Chisholm) is a little self-contradictory-he is glad to see this gentleman appointed yet says he is useless as an immigration agent. Some of those special agents were sent last year, as formerly, but none have been sent this year. And it is very likely that amongst those who-went from Canada, an odd one may not have been thoroughly qualified for the duty he was supposed to discharge. Still, those immigration delegates have done valuable work in the past. They went over for a length of time, some for two months, some for three months, and a few, I think, for four months, under a salary of $100 a month. This system has been in vogue for many years.

Those agents have acted as lecturers and have given interviews with people there to encourage emigrants to come to Canada. Of course, it is almost impossible to trace the result of each agent's work, but probably all have contributed more or less to the general result attained.


William Chisholm: Do these agents report to the department, and are their reports in writing?


William James Roche: They all report to the
department in writing, I understand.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Is it the intention to send such agents next year?


William James Roche: No. I have not sent any this winter, as I do not think it necessary.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: The hon. minister has made, I think, a very fair and complete statement as regards the operation of the immigration officials in the different countries, by no means the least being Scotland the country of the forefathers of my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) whom I am glad to see in his place again. I would like to say a word with regard to immigration from the land of my forefathers, France, and also from Belgium. Had the minister been taking an active part in the political conflicts of the province of Quebec for the last ten or fifteen years, he would have listened to very impassioned appeals against the late Administration for having failed in its duty to bring to Canada more of the sturdy sons of France and Belgium. At that time we answered the attacks made by the friends of the hon. minister by saying that it was an easy matter to appeal to the passions of the people of Quebec, but that one who knew anything about the conditions in France was perfectly aware that a large influx of French immigrants to Canada or any other country in America was almost impossible. We answered our opponents that there were two reasons why the French could not immigrate into America in large numbers. The first was the depopulation in France, due to a decreasing birthrate. The second was, and is, the law of compulsory military service. In France, as in Germany and nearly eveTy other country of Europe, with the honourable exception of Britain, military service is compulsory, and the French authorities are particularly anxious that every young man of that country should serve-some time ago it was two years, and now three 
years-in the army in fulfilment of his legal military obligations. In spite of these obstacles we were none the less taken to task for not attracting more of this immigration. But let bygones be bygones. We, however, got a fair number of excellent French immigrants during the time we were in office. In 1897 and 1898 this immigration was about 300 or 400 a /ear, and in one year, the year after the treaty between France and Canada came into force, it reached highwater mark at over 2,000 immigrants. Since that time the French Government has been dissuading, through its prefects iin various parts of France, the French farmers from emigrating. There, has even been a campaign, quite unjust, waged against Canada on the part of some of the public men in France. But in spite of all that it is, I contend, possible for the Canadian Government to secure, without annoying the French authorities, quite a sprinkling of excellent immigrants from the French farming centres. Looking over the report of the Department of the Interior, I find that our agent in Paris, M. Wiallard, says:
We are using all legitimate means to make Canada known over here in all its aspects, geographical, historical and economic. We have given this year about five hundred lantern lectures, in places where the knowledge of our country was not as yet sufficiently Established, and I am looking forward to an extension of this work. The pictures shown in connection with these lectures exhibit the beauties of our country; our superb rivers, immense lakes, magnificent forests, luxuriant vegetation, our imposing mountains, and our fertile plains, the prairie covered with wheat fields, which are the admiration of all the world. The organization of these lectures kept us well occupied all winter. It has enabled us to distribute about 20,000 atlases and 1,500 wall maps, which, for the most part, are placed on the walls of public schools.
We have had, as in past years, to reply to a number of inquiries coming in from Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the north of Italy, as well as to a great number of persons who, though of foreign nationaity, live in France and wish to go to Canada. Among these are many Belgians.
I was one	of	those who	were	instrumental in securing the appointment of Mr. Wiallard. He is a faithful agent, but I cannot understand how he has been able to give so many lectures in the course of a year, because, with the exception of one or perhaps two sub-agents in his office, he is left practically alone. I would ask my hon. friend to give Mr.	Wiallard such	help	as hemay require	to	encourage,	in whateverway it may	be	encouraged,	the	current
of French immigration towards Canada, As I have said, it ;s not possible -to have a large French immigration into Canada, but .it is possible to secure from the provinces of northern France quite a good sprinkling of peasants. The French peasant is well off, generally speaking, and in the northern part of France, as in the province of Quebec, the members of each family are generally very numerous, which speaks volumes for the honesty of the Frenchman. I may say, en passant, that I have received letters from French settlers in Alberta and Saskatchewan who are doing exceedingly well on their farmis. They, at times, have had some trouble with the agents of the department in those provinces. Whenever I have appealed to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), to my hon. friend the present incumbent, or the officers of his department, Mr. Cory, Mr. Cote and the others, I have always found them most willing to disentangle any of the entanglements which have existed between the French settlers and the authorities. I know, therefore, that my hon. friend is well-meaning, and would be anxious to do anything to favour French immigration. After alland I can say it without boasting

the
Frenchman in Canada has proved himself to be a good settler. The French people who came to this country long before any -of my colleagues' forefathers, early in the sixteenth century, were but a handful. By the census which was taken after the cession *of Canada to Great Britain it was *established that there were only 60,000 Canadians in what was then known as Canada, which extended from the Atlantic to the gulf of Mexico. Less than two centuries afterwards, we find by the census of the United States and the census of Canada that that race, unaided by any stream of' immigration from the old country, has reached the wonderful figure of over 3,000,000. This proves that the Frenchman is essentially a good and desirable settler. I may say to my hon. friend the Postmaster General, to the Deputy Speaker, to the hon. member for Dorchester, and all those who took the Liberals to task when they were in office, that when I was a minister of the Crown I had an interview with the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Briand, about a circular issued by his Government warning the prefects of France that there should be no propaganda for any emigration towards Canada. I said: Why did you issue such a circular; what is the raison d'etre of it?
He said: we are obliged to do it; we are losing heavily every year by the decrease :n the birth rate, besides, we must keep our young men in France, because of our compulsory military service. These were the reasons given by Mr. Briand. It was not because the late Administration was adverse to any French immigration into Canada; on the contrary II think both parties are willing that there should be as much as possible of that immigration from France and Belgium.
The policy of Canada should be to promote immigration, especially from the northern countries of Europe, from the British Isles, from Scandinavia, from the northern portion of France, from Belgium and from that portion of central Europe which comprises Prussia and Austria.
I would like my hon. friend to give a little more help to Mr. Wiallard, who is practically alone in that office in Paris. He should have more literature, more clerks and perhaps a more generous budget.
I leave that to the tender mercies of the minister.


William James Roche: What would the hon. gentleman think of having our office there merged with the office of Mr. Roy?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is a question which I shall take up a little later on. One office is in the rue De L'Isly and the other on the boulevard des Capucines. Perhaps it would -be much better if there was one central office in Paris and one advertisement for Canada. You have no idea what the southern countries 'are doing in Paris. Paris is the centre of Europe and it is also with London the great financial centre * of the world. It has been said more than once that France is the banker of the bankers. Therefore there is always attracted to Paris a very large floating population from all parts of the world. And the southern countries, the South American republics, have, for the last twenty-five years, made a tremendous display in Paris. Take, for instance, Brazil, take the Argentine republic, to name but two. My hon. friend the Postmaster General knows that they have made a big display in Paris in order to attract the attention of t'he world to their countries. I do not say that Canada should follow exactly the same policy, but we should, within certain limits, make our country better known from this great centre of Europe, the city of Paris.
One word about Belgium. We can also draw from Belgium quite a large population. The Belgians are an exceedingly interesting people, probably the best farmers and
1G32

the most advanced gardeners in the world. Now that our city population is increasing, in such cities as Toronto and Montreal, we require around the large centres market gardeners. The Belgians are known as the best gardeners in Europe. It is a very desirable population to have in Canada; and you know that in Belgium you have more people per acre than in any other country in the world. The population is congested, is living on a very small territory and yet thanks to its industrious methods, is exceedingly well off. You will have no paupers from France and Belgium. You will have bright people, highly educated, knowing their trade, and familiar with the most scientific methods
9 p.m. of agriculture far better than emigrants coming from any other country in the world. Therefore, it is an emigration to be encouraged. True, it will not come here in very large numbers, but the sprinkling we shall have will certainly be of appreciable economic value to the people of this country. We have an illustration of this in Montreal. During two centuries the farms or rather the gardens around Montreal belonged to the old French-Canadian families. Some of those families became exceedingly wealthy by the cultvation of the land immediately around the city. The lands have passed out of cultivation in the last ten or fifteen years on account of their increased value for residential purposes. We have been fortunate enough to have during the last eight or ten years some Belgian gardeners and, strange to say, some Italians from the northern part of Italy, who have taken up gardening. I may say that, with a much less extended area of territory at their disposal, these Belgians, North of Italy peasants and French gardeners, are making possibly more money than the French-Canadians were .making .around Montreal many years before. Therefore, I repeat, this immigration is a splendid one to attract to this country. I would ask my hon. friend, who I know is well disposed, to give to Mr. Treau de Coeli, the Canadian immigration agent in Brussels, some further help so that he may provide us with a few more Belgian gardeners.
We have had the Social Congress sitting in Ottawa during the last week. Even if we. * had not had the Social Congress we know from good authority that, in spite of our stringent immigration regulations, there is a white slave traffic going on in this country. One has only to read the papers to
	.
learn that there is unfortunately such a traffic going on in this country and in the United States. What steps are taken by the department to prevent that immoral traffic? Has the department any detectives or any special agents to watch over the girls who are coming from the old country? In my judgment the department for several years past, by allowing the delegates of the various churches to attend the immigrants when they reach Quebec, Halifax or any of the other ports of	entry,	has	done indeedexcellent	service	to	the	country.
I would urge upon my hon. friend to give instructions to his agents-whether they travel with the immigrants, or see them at the port of embarkation or port of entry- to exercise a very careful surveillance over young girls coming to Canada. I do not know as much about the other churches as I do about my own church, but I do know that the Salvation Army is doing excellen! work at the gates of our jails when the poor fellows are again sent back to their fellow-men. It is also doing efficient work at the various ports of entry. In Quebec, Reverend Father Casgrain has been appointed. He has served in the British Army in India for many years and speaks several languages. He is familiar with all the dialects of Russia, and consequently can render great service to immigrants coming from different parts of Russia, especially as he is acquainted with their customs and manners.
I have read an excellent pamphlet on immigration written by a member of the press gallery, Mr. Pelletier of Montreal, and printed in Le Devoir. Mr. Pelletier has made a most searching inquiry at Quebec and I think this pamphlet ought to be printed in English. It contains some very interesting data about immigration, and describes the arrival and reception of these immigrants by representatives of the different churches. It is gratifying to know that these foreigners arriving in our country meet in the pastors of the various churches friends ready and willing to help them in their new venture. The pamphlet contains a resume of our immigration policy and methods, and excellent suggestions for the Department of Immigration. I have sat in Parliament nearly twenty years, and have read this pamphlet not only once but twice. It is the best publication on the subject.
Now, about the restrictions that should be imposed on immigration. I know that it is the policy of the Government to prevent as much as possible any congestion in our industrial centres through an influx of immi-

grants. The policy of the Government is to bring farmers to this country. We want farmers, we want navvies, and we want domestics. But we must all ackowledge that in the last few years the population of our rural districts has been decreasing, and that the newcomers instead of settling on the land crowd into the cities. I remember very well that last year there was a large influx of foreigners to Toronto. They were all newcomers who had been trained to the land, but at the approach of winter they flocked to the city and Toronto people had to pay the piper and maintain them durirg the long winter months. 1 mink the same thing has happened th;s year, not only in Toronto but in Montreal and Winnipeg and possibly some other cities. I just wish to quote from an excellent article by Miss Dorothea Brown, published in the Canadian Courier some weeks ago:
There is another phase of this problem equally perplexing. Notwithstanding the fact that the efforts of the Canadian Government are, as we have seen, directed towards securing farmers and farm labourers, we are not increasing the proportion of our people on the land. A comparison of rural and urban population in the United States and Canada will show the tendencies to crowd the cities and magnify the evils of congested districts are practically the same in the two countries. In
1910 53.7 per cent of the population of the United States was rural and 4.63 urban. In
1911	the Canadian population was distributed in the proportion of 5.4 per cent rural and 45.6 per cent urban. The increase in food prices in the United States was 29 per cent, and in Canada 27 per cent. Students of economics and social science are agreed that a nation desiring permanence and stability cannot afford to increase its urban at the expense of its rural population. Only a few years ago 75 per cent of Canada's people were living on the land, or were identified with agricultural pursuits. Today conditions are changing with great rapidity.
The tariff is not solely responsible for the high cost of living; unquestionably the aggregation of large numbers of newcomers within our cities is one of the causes. Is the department doing anything to prevent such flocking to the cities? I would like to know whether my hon. friend intends to take any measures to prevent this aggregation of immigrants in the cities.


Charles Avila Wilson: Have we any immigration agents in Italy? As the hon. member for Rouville has stated, we are getting a large number of immigrants from Italy. I have not the figures of Italian immigration before me but I know that the minister is familiar with them. We have some very good immigrants coming from Italy. I do not want to make any comparisons but I
think the best immigration is that coming from the north, from Milan, Florence, Taranto and Piedmont generally. Some time ago there was a case at the port of entry of St. Albans in connection with which I had to communicate with the department. I shall not mention the case although I may say here that, according to my information, it was a case coming under the white slave law. Unfortunately, there was some misunderstanding or some error. The facts are these: A young girl, coming from Italy had reached America through the port of New York, had come to a little town in one of the eastern states and was prevented from crossing the border. She lived for a certain number of days, if not weeks, with her brothers in that little town in the United States and a brother of hers living in Montreal wanted to escort her to the city of Montreal. I am not criticising the acts of the officer because the promptitude with-which the case was settled indicated that everything was done that could be done, but in order to prevent such an occurrence I would .suggest that it would 'be a wise policy for the Government to establisn an affioe in- Italy to assist desirable immigrants and to prevent the influx of undesirable immigrants. My hon. friend remembers very well the situation we had in Montreal at one time when a certain employment agent caused a sudden influx of about 10,000 Italians during the winter. A judge of the High Court was appointed to inquire into the matter. This could be prevented in future if we had a permanent office in Italy. If we could come to some arrangement by which no Italian could leave Italy unless he embarked at one or two designated ports, let us say Naples, Genoa or Civita Vecchia, which is the port nearest Rome, we would exercise a large degree of control over that immigration. The resident agent would get familiar with the customs of the country, gather information on the spot and he would not permit the steamship companies to sell tickets to undesirable immigrants, in this way saving trouble and expense to the companies and to the country. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has referred to the good work that the Reverend Father Cas-grain, the Salvation Army, and ministers of religion generally are doing. T approve that work and no .sensible man could do otherwise. It is worthy of all praise. If we had an office and a resident agent in Italy he could gather information either from the prefect, the mayor of the town or
16.34

the ministers of religion and in this way become acquainted with the mode of living and the latitude in which the prospective immigrants had been brought up because there is a large difference in latitude between the Calabrais on the south and Piedmont in the north and a consequent difference in the character and habits of the people. The man who was appointed specially would become familiar with the habits of the people and after he had been there a short time would probably learn the Italian language. Whether he was a Scotchman, an Irishman or a Frenchman would not matter-the language is .so sweet that with a .little study he would become familiar with it as well as with the manners of the people. We would save money and safeguard the interests of the country if agencies could be established in Italy. Not only would I suggest that we should have an agent in Italy but I would remind the committee that there are no agents on the other side of the Atlantic except those in England and France. Have we any in Russia or Germany? An agent in Germany would surely appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), because it would prevent undesirable German immigration and it would diminish any fear which may exist of the German peril. Have we any agency in Sweden or Norway? For a comparatively small sum of money we could maintain agents who would render us a great service.


William James Roche: We have no agencies in Italy, and I am inclined to think that if we were to establish one it would not meet with the approbation of our Canadian citizens. We do not establish agencies in any countries from which we are not encouraging immigration. We are not encouraging immigration from Italy.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is not what I mean. I am not ready to say that Italian immigrants are always desirable, but this agency could be established to prevent undesirable persons from coming here. There is no law in this country to prevent an Italian coming, if he is a desirable immigrant.


William James Roche: No; but the point I was going to make was that we would be scarcely justified in establishing immigration agencies in countries to prevent immigration to Canada. That is not the principle upon which we are acting. We are going to the expense of maintaining 
agencies in order to encourage suitable immigrants to come to Canada, but the Italians are usually found segregated in the cities. That is the very condition that my colleague was speaking against a few moments ago. We do not wish to encourage immigrants to make their homes in cities. We are endeavouring to encourage only those who will locate upon the land, and very few Italians go to reside upon the land. With reference to the countries that my hon. friend has spoken about, we have no immigration agency in Germany, and we have none in Norway and Sweden. These countries do not permit us to carry on any immigration propaganda; therefore, it would be idle for us to go to the expense of having officials to prevent immigration from those countries because they are doing their utmost themselves to prevent emigration.
With regard to the illustration that the hon. member gave about a young girl coming across from Italy, landing in the United States, and being prevented by our officer from coming into Canada, I think she would come in in violation of our immigration law. They are supposed to come from the country of their nativity direct to Canada,' and to have the necessary amount of money in their pockets; and by stopping a week in the United States, she could not qualify in that manner and get in under our existing regulations. I quite concur with what the hon. member has stated about the French immigrants. The French peasant makes an excellent settler, and the Belgian peasant as well. We are anxious to see as many as possible of those people come to Canada. We have not a free hand in those countries to carry on our propaganda such as we have in the British Isles. We have to be very circumspect in order to keep within the law. Belgium has not been enforcing her laws very strictly, and perhaps our propaganda has had more freedom there than in France. Our agent in France lias been greatly hampered by reason of the restriction on his work by the laws of that country. Mr. Roy has been urging upon me to centralize our office in his, but I would have to give that matter a little more consideration. I do not know that I could see eye to eye with that proposition. Centralization in some instances is the best policy, but I am inclined to think that our immigration branch in France, in what little we are able to do there, would possibly lose its

identity if merged with the office of Mr. Roy. He is inclined to think that our agent there is possibly liable to get into trouble with the authorities in France, but I am satisfied that the agent, who has been given a good reputation by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux), is doing good work in so far as he can carry it on, and, if he should step a little beyond the strict regulations and laws of France, he is not doing anything without the consent of the French authorities. I am satisfied as to that. Notwithstanding the fact that we are not allowed to carry on a very strong propaganda in France, I am glad to say that the figures show that we have been getting an increased number year by year. In 1909-10, there were 1,727 immigrants from France; in 1910-11, 2,041; in 1911-12, 2,094; in 1912-13, 2,755. Therefore, we have had some 700 immigrants more from France during the past year than heretofore, and a larger number than ever came to Canada before.	The same
is the case with Belgium. In 1909-10. there were 910 immigrants from Belgium; in 1910-11, 1,563; in 1911-12, 1,601; in 1912-13, 1,826. We are not losing sight of the Belgian and French immigrants. In my own province of Manitoba, there are companies, such as the Million for Manitoba League, who are now endeavouring to encourage Belgian farmers to come out and take up market gardening, in which they are such experts, and to settle on some of the land not far from the city of Winnipeg in order to grow garden products which the city of Winnipeg has to import so largely from the United States.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What proportion of oui immigrants engage in farming or market gardening?
. Mr. ROCHE: I do not know that I could tell my hon. friend on the spur of the moment, although I have no doubt that the great majority of the people coming to Canada have been going on the land. W'e must take into consideration that the various provinces are carrying on a very active propaganda in the motherland, and that the province of Ontario during the past year has had a larger number of immigrants *than any other province in the Dominion. A very large proportion of those brought out by the provincial Government, and of those who came under the jurisdiction of the Dominion authorities, settled upon the laud in Ontario. It is true that some of th-jm may have gone into the cities, but I saw a statement made by a minister in the Ontario legislature that not a single immigrant brought out by the provincial Government to.the province of Ontario during tne past year is to-day without employment. That speaks very well for the immigration to that province. The Dominion Government is encouraging by bonus, only those going on the land, and domestic servants. .
I was glad to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) speak so highly of the -work done by the Salvation Army. The time was, and not so long ago, when the propaganda carried on by the Salvation Army did not meet with such reception. While in the earlier days of the work they may have been open to the accusation of bringing in a certain number of undesirables, they are like the rest of us very anxious to bring desirable immigrants, and they are doing good work and bringing especially those who desire to enter domestic service, as well as those who desire. to go upon the land.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The most of them do not go on the land.


William James Roche: Perhaps not as many ot them go on the land, as those brought in. under the auspices of the Dominion Government, I understand from Commissioner Lamb that they bring no one out here without'having assured employment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The remarks which 1
made about the Salvation Army do not apply so much to the work they may be doing outside of Canada to induce immigrants to come here. I do not know much about that phase of the work. I was simply eulogizing the work of the Salvation Army at the ports of entry, how they take care of the people, how they guide them, and how they promote the good cause-amongst the immigrants. They really do-take good care of them and they are good friends. Thdt was what I was referring to.
Mr, NESBITT: Has the hon. minister any machinery for keeping track of emigration? We hear about immigration, but we: have no record that I know of with reference to emigration. The number of people coming to Canada would build up our population more, rapidly than the census shows, and I for one think that the business community would like to have a knowledge of how many people go away from the country. According to the American return, that the hon. member for Edmonton read this afternoon, nearly as many people went back to the United States as came from

there last year and the year before. We should not depend entirely upon the American figures for that information. Could not the hon. minister establish machinery in his department for keeping track of the people who leave the country as well as of the people who come in? That would be of great benefit to the business men of this country.
With reference to the Salvation Army, my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is quite right as to the care they take of our immigrants; but most of the men whom they bring out stay in the towns. The domestic servants they bring out supply a very great need.


Mr. EOCHE:: Up to the present time
there has not been any real system of compiling statistics of persons going from Canada, but I do not think that the hon. member was present, when I read a reply from the department to the allegation made in th,e American press.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not in at that
time.


William Roche: I placed that upon ' Hansard.' The figures are entirely incorrect. We made a special investigation and satisfied ourselves on that point.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that.


Mr. GLASS:: The question under discussion is one of very great interest to the country and of-peculiar interest to the district from which I come. That district has already been referred to by the hon. Minister of the Interior when he spoke of that part of the province of Ontario which had undertaken a campaign of immigration locally, and apart from the Government. This campaign was undertaken because the provincial Government realized the absolute necessity of peopling the country districts with labourers. We have the hydro-electric question, which is a live question amongst the farmers; we have the Farmers' Institute, agricultural societies and other advantages which add interest to the agricultural community, and which, it was hoped, might tend to increase the interest of the young men and hold them on the farm. But, after carefully viewing the whole situation, our farmers in that district commenced to realize that there is no subject of more importance to them than that of being able to get satisfactory labour to assist them on the farm. I listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) that

it is of great importance that our immigration propaganda should be waged in those countries of Europe where agriculture is brought to the highest state of perfection and where we may hope to get men of intelligence, trained in the work of the farm and likely to follow that avocation after they come here. The question has been asked:	How do we know how many of
these immigrants from the Old country go on the farm? In the campaign of publicity carried on last year by the district from which I come, although that was the first year in which we engaged in that	work, we know that we
really put more people into the country districts of that community than during any other five years in our history. The campaign was so thoroughly satisfactory that the county of Middlesex itself, this year, without assistance from the Government, has engaged in the work and has sent a man to the agricultural districts of the old country to engage the farm labour that we require and send it out to us. I am very strongly of opinion that if that line of endeavour were followed out by all the the counties throughout the Dominion they would be entitled to assistance from the Dominion Government in the work. I believe that local effort in that direction with the co-operation of the Dominion Government would probably bring effective results distributed well throughout all parts of the country. Eeference has been made to the commissioners of immigration that the department sent to the old country last year. I do not know anything about the results that were attained by the efforts of the majority of these men, but I have a personal knowledge of the results from the labour of the man who left the district from which I come. His work was so effective and the class of immigrants sent through his efforts so satisfactory to the people of our community that when we came this year to send to the old country for that purpose, we selected the very man whom the Government selected last year, and he is now on the ocean on his way over to work along the same line.
I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily, but I desire to say a word with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). His remarks and the deductions he drew from certain figures of the blue book, led me to think there might be some other cause than that which he gave for the increase in the number of deportations. While the minister has answered well the comparison between 1911

and 1913, might it not have been as well to go back to the year 1907 and compare conditions? In my opinion, the fact that the deportations have increased during a financial stringency does not necessarily imply laxity on the part of the Government in admitting these people into the country. There is no congestion of labour in the country districts; we know that the country is able to absorb an enormous number of labourers at the present time. But at the same time, there is a congestion of labour in the industrial community. Is it not natural to suppose that at such a time the Government would use a little more than ordinary vigilance to prevent the further congestion of labour? When I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton, they led me to look back to 1907 and study the figures of that year. There were 825 deportations, as the hon. member stated. The deduction that the hon. member drew from an increase in the number of deportations was that the Government had not exercised proper vigilance in examining the immigrants coming in. I examined the reasons for deportation in the years 1907-8, and found, they were as follows:
Tuberculosis	 70
Rheumatism	 20
Defective eyes	 6
Insane	122
Feeble-minded	 13
Epilepsy and locomotor ataxia ..	14
Old age crippled and deaf	 15
Likely to become a public charge.. 279 Criminal prostitute and vagrancy..	98
From other causes	187
If the argument of the hon. gentleman is right as to 1913, it applies equally to 1907-8. If proper-no, I will not say that, because it is not the word-if absolute care had been exercised in the examination of these immigrants, we should not have had to deport 122 insane, 15 feeble-minded and 70 affected with tuberculosis. I have no doubt that, no matter what care the department may exercise, it is impossible to prevent some undesirables from coming in. But I do say the Government has shown proper vigilance in deporting these people. I do not care whether the number be 800 or 2,000. In the year 1907-8, as I have said, the figures show a decrease in the deportations. But I went back also to the period from 1902 to 1907, to see how closely the immigrants were examined and how many were deported during those years of prosperity. 525 immigrants were deported during that period. In the succeeding year, the first year of the financial stringency of that time, the deportations increased 63 per cent.
The following year they jumped from 825 to 1,748. The immigrants we want are those in the agricultural districts of the old country which have been brought up to the highest state of cultivation. If we want mechanics, we go where we find mechanics who have made good; if we want to get good farmers, we must get them from those districts in the old land or in Europe where agriculture has been brought up to a high state of efficiency. If they are good men, it matters not whether they are f-om Belgium, Denmark, or any of those countries the citizens of which can assimilate with those of our country and become good Canadians. I am very strongly of the opinion, and I hope the minister will give this his most serious consideration-I have already discussed the matter with him personally-that the probabilities of co-operating with the communities themselves in sending able men as commissioners to the old land are very great. In my humble opinion, very effective work can be done through the co-operation of the department with the individual localities in following up the propaganda that we have undertaken in the county of Middlesex. Of course we do not want to localize the matter to any considerable extent; we should realize that we are doing what is best for the country at large. Any man sent to the old country as the representative of any community, if he were being paid or assisted by that community, and even by the Government, would feel a greater responsibility to that community to make good than he would feel as a commissioner selected to represent the country at large. Some of the men who may be attracted from the old land to our district this year are bound to find their way into the other counties, but we have no petty jealousies or ill-feeling about that; we feel that we will get a sufficient number of them to make it worth the expenditure to which we are subject in carrying the idea into effect.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Have the people of my
hon. friend's county nau any experience in bringing these men to Canada, and if so, what has been their experience with regard to emigrants staying where they were first placed?


Samuel Francis Glass: Our experience is only in
its initial stage; we have had only one year of it. I asked the department what would be the most effective way of making the pamphlet which we issue of such a nature as to increase interest in the idea of coming to our district. I was told, and I believe, rightly, that the best way to adver-



[Stage Direction]
liise a community in the old land is to (jive an honest, plain story of the man who has come out to settle on the land and has made good. A number of persons came into our district last year, and we have been obtaining letters from them telling in their own way-we do not dictate it; we want the story in their own words- the success with which they have met, and we propose publishing a number of these and circulating them in connection with the other literature. We have not statistics or figures to show how many of these men have stayed where they were first placed, but we have a number of letters from those who did stay, saying that they had intended to stay only six months or a year, but had been used so well that they had made up their minds to stay two or three years. I have had personal letters from a number of agriculturists in the old country who wished to come out here, men who are wording on a couple of acres of land and earning eighteen or twenty-five shillings a week. It is impossible for them, with that small wage, to get together enough money to bring them to this country. In Middlesex they are suggesting a plan by which a guarantee fund will be put up and the money advanced to these men-I mean men of good character, men of experience, men whom it is desirable to bring to this country-to pay their trans. portation expenses and bring them to Canada. In not less than a dozen instances the farmers paid the entire expenses of men coming out here, and I am told that in every case the services given are satisfactory and the men are making good. If I were looking for a man from the old country who would make good on the farm, I would say that the man who is now working on a farm, raising a family of four or five children, and living in a little home and making eighteen or twenty shillings a week, would be a frugal, careful man, and would make a desirable citizen of this country. I would not care whether he had capital or not; if he had experience and was a man who could take care of a large family on that amount, he would be a desirable citizen of a country like this, where, the land is so free and the crops so abundant.
I hope that the scattered remarks I have made, and the little experience we have had along these lines, may result in something being done in the future, and that the Government and individual communities may co-operate to solve, at least to some extent, the problem of farm labour.
[Mr. Glass 1
Mr. BICKERDIKE:: My opinion is that our immigration policy is all wrong. I have said this every session during which I have been in Parliament. I think it is a crying shame that 1.500 poor people who have paid their passages across the ncean to come to this country should be deported. I have pleaded with the late Government, asking that the inspection should be made on the other side, and the only reason why it is not done is because of the terrible question of patronage. One or two doctors in London, Liverpool, and Southampton would prevent the condition under which 1,500 poor people, after paying some $50,000 to come to this country, are turned back shortly after landing in Canada.
I am speaking now from a purely humanitarian standpoint. Is it not a fact that every year numbers of poor people pay their steamship fares to Canada, and after they get here perhaps your doctors find that they are not fit to come into the country? I am not finding fault with that; the fault I find is that you do not have the inspecting done on the other side of the ocean instead of here. Many times, and I am sure the minister or his deputy would know of it, families have been broken up; sometimes the mother has been discovered to have trachoma and has had to go back, either taking her children with her or leaving them here; the family is broken up in any case; -and all because the inspection is not done on the other side. 1 do hope that the present minister will remedy this. Two years ago I pleaded with the minister of that day, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and I understood the matter was to be considered. I also brought the matter before Mr. Scott, superintendent of immigration. Is there any good reason why these fifteen hundred poor families should come out to this country at a cost of some $45,000 or $50,000 and then be turned back?


William Cameron Edwards: In what sense are you using the word poor; is it with reference to their poverty?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Or is it poor in the sense of being physically unfit?


Robert Bickerdike: I say they are
unfortunate, and many of them are in poverty. Some of them can barely get enough money together to pay their passage out here.


Eugène Paquet: Does the hon. gentleman think that this inspection should bo made

by the steamship company or by the Canadian Government?


Robert Bickerdike: 
William James Roche: Oh, yes, they do.
They have to take them back.


Robert Bickerdike: Yes, if you catch
them. Is there any common sense in bringing these people to this country if they have not the $25, or have some mental or other disease that compels them to be sent back? There is not a member in this House who would take the ground that there is any good reason for allowing these people to come out here, and then send them back. They lose their situations and break up their families in the old country, all because we want to have the
10 p.m. medical examiners on this side.
Send three or four doctors to the other side and stop them from getting aboard, not only because of disease, but for any other reason that would prevent them entering Canada,


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentlefnan advises the minister to^ send doctors across to England, Scotland or France to prevent these people from getting on board ship. I doubt very much if this Government would have authority to send a man to England, to France, or to any other country to say who should or should not get on board a vessel.


Robert Bickerdike: Of all the reasons 1 have - yet heard that is the poorest one. Every man in this House knows that if the Government asked the British Government to let them put a doctor or two at Liverpool, that privilege would be granted immediately, The hon. gentleman knows that as well as I do.


Mr. CARVELL:: The steamship companies would listen to them.


Robert Bickerdike: Everybody would
listen to them. I said the same thing to the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). For many years I have pleaded for that and it has got to come whether it comes immediately or not. People will not stand for these poor people being robbed as they are in this matter. If the reason advanced by the hon. member for Frontenac is the only one, the minister could fix it in five minutes.


William Cameron Edwards: In such a matter as that each country would have jurisdiction over its own ports. My hon. friend is assuming entirely too much when he assumes that this Government could, in all the various countries from which Canada receives immigrants, appoint -its agents to stand at the ports and say who should and who should not get on board a vessel.


Robert Bickerdike: Does the hon. gentleman not think that other countries would welcome it, rather than have their poor people sent over here and then have them sent back again ? Every country in the world from which we receive immigrants, will welcome it.


William Cameron Edwards: On the contrary, instead of these countries welcoming such officials, the very fact that so many of these people com.ing from various countries have to be deported, shows an inclination on the part of these countries to get rid of them. They are only too glad to get rid of them.


Robert Bickerdike: Not at all.


Eugène Paquet: The hon. member for
the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) is anxious that the medical inspection of immigrants should be performed at the sailing port. I agree with him that such a system would be the best, but before accepting the suggestion it may be advisable to look over the report of the United States commission of immigration, a report which I have quoted the other day in the following terms:
It is highly desirable both for humanitarian and medical reasons that aliens who are not admissible to the United States should be turned back at foreign ports of embarkation, or better still, that they should not leave their homes for such ports only to be returned. It has been strongly urged by immigration officials and other students of the question that the embarkation at foreign ports of persons not admissible to the United States because of their physical condition, would be more effectually prevented by a medical inspection by American officers at such ports. This plan was so strongly urged that this Government a few years ago made official inquiry respecting the probable attitude of European governments toward it. At that time one or two governments expressed a willingness to permit such an inspection by American officials; others made indefinite replies to the inquiry, while others were positively opposed.
Such are findings of the United States commissioners appointed to inquire into the conditions in the various European countries. Now, I requested the Minister of the Interior a few days ago, to co-operate

with the imperial authorities so as to obtain that right of inspection at ports of embarkation.


Robert Bickerdike: Is not the hon member wholly agreeable to the proposal of effecting the inspection on the other side of the Atlantic rather than in our seaports?


Eugène Paquet: I am in favour of making a selection as judicious as possible of the immigrants. I believe that one of the means of preventing the deportation of undersirables would be to have the inspection made at the sailing ports, or on 'the ships carrying the immigrants. A few days ago, I stated that, in my humble opinion, the ideal system would be to have the medical inspection performed by a specialist appointed and paid by the Canadian Government on board the ships carrying the immigrants.


Robert Bickerdike: But why not previous to their boarding the ship ?


Eugène Paquet: For this reason: We must first find out whether we have jurisdiction in foreign lands and, from what I have read, we have no such jurisdiction in foreign countries. It appears from the report of the United States commission which I have just referred to, that the United States experts offer merely suggestions which are, it is true, generally complied with by foreign governments.
In Europe generally things are done in this way. Let us take Germany, for instance. Russians and Austrians wish to cross the German frontier with a view to reaching a German seaport and thence cross over to America. On the German frontier, there are stations for the medical inspection of immigrants, and no undesirables are allowed to proceed any further.
On Monday last, I stated further that in Greece there are stations for medical inspection in their own towns. Besides, the [DOT]other day, I referred to the means that should be taken to prevent as much as possible the hardships inflicted by deportation. It is apparent that the medical officer at the port of embarkation has not enough time at his disposal to detect mental or constitutional diseases with which the immigrant may be afflicted. If inspection was performed on the ship by an expert appointed and paid by the Canadian Government, he might during the trip take the requisite time and means to have the immigrants undergo such an inspection as I believe to be necessary in the country's interest


Robert Bickerdike: The hon. gentleman advocates inspection on the ocean, on board the vessels. But no ship would turn around when half way across the sea to take back a rejected immigrant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He means to chuck them overboard.


Robert Bickerdike: You might as well leave the inspection until you get to this side, as to have the inspection half way across the ocean, because no vessel will turn back if they discover smallpox or trachoma when they are at sea. There is only one way, and my hon. friend will agree that the best way is to do the inspecting on the other side.


Frank Oliver: I will agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken to the extent of wishing that it were possible to mitigate the horrors of deportation or even of rejection. I would be willing to support the Administration in going to very great lengths to mitigate the conditions that exist at the present time, that, under the system that now prevails, must exist. They are just as deplorable as my hon. friend has suggested, and in the interests of humanity they should be avoided so far as possible. I am afraid with all my hon. friend's goodness of heart-and nobody will say he has not a large measure of that-I think he lacks, if I may criticise, to some extent, the principle of charity in considering the views and limitations of other people; and he has perhaps not considered in all its bearings the difficulties that surround his proposition. At the same time there is a deplorable condition. I am sure the minister himself must have felt that when cases have been brought to his attention, and I am sure that he would wish, as I would wisa, to see that condition mitigated as far as possible. I would be glad if the Government would take such measures as on full consideration may seem possible to secure a mitigation of the miseries resulting from the necessary strict enforcement of the law in regard to rejection and deportation. I would be willing as a member of the Opposition to give him a free hand in such an endeavour and I would certainly commend it strongly to the minister that he take consideration of the representations made by my hon. friend to go so far as he can.


Robert Bickerdike: Does my hon. friend not think it would be possible to have the inspection done on the other side? I know it would not be easy for any person to do, and because it is hard we are asking the minister himself to find a way of doing it.


Frank Oliver: I do not need to take time to-night to argue that point. I do not say that the difficulties in the way cannot be overcome. I am putting myself in the position, as a member of the Opposition, of giving the minister a free h'and ip undertaking to overcome these difficulties, which I recognize to a degree which probably my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) does not recognize. Those difficulties may possibly be overcome and I would he glad to see the minister take the opportunity of overcoming them so far as he can. Nothing caused me more difficulty of mind during the time I had charge of the Immigration Department than this matter of deportation and rejection, but I felt that the interests of the country demanded that there should be a policy of restriction and selection. Parliament vested that authority in me and, unpleasant though it was, I felt that I was compelled to do my duty as it was laid down. In the light of subsequent events it may- be possible to do better now than was done then, and I will be glad to see the minister do better if it is possible to be done. I will join with my hon. friend on this occasion.


Robert Bickerdike: It is the first time.


Frank Oliver: Never too late to mend.
I will join with my hon. friend on this occasion, and urge on the favourable consideration of the Government some effort to mitigate those conditions.
In regard to the more general question that was up for consideration in the early part of the discussion,
I wish to say that I am very much pleased at the announcement made by the minister that the lid is on definitely at any rate for the season 1914. I think he has taken a very proper course in deciding that there shall be no relaxation of the regulations during this season and he is entitled to every credit for having taken due measures at the proper time. In regard to his explanation as to the number of people going from Canada to the United States, it is to he regretted that the information is not more definite, hut still it is measurably satisfactory to know that the conditions are not as represented in the returns of the United States Government. I will say, however, that the information that was given indicates a situation that is still somewhat serious. If my memory is correct, my hon. friend mentioned that some 800 cases were investigated, 400 of which were found to be people who had returned or were returning to Canada. If that meant that of the 800 eases investigated, 400 were
really emigrants to the United States, it means that there is a drift of people to the United States much larger than we had any idea of. I would suggest that the matter be gone into more fully so that we can see justwhatour position is in this matter of the coming and going of population.
In regard to the better financial condition of the people coming from the United States,	my hon. friend
said that although fewer homesteads were taken up he had reason to believe that there were more land purchases. I will he glad if that is the case, but again the reports do not indicate it.
I find that the land sales by the different land-owning companies in the West, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1913, are only $9,867,000 as against $18,000,000 for the year before, and that again is nearly a million dollars less than the sales of the year before that-the year ended March 31, 1911. The records are against the supposition of my hon. friend. I would be very glad if it turns out not to be the case, but I am speaking from the record of the department as I find it.
I wish to say that the reason given by my hon. friend for the lessening in the number of homestead entries, if it be correct, and I am not going to controvert his view at the moment, that we have reached highwater mark in our record of homestead entries and that our available homesteads in the West are practically exhausted, means that our position as a field for immigration has undergone a radical change, and it will .be necessary for us to adjust our efforts in regard to immigration in accordance with that new condition. Until the present time, the basic idea of our immigration effort has been to secure the occupation of available vacant land in the Northwest. All other features of our immigration policy merely followed upon that one. If that feature has been either eliminated or minimized, it means that our whole theory of immigration has been changed and it will be necessary to change our system accordingly. If we have not that field for immigrants, then there is no reason for pursuing the policy of inducing such immigrants to come. It is a matter to be considered whether, if the condition is as my hon. friend suggested, we should revise our whole attitude and view. If wo have no more free land available, but if the field now lies in the development of land already occupied, this new condition looks to the securing of a different class

of immigrants. The class of immigrants that occupies the free land is one class, but the class of immigrants that furnishes labour upon land already occupied is another class, and we would have to adjust our immigration efforts and policy accordingly.
The other serious feature I spoke of, and which the minister dealt with, was the large increase in immigration from southern Europe. It is a fact that the immigration of certain classes of people from northern Europe would be a means of strengthening and improving our nationality. It is just as true that a serious influx of .people from southern Europe would he to the detriment of our nationality. Not that these people are not just as good as we are, ibut their social ideals, their ideas of Government, their ideas of living generally, are different from ours, and their presence in large or dominant numbers would mean that our national life would undergo a substantial revision or change. As far as present lines are concerned it would be weakened and not strengthened. My hon. friend says: Yes we are receiving an increased number of these southern European people; but we are not responsible for it; there are certain regulations provided, and if these people comply with those regulations they are, of course, entitled to come in; we make no endeavour to bring them here; they come of their own accord; if they comply with the regulations we must let them in, and there is nothing more for us to do. I do not know what -view my 'hon. friend and the Government may take, but if it is admitted that a large influx of people having different racial characteristics different social ideals, different views in regard to matters of government, is undesirable and if our present regulations are not sufficient for preserving the conditions as we would wish them to be, it is necessary that the Government should make provision to protect those racial characteristics, those ideals of social life and of government that we have at the present time, and Which it is our ambition to perpetuate. The Government is responsible in this matter, and the -country looks to the Government to safeguard it in this as in other particulars.
It is very flattering to the late Government to find that their policy has been adopted and their administration followed up in matters of immigration, and if conditions. remained the same I would have
fMr. Oliver.]
thought, certainly, that the -Government would he well advised in undertaking that course, but if conditions have radically changed, as my hon. friend intimates, they have, in regard to the measurahle exhaustion of the free land on the prairies of the West on the one hand, and an influx of uninduced southern European people on the other hand, steps should be taken to meet those conditions whatever they may be.
I was struck by what my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) said, in drawing a comparison between the rapid increase of deportations in 1908 as compared with 1907, and 1913 as compared with 1912. He said that the large deportations in 1908 and 1913 were no doubt due to the recurrence of a financial stringency. That is no doubt a fact, and is exactly why I criticised the Government for the condition existing. In 1907, we had a somewhat parallel condition to that prevailing to-day. We had had a period of rapid expansion and prosperity succeeded by a financial depression which threw a great many people out of work. The difference is, that in 1907 we had not adopted the policy of selection, restriction and direction that was embodied in the Act of 1910, and that was in full force and effect when the present Administration took office. It was because of the experience of 1907 and 1908 that we were led to the conclusion that it was necessary to adopt a restrictive, selective and directive policy. We provided by legislation and regulations to that end. We left that law and those regulations in operation when we went out of office. My judgment, based on the experience of 1907, is that our friends did not carry out those regulations; did not live up to the spirit of that Act-were impressed rather with the desire of having a large number than with maintaining the high quality that the Act contemplated; and that it was only when circumstances changed; when it was seen, as it must have been seen, that a mistake had been made, they undertook to repair the mistake by enforcing the provisions of the law very stringently. In the light that they had, with the law and the regulations in their hands, matters should not have reached that point, when it would have been necessary to make such heavy deportations and such large exclusions. That is the criticism I make.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. member make due 'allowance for that stringency being the cause of emigration from European countries? The financial stringency

which was felt in this country and on this continent was also felt in England and other European countries, thus driving men out of employment there more than ordinarily. Would not that act as a predisposing cause to increased emigration of the poorer classes?


Frank Oliver: I have no explanation
that would lead me to that conclusion. On the contrary although I have heard it stated in the House several times that conditions in Great Britain were depressed as they were in this country, that, on my information, is not by any means the fact. I have recently seen in one of the leading London papers an official report stating that employment was never as brisk in Great Britain as it was during the summer of 1913; therefore, so far as the British Isles are concerned, there would be no condition that would force labour to Canada. In regard to continental Europe, certainly so far as the Balkan countries were concerned, instead of men coming from these countries as they did in former yeaTS, the men who had come in former years had gone back to fight the battles of their country, mak-. mg a very serious inroad into the actual working population of our country. My information, therefore, would not bear out the suggestion made by my hon. friend.
The Government was impressed with the idea that it was well that we should have a big immigration, and they lifted the lid; the immigration came and they had to shut the lid down. It was unfortunate that they should have had to do so. It would have been still more unfortunate if they had not done so; but the unfortunate condition was in my opinion the result of an error on their part, and I hope it will not occur again.
Is the minister able to give the House any information as to what course the Government intends to pursue in regard to the matter dealt with in the Order in Council of the 8th of December, 1913?


William James Roche: Before the -end of this
month we will take some action. The matter is under consideration, but if has not yet been definitely decided what action will be taken.	[DOT]
In Tegard to the query of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) I would direct his attention to section 45 of the Immigration Act:
Every person who does in Canada, anything for the purpose of causing or procuring the publication or circulation, by advertisement or
otherwise, in a country outside of Canada, of false representations as to the opportunities tor employment in Canada, or as to the state of the labour market in Canada, intended or adapted to encourage or induce or to deter or prevent, the immigration into. Canada of persons resident in that country, or who does anything in Canada for the purpose of causing or procuring the communication to any resident of such country of any such false representations, shall, if any such false representations are thereafter so published, circulated or communicated, be guilty of an offence against the Act, and liable, on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, to a penalty for each offence of not more than five -hundred dollars or to imprisonment for not more than six months.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman, when he asked that question, had in mind the circular read by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) this afternoon, a circular which I stated I had not previously seen. [DOT] If any such advertisement has been inserted in any newspaper in any country, it has been the practice of the department to notify that paper that it is not in accordance with our Immigration Act, and there has never been any difficulty in having the paper cut out such an advertisement. I would like to have the circular in order that we may take whatever action is necessary.


Mr. CARROLL :: I had in mind the same circular. I was referring to a copy of it, and I probably made a mistake in sending back my reply. I thought that, if the labour bureau -sent men over to Germany, Russia, Italy or any country and make no false representations, they could import labour provided the labourers when they came in had the required fifty dollars, or whatever the amount may be. As I understand the Act. they were not allowed to advertise at all.


William James Roche: No, but they were not to make false representations.


William F. Carroll: That is exactly the
answer I gave, and I wanted to know from the minister that it was correct. While I should be sorry to see immigrants brought in through false representations, yet there is a condition in that part of the country that requires their bureau to act and bring in labour. As I read the circular there was no false representation with regard to wages. As a matter of fact, in the mines of Cape Breton wages are much above those cited. Helpers in the mines get $1.80 and $2 f day. However, that is the answer I gave, though I did not find in tne Immigration Act exactly what the minister read. Still, misrepresentations have been made during

labour troubles. I brought a case to the attention of the House last year, and I am sorry to say that at that time the minister was away on account of illness. Hon. members will recall the case as that of the photo-engravers in Toronto. These men represented to me and to other members on this side of the House, and probably first to the Government, that labour was being imported under false representations for the purpose of breaking the strike. I brought to the attention of the Acting Minister of the Interior-the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) I think it was-the provision of the Immigration Act under which the department may make regulations forbidding the coming into the country during labour troubles or strikes of the kind of labour affected. I think I am within the mark when I say that during troubles between capital and labour the department should bring that regulation into effect. I am not going into the facts of the case, but these people had a real grievance against their employers and were trying to better their condition. Yet their class of labour was imported under misrepresentation, as shown by the documents I read. I would ask the minister if it is not possible for his department under the Immigration Aet to make regulations forbidding the entrance into Canada for a specified time of the particular class of labour affected by a strike.


William James Roche: We have, of course, put this regulation so far as British Columbia is concerned, under the clause the hon. gentleman refers to. We can pass an Order in Council prohibiting them for a certain time, and it was under that provision that we passed the Order in Council which expires at the last of this month.


William F. Carroll: I am glad the minister agrees with me. Last year the acting minister said it was impossible to do anything under the Act. I thought that that clause of the Act read very plainly.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the order of the 8th of December, of course it is understood that this order is passed because of the difficulties in regard to Hindu immigration. Can the minister say how many Hindus there are in British Columbia now?


William James Roche: Our figures show about 2,200.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought I saw that it was five thousand.
[*lr. Carroll.]


William James Roche: I have seen that stated in the press, and I admit that figures quoted by some British Columbia people have put the number at four or five thousand; but the last census, in 1911, I believe, showed there were about 2,200.


Frank Oliver: The minister does not care to say what action the Government proposes to take, whether they will depend upon the two amended Orders in Council or not. For my part, I believe that if it is not possible to secure the exclusion of these people by the Orders in Council already in existence before this one of December 8 was promulgated, or the amendments, it would be very much more in the interests of Canada that a regulation be passed simply excluding these people. I think this Order in Council of the 8th of December is a very unfortunate one unless it is intended to cover some point other than Hindu immigration. It covers all classes of artisans and labourers, and its effect is to exclude white men while admitting Chinese and Japanese. I think the Government was anything but well advised in passing such an order, and I think it would be much better, if they think they could not depend on the orders already in existence, simply to pass an order declaring the mind of the people of Canada, that Canada can get along better without these people than with them, and take action accordingly.
I have another little matter to bring to the attention of the minister, not of general interest but of particular interest, and I will occupy only a minute or two in dealing with it. I have not troubled the House or the Government much in regard to the dismissal of officials in my constituency, and I do not intend to' take up time with it to-night. A great deal of discussion has gone on in the House with regard to dismissals and the reasons for them. I moved for papers, and the returns have been brought down. These relate to three dismissals of officers of the Immigration Department in the constituency of Edmonton. One is the dismissal of Mr. Webster, immigration agent at Edmonton. Another the dismissal of Mr. Jacob Mohr, interpreter at the Immigration agency, and the third the dismissal of Mr. Shinbine, caretaker of the Immigration hall at Edmonton. These papers do not show that there was any suggestion of accusation of any kind against any of these men, whether for political reasons or for reasons connected with their work. I take it for granted, on the authority of these papers,

brought down by the Government, that these dismissals were made simply and solely for the purpose of finding salaried positions for friends of the Government of the day. I do not intend to take time to deal with this matter further than to say that these three instances are an exhibition of atrocious disregard of the public service of this country fox the benefit of friends of the gentlemen who are now in office.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Friday, March 13, 1914.