1917-05-25

Mr. SPEAKER:: For the information of the House, as well as of the public, I wish to announce that Right Hon. A. J. Balfour is expected to arrive in Ottawa on Sunday. That day will be observed by him as a day of rest. On Monday at.3 o'clock it is expected that he will address the Senate and the House of Commons. The members of the Senate will 'be our guests in this chamber on that occasion. Mr. Balfour will come here in procession from Government House by way of Sussex, Wellington and Metcalfe streets. As the space in this chamber is limited and as we wish to avail ourselves of it to the utmost, it is the purpose that the House shall meet at 2 o'clock on Monday, thus affording ample time for those who occupy seats on the floor and in the gallery to be seated when Mr. Balfour addresses the Parliament at 3 o'clock. It is hoped that the arrangement carried out on the occasion of the visit of M. Viviani will be carried out on the occasion of Mr. Balfour's visit, namely, that all those occupying seats on the floor of the House shall have the privilege of being presented to our visitor.



INSURANCE ACT OF 1910.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, respecting insurance.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: This Bill is introduced for the- purpose of re-enacting the Insurance Act of 1910 and of making such changes as are necessary to remove those features of the existing Act which have been declared by a recent decision of the Privy Council to be unconstitutional. There are also contained in the Bill a few amendments of a non-contentious nature, which are, however, deemed necessary for the proper administration of the Act. Most of the latter amendments were contained in a Bill introduced in the session of 1914, but not then, nor since, proceeded with.


Mr. CARVELL:: Will the minister explain the special provision referred to?


William Thomas White: By a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun-

cil in 1916 it was held that two most important sections of the Insurance Act of 1910, sections 4 and 70, were ultra vires. \v ith regard to section 4, which prohibits persons and ffompanies from'carrying on the business of insurance in Canada without first obtaining a license from the Insurance Department, the Privy Council held that that section was ultra vires, but the decision does not indicate the extent to which the section is ultra vires, and consequently the validity of the entire section is so impugned that at present the department has practically lost its authority to carry out the intention of the legislation of 1910 .respecting the licensing of British and foreign insurance companies doing business in Canada. Section 70 is the section of the Act which provides for penalties.
The matter has been most carefully considered by the Insurance Department, by the Department of Justice, and also by special counsel, and the conclusion has been reached that it is necessary-and I much regret to say it-to re-enact the entire Insurance Act of 1910, in order that- the Insurance Department may have authority over such companies transacting business in Canada. I think it will be found that the judgment of the Privy Council relates more particularly to the authority which the Act purported to confer with respect to prohibiting provincially incorporated companies from doing business in Canada outside of the province in which they were incorporated, but the decision as it stands leaves the larger question in doubt except in so far as the view of the Judicial Committee can be gathered from the judgment as a whole. It is the opinion of the Department of Justice that if we re-enact the measure as now introduced, the Dominion Government will have full authority over British and foreign companies carrying on insurance business in Canada, as was intended by the legislation of 1910. There are some other amendments to the Act, hut I believe they will be of a non-contentious nature, and some of them were embraced in an amending Bill which I introduced in the session of 1914.1 am extremely reluctant to introduce this Bill at the present session, and I do so only because I believe it is in the public interest that these doubts should be cleared up and that the Act should be re-enacted so as to give the Insurance Department the authority which Parliament intended it should have over insurance companies carrying on business in Canada. ,


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The minister has not
stated what are the changes in sections 4 and 70. How is it proposed to get over the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?


William Thomas White: I would submit that on the introduction of a Bill it is not usual to go so much into detail. I shall be very glad to do that on the second reading.


William Pugsley: The minister has not
explained the matter at all He has pointed put the difficulties but he has not stated how this Bill proposes to get over them.


William Thomas White: I thought I had so stated.


William Pugsley: You have only stated that this is a re-enactment.


William Thomas White: This Bill will give the Dominion Government, through the Insurance Department, authority to prohibit British and foreign companies from doing business in Canada except under license from the Insurance Department. That was the intention of the legislation of 1910, and the Act has been acted on in that sense since it was passed by Parliament; but the effect of the decision of the Privy Council is, as I have stated, to impugn the validity of section 4 which applies not only to Canadian incorporated insurance companies but to British and foreign insurance companies, and this legislation is to clear up the doubt and to re-establish the authority of the Insurance Department, that is to say, of the Dominion Government over such companies as we believe we can constitutionally take power to control under this new, enactment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
165th REGIMENT.
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John City): I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to an article in the St. John Standard relating to a portion of the 165th Regiment. It appears that a certain number of the men of that regiment who were not deemed qualified to go overseas when the regiment went some time ago, were appointed to special duties at St. John, and were quartered in the Immigration Building. The account of their condition as given by this newspaper certainly demands the attention of the Minister of Militia. It
is said they have not received any pay since March last, that they have not been'supplied with underclothing, and their condition is such as actually to excite pity. A reporter of the Standard visited their quarters, and on the account in the newspaper reveals an extraordinary condition of affairs. I would ask the Minister of Militia and Defence to give this matter His immediate attention.
Sir EDWARD KEMP:: My attention has not previously been called to the matter to which my hon. friend refers. I should be glad if my hon. friend would send me a copy of the newspaper.


William Pugsley: I did not bring it with me because I did not want to spread the whole matter on Hansard. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries must have read the report.


Mr. HAZEN:: I think the account appeared in the St. John Standard of Tuesday, and the paper I received yesterday said that the Militia authorities were dealing with the matter. I would suppose that their attention had 'been called to the article in the Standard on Tuesday.



WESTERN COAL MINING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. W. F. KNOWLES (Moo'sejaw):: Can the Minister of Labour give us any further information as to the trouble in connection with the mines in western Canada? On Monday last he said that he expected work would be resumed at all the mines within forty-eight hours.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: Last Wednesday night on the
motion of Sir Thomas White for the adjournment of the House, the hon. member of Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) when he would have been entirely out of order except for the unanimous consent of the House, read a telegram for the purpose of showing that the statement I made on Monday, and to which my hon. friend of Mpose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) has referred just now, was not well-founded.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not referring to
that. I was not present, and I do not know anything about it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: On Sunday I received information direct that the gentleman whpse name appears on the telegram that was read by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat on Wednesday night


William Erskine Knowles: I rise to a point of order. I submit, Sir, that in answering a question the minister should confine himself to the answer and not enter intp an argument against an hon. member who is not present.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I Tegret to say that I
did not hear the remarks of the hon. member.


William Erskine Knowles: You are greatly the
loser, Sir.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am unable to answer my hon. friend's question without referring to what was said last Wednesday night. I was stating that on Sunday I received information that the gentleman whose name appeared oh that telegram had been instructed to have the men return to work immediately, and it was upon the strength of that information that I said on Monday that I expected the men would resume w.ork within forty-eight hours. The information I had received entirely warranted my making that statement, notwithstanding any telegrams that may have been received by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat or anybody else. My hon. friend desires to know if anything further has been done. We are in constant communication with the parties directly interested. We are as anxious to get the men back to work as any hon. gentleman can be, but I do not think it would be in the public interest to go into the details of what is being done. I said on Monday that I expected the men would be at work again within forty-eight hours. I can now only hope that they will be at work within the next forty-eight hours, and I am not so optimistic as I was on Monday because the instructions given to this man have not been carried out up to the present, but I hope they will be.


William Erskine Knowles: Is it true that the Minister of Public Works has gone to the West in connection with this matter?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Minister of Public Works was in the city to-day. 'I am not aware that he is going West or has any intention of doing so.



CANCELLATION OF A MAIL CONTRACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. E. FORTIER (Lotbiniere) translation) : Mr. Speaker, as the acting Postmaster General is now in his seat, I should like to know why the Post Office Department did not conform to the Order of the House

and to the request made by me, a few days ago, for the bringing down of the papers and documents in connection with the 'cancellation of the mail contract awarded to Mr. Hippolite Lambert, of St. Antoine de Tilly, in the county of Lotbiniere. I wish to be Informed when the Minister will make up his mind to bring down those papers and documents.
Hon. Mr. PATENAUDE (translation):: Those papers will be brought down within two or three days.



EMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIANS OF MILITARY AGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: I see ijx the press the announcement of new regulations concerning emigration from Canada to the United States of men of military lage. It appears that by these regulations, which have already gone into effect, a man will have to have in his possession a certificate signed by a Canadian immigration inspector before he can cross the boundary. I have received quite a number of requests asking for the name and address of the immigration inspector in the city of Montreal who is competent to issue these certificates. I have not been able to supply the information. I think it would be well if the Minister of the Interior would supply the press with a list of the names and addresses of the immigration inspectors in. the larger cities of Canada who are competent to issue these certificates. This would be of great service to the travelling public.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE:: Any one of military age can-secure these certificates from the immigration inspectors. The Dominion Government immigration inspector at Montreal is Mr. Regimbal, 172 St. Antoine street.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: These regulations are made by virtue of an Order in Council?


William James Roche: Yes. It will be laid on the Table.



DR. BRUCE'S REPORT.

Mr. MACDONALD:: On Tuesday last, the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) stated that he desired to read the report of Dr. Bruce before laying it on the Table. J presume that he has read it by this time, and I would like very much if he would bring it down.


Albert Edward Kemp: I confess to my hon. friend that I have not had an opportunity to read the report, and therefore it is not yet ready to be brought down.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On reflection, my recollection is that my hon. friend said that as soon as he had time to have it copied the report would be brought down. Has it been copied yet?


Albert Edward Kemp: I think J added to that that I required to read it over and see whether it was actually an answer to the Babtie report to which the hon. gentleman had referred. I have not yet had time to read it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not quite understand my hon. friend. The report to which I refer ig the report of Dr. Bruce in reply to the Babtie report. It does not require my hon. friend to read it to know whether it is a reply or not, it is stated to be a reply, I understand. Will not he tell us when he will bring it down? He may never read it, and never have it copied.
Sir EDWARD KEMP [DOT] I hope to give my hon. friend a definite reply not later than Monday.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
The consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Supply, and the amendment oif Mr. Oliver thereto, was resumed from Wednesday, May 23.
William Thomas White: With the consent of the House, I desire to speak a word of explanation. An understanding has been reached with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). We will proceed with the debate, as there are two members who desire to speak on the amendment this afternoon, and then we will go into Supply, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) withdrawing his amendment on the understanding that he will move it again on Tuesday on going into Supply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the course suggested by the hon. member is the solution of the difficulty. The amendment has to be disposed of before we can go into Supply.


William Pugsley: I think that, under the rule, on Friday the House goes into Supply without motion put.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the order for Committee of Ways and
Means has been called by the Clerk, in order to give my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) an opportunity to withdraw his amendment?


Mr. OLIVER:: No, Supply has been called.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do you withdraw the amendment now?


Frank Oliver: No, not now.


Wilfrid Laurier: Later on?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: All right.
Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats) resuming) : When the debate was adjourned on Wednesday night I was quoting some figures relating to the area under crop in the several western provinces from the year 1911 to the year 1916, inclusive. So far as Manitoba is concerned, these figures showed a decrease in the area under crop of 788,933 acres. The value of the crops have increased only to the extent of $390,000, which would not pay for the advanced cost of labour and equipment. These figures go to show that there is something wrong, and we believe that this amendment, if put into effect, would, to a large extent, bring about an improvement. Now, I pass to Saskatchewan. These figures enable us to compare the acreage in 1911 with those of the succeeding years down to and including 1916. For convenience, the comparison between 1911 and 1916 is shown in summaries. But, as 1916 was a year of war, when conditions were abnormal, I make a comparison also between the two normal years of 1911 and 1914.	*


SASKATCHEWAN.
[Stage Direction]
Wheat. 1911. ..	Acres.	1911	Acres. .5,253 83 61912...	1916	.7,352,0001913..	. 1914..	. 1915..	.	...5,716,000 . . .5,344,000 . . .8,425,600	Increase., 1911	
1914	.2,(098,164 . 5.253.S36 .5,344,0001916...	. . .7,352,000	Increase.	. 90.164Oats. 1911. .. 1912...	Acres. . . .2,332,912 . . .2,556,000	1911	
1916	Acres. .2,332,912 .3,180,6001913..	. 1914..	. 1915..	.	. . .2,755,000 . . .2,5.20,000 . . .3,20-0,400	Increase. 1911	
1914	. 847,688 .2,33-2,912 .2,520,0001916...	. . .3,180,600	Increase.	. 187,088Barley. 1911. .. 1912...	Acres. . .. 273,988 . .. 292,000	1911	
1916	Acres. . 273,988 . 344,0001913..	. 1914..	. 1915..	. 1916..	.	... 332,000 . . . 290,000 . .. 2t85,000 ... 344,000	Increase. 1911	
1914	
Increase.	. 60,012 . 273,988 . 290,000 . 16.012
Increases 1911-1914. Acres.
Total	increase wheat			... 90.164
Total	increase oats . .			
Total	increase barley.			
Total		increases . . .		
		Increases 1911-1916.		
Total	increase wheat.	. .2,098,164Total	increase oats..	. .1,847,688Total	increase barley	. . 60,012Total	increases . . .	. .4,005,864Total	decrease flax. .	. . 184,300Total	net	increase all	grains. ..	Value	of	crops, 1915.	$197,219,000	Value	of	crops, 1916.	
158,291,000	Decrease 	$	38,928,000ALBERTA.	Wheat.	Acres.	Acres.1911.	1916	. .2,109,0001912.	1911	. .1,639,9741913.	1914.	.1,371,100	Increase.	. 469,0261915..	1911	. .1,639,9741916.	1914	Decrease	. . 268,874Oats.	Acres.	Acres.1911..	.1,221,217	1916	. .1,746,5001912.	.1,461,000	1911	. .1,221,2171913..	.1,639,000	1914.,	.1,502,000	Increase.	. . 525,2831915.,	.1,822,400	1911	. .1,221,2171916..	.1,746,500	1914	. .1,502,000Increase.	. 280,783Barley.	Acres.	Acres.1911..	. 164,132	1916	. . 281,4001912.,	. 187,000	1911	. . 164,1321913. .	. 197,000	1914..	. 178,000	Increase,	. . 117,2681915. .	. 305,800	1911	. . 164,1321916.,	. 281,400	1914	. . 178,000Increase.	. 13,868Flax.	Acres.1916	i9ii .	. . 107A71Decrease.	, . 26,171 Acres.Total wheat	. . 469,026Total	oats 	. . 525,283Total	barley 	, . 117,268Increase	. .1,111,577. . 26,171Total	increase 	. .1.085.406
The total increase from 1911 to 1914 inclusive, is 563,525 acres. Increased acreage in the year 1915 ia, I 'believe, to be accounted for very largely by the response of the farmers of the Northwest to the appeal for a greater production of food. In 1915 there was a larger crop all_ over the provinces, when wheat prices were low. In 1916 there was a big price, but the wheat was a failure in Manitoba because it was attacked by black rust, and a like condition prevailed in a large part of Saskatchewan. It was only in parts of that province that they had 
a fair crop. In Southern Alberta they were fortunate in having a very large crop and they enjoyed the benefit of greatly increased prices. These were practically the same people who about two years previously had to receive relief from this Parliament to the extent of a loan of nearly $13,000,000 because of the total failure of their crop, as a result of which they had nothing to eat. A great deal of this money was advanced for the purchase of provisions, but these people had the courage to remain there and give the country another trial, and they have received their reward. They have had two good crops since that time, and while they received a low price in 1915, they enjoyed a large price in 1916. But I would like to point out to the; House that the total average price received by the . farmers is not as great as it is believed to be by seme people. The average includes the product of the farm of Mr. Noble, who has been quoted so often as having a thousand acres in wheat producing 54 bushels to the acre and selling at $1.87 a bushel. As *I shall show later, the average price of wheat for the whole province, including that realized by Mr. Noble, is nothing like that figure.
The effect of the adoption of the amendment proposed in conjunction with a plah that I have for land settlement, and which I hope to submit to the House at the earliest opportunity, would, I believe, very much increase the population by offering greater inducements to people to settle on the land and would increase production to a large extent. But, there is one matter that I wish to speak about. We are often told that we should not complain when "we are getting $3 a bushel for our wheat, and that we hardly know what to do with our money in the West. But, I want to show that the farmers are not receiving $3 for >vheat or anything like that. In my own case, in 1915, I had a pretty large crop. I sold my oats for 26, 28 and 31 cents iby the carload. I kept my wheat over until last year, and I was very glad to get $1.23 a bushel for it. It was good wheat, too. I did not receive $3. I do not want $3 a bushel for my wheat, if it is going to force the consumer to pay $7 or $8 a bag for his flour. This great difference between the price that the farmer receives for his wheat and the price of flour is occasioned by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the farmer. I have a few comparative figures on this subject. From the Fort William price of Saskatchewan grain we have to deduct 11 cents for wheat,

7 cents for oats and 9 cents for barley, taking my own shipping point for example and the chargee are much more for points farther west.
Mr. NESBITT:: What is the deduction
for-freight?


Mr. MACNUTT:: We pay 16 cents per hundredweight, freight, one cent per bushel for handling charges and commission. If we hold the grain over it is a cent a month for elevator charges. We averaged from 1910 to 1914, including same, 74 cents a bushel for wheat. 54 cents was the lowest and 69 was the highest outside of 1914, but in 1914 the price was $1.48. That price was occasioned by the light crop we had in the West. Including that $1.48, the average for those years was 74 cents a bushel. In 1915 it was 81 cents a bushel. That was the year of the big, high-grade crop of grain. In 1916 the price was $1.28 a bushel due to the poor yield and low grade resulting from an attack of black rust. Prices were good though, even for poor wheat. But the yields were so very small except in spots, with the exception of southern Alberta, that the farmers did not get anything like what they were Supposed to have got, and they are certainly not responsible for the increase in the price of flour to the consumer.
Oats averaged at Fort William from 1910 to 1914, 29 cents a bushel; in 1915, 28 cents a bushel, in 1916, 46 cents a bushel. Had it not been for our oat crop in Saskatchewan a good many of us would have been pretty nearly on the rocks, so far as farming is concerned.
Barley averaged, from 1910 to 1914, 38 cents a bushel; in 1915, 43 cents a bushel; in 1916, 77 cents a bushel.
Flax averaged, from 1910 to 1914, $1.09 a bushel; in 1915, $1.50 a bushel; in 1916, $2.23 a bushel. [DOT]
I am not complaining, but I want to show that there is no reason for the statement that the farmers are receiving abnormal prices for their wheat, that everything is going well and that they should not make any complaint but should be satisfied with what they are getting. I am not advancing these arguments for the sake of individual farmers, but because I believe that some changes along these lines should be made. We have the country, we have the land, and what we must do is to have the right kind of people go on the land and stay with the country. They will not do that unless it is profitable to do so. However, if this change were made it would mean that sufficient revenue could
not be collected through the custom house. The people of this country must pay the cost of running the country. The cost of running the country does not come from any other people except of Canada. They have got to pay it in any case. It "is merely a question of the method. I think that the method could be improved, that the country would go forward under a different sys- . tern, that the people would not feel the burden of taxation to the same extent as it would be equally distributed; and immigrants would no.t be deterred from coming to the country on account of that burden.
A great many of the articles that now come into this country do not yield very much revenue to the Government. They yield an enormous, revenue, however, to the manufacturers. The question is, is the country to continue paying tribute to the manufacturers? I do not think the people can afford to do both, not only pay the taxes necessary to run the country and defray the expenses of the war but also enrich the manufacturers and put them into the bulky millionaire class. We know something of their position, and we have a right to draw the conclusion that many of them, particularly the makers of agricultural implements, could do without the enormous protection which they enjoy. They are selling, and under-selling their rivals, in foreign markets. Surely if they can under-sell their competitors in foreign countries they can do so in this country!
I have already said that there is one feature of this resolution that I should like to have altered, and no doubt if it were adopted it would be altered; that is that there should be a provision that the manufacturers should get their raw material free if they were required to lose their protection on the finished articles. The best alternative would be direct taxation in some form or other. Under the customs system, the duty is paid by the consumer. If the importer, in the first place, pays the duty on a foreign-made article, he passes that charge on to the wholesaler and he to the retailer; the retailer passes it on to his customer, and it is ultimately paid across the counter. Many of the people hardly know that they are being taxed. At the same time they are taxed very heavily. If the goods are not made across the line or in some other foreign country, the wholesaler pays the tribute to the manufacturer and it is eventually passed on, in the same way, to the consumer. Therefore, the consumer is paying not only the taxes to keep up the Government institutions and bear the bur-

dens that we all expect to bear but also immense sums in tribute to the local manufacturers.
I have been accused of being the first member to propose direct taxation in this House, in connection with the Budget speech two years ago when the Minister of Finance introduced his so-called war tax of 7i per cent. Whether that is so or not, I certainly believe it is the proper and only fair method of collecting taxes to run this country. It is the principle that is followed by financial institutions and is the business method; and I do not see why the whole country of Canada cannot be administered along common sense lines. If the population increases, as I believe it will if proper inducements are held out to them, we would not only have more people but a more prosperous people to bear all these burdens; and there is no doubt that they would bear them willingly and without complaint as long as they knew they were only paying their share.
Referring to the income tax, I have heard it suggested that men receiving under $4,000 should be exempted from income tax. I think that any man who is earning any money at all, whether he is earning $2,000 or $4,000, is paying a heavy tax under present conditions. I do not see why any man should be exempted from income tax; he is a citizen of the country, no matter what his income may be. But the tax should be proportionate. Under such a system as I propose, every man would be relieved of a great many burdens, and probably a dollar earned under this system would be equal to one dollar and twenty-five cents with our present system of protective duties, and a man could then well afford to pay, say, five cents or so directly out of each dollar of his income towards keeping up the institutions of the country. As a citizen I think every man has a duty to do so, unless you come down to the very poor who are practically, to some extent, subsisting on charity. Under present conditions, every man who buys anything to-day is paying either a tax to the Government indirectly or a tribute to the manufacturer, and if he is relieved of these imposts he can well afford to pay a small portion of his income towards keeping up the institutions of the country. I feel that this is a very important matter indeed. I am not talking simply because I happen to be a farmer from the West, but I am looking at it from the standpoint of the necessities of the country and the welfare of the whole empire. I believe that, notwith-
[ Mr. MacNutt.]
standing the arguments advanced against it which we have heard before, although they have not impressed me as being very good arguments, the best and proper method of obtaining funds from the people of Canada to keep up our public institutions, pay off our public debts, and so on, and to develop the country, would be to levy direct taxes of some kind that would be proportionate according to the ability of each citizen to pay. Feeling this way, I have no hesitation in saying that I will support this amendment.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humiboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact thjt a discussion on the tariff is, perhaps, not as interesting as other discussions which the House will listen to in the near future, but I have no apology to make for taking up a few moments of the time of the House in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Some of the domestic problems which press upon our attention are, perhaps, as important as the furnishing of additional troops for service at the front. This great war has added new and very heavy responsibilities to Parliament and to this country, particularly by reason pf the enormous debt that has been created and that will be created before and after the conclusion of the war. These responsibilities must be bravely met and squarely faced by the people, .and it is not with any desire to make a special plea for the lightening of the lawful burdens of any section pf the people that I give my support to an amendment which calls for a reduction of duties along certain lines. But Canada's present and future responsibilities must be met in a fair and equitable way; the burden of taxation should not press unduly upon any particular class pf our population. The basic industries of Canada-mining, the development of our forests and fisheries, and so on-will have to produce the wealth necessary to meet the enormous obligations resting upon this country now and *which will rest upon it in the future. Only by the development of her basic industries will Canada be able properly to bear the burden of meeting these obligations. I shall confine my remarks more particularly to the one great industry of Canada, agriculture.
In normal times agriculture is regarded as an occupation not as attractive as many others. Even in times of peace, one of the great difficulties of this country, which is so admirably suited to agriculture, is to get our young men to stay on the farm rather

than go to the crowded town or city. That condition will be accentuated after the war is over. The soldier who 'has become accustomed to community life in his experience overseas will not be easily induced to go upon the land. 'The only remedy for this condition is to make farm life so attractive that not only the people at home, but many of our soldiers after their return from overseas, may be induced to go upon the land and thus increase the production of natural wealth which is so necessary to enable us to meet our responsibilities.
Two or three things are essential to make farm life attractive. I may be uttering platitudes when I speak about these things, but it is necessary that they be
4 p.m. emphasized again and again.
First, if we wish to make agri-. culture an attractive occupation for the young men of our country, both those at home and those now overseas, we must make it profitable. That, after all, is the one great thing. In nprmal times the acquiring of great wealth on the farm is the rare exception. The farmer who succeeds in meeting the ordinary obligations of life and in giving his family an education and a fair start in life is counted as a very successful man, from the standpoint of the agriculturist. These suggestions are not made with a view to having the farmer become a member of the millionaire class. Speaking more particularly for the newer parts of Canada, I can say that the average farmer finds his hands full in endeavouring to make both ends meet-and in a great many cases he is unable to do even that.
If farming is to be made more profitable than it is at present there are two or three things that must be done. In the first place, it is the duty of this Government and of this Parliament to see that the cost of production is made as low as possible. The second section of the amendment deals with that when it says:-
2. That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining-, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
jMo one can fairly say that it is just that the farmers, in the matter of the cost of production, should be placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the farmers of the great republic to the south. We know perfectly well, however, that they are placed at such a disadvantage in that they have to pay very much higher prices for the tools, so to speak, of their trade, and that is the
direct result of the tariff imposed upon farm machinery coming into this country. The farmer of any part of Canada, when he advocates that farm machinery be placed upon the free list, does not thereby exclude himself from the list of the taxpayers of this country, because the farmer wears clothing, boots and shoes; he buys furniture for his house and harness for his horses, and on all of those things he must pay a tax, because, whether they are manufactured in Canada or in other countries, the tariff increases the cost to -the purchaser. Therefore, like the rest o.f us, the farmer, even if farm machinery be put on the free list, will continue to contribute his fair share towards the maintenance of the revenues of the country. But when you come to tax the tools of the farmer's trade, that is to say, to put a heavy tax on farm machinery, then you are doing an injury, not to the farmer alone, but to the whole country, in that you are discouraging men from engaging in an occupation which we all believe to be, after all, the foundation of the future greatness and wealth of this country of ours.
We must cheapen the cost of production; we must also furnish the farmer with wider markets for the products of his farm, and in this connection I must express my very great pleasure at the action that has been taken by the Government in placing wheat and wheat flour on the free list. That has been done as a war measure, it is true, but nevertheless we believe the measure will be a permanent one, because I am sure that once the farmers of the country have enjoyed the benefits of wider markets, they will never willingly give them up, and there will be a very strong protest if any attempt is made in the future by any political party to take away this privilege. It is questionable how much direct benefit will accrue in the near future to the farmers of the country from that action, but even at the present time I am sure that the western farmer who had last year a very considerable quantity of the lower grades of wheat in his granary or in the elevators awaiting sale, will find that he has derived very great benefit The permanency of this measure is one upon which I would very much like to insist. Wheat and wheat flour have been, as I have said, put upon the free list by Order in Council as a war measure, and I am happy to say that so far no great harm has resulted to other industries in this country from the Government's action in this respect. It is true there was a little flurry amongst the millers who made some slight protest to the Government in con-

nection with'its action in this matter, but I am sure there is no question in the mind of any member in this House that any real or lasting injury has been done to the milling industry of this country by the placing of wheat and wheat flour on the free list. In any case, it is surely true that the man who grows the wheat should be the man fited by having free markets for wheat or kind, and it is the most idle thing to argue in this House the question as to whether or not the western farmer would be bene-fitted by having free markets for wheat or wheat products, when the western farmer himself is fully convinced that he would so 'benefit. Surely he is the best judge, and surely if he says that he fears no competition from the wheat producers of any other country and that all he requires is reciprocity in the matter of the products of his farm, his judgment, as a man watching the markets of the world and knowing the value of his product, should take precedence over that of any other person, and his decision in the matter should be final so far as this Government, this Parliament' and this country is concerned.
Another reaeon why I am glad to see the action taken by this Government in this matter is that, in my judgment, the placing of wheat and wheat flour on the free list is going to assist very materially in removing that situation that has in times past arisen not once but many times so far as the transportation of our farm products is concerned; that is to say, if the farmer is to get the best result from his toil, he must be able to market his product at the time most suitable to his own convenience. In the past that has not been the case; the farmer has had to suit hie convenience to that of the transportation companies. We have a congested condition of traffic that means that the farmer who is ready to market his crop in a slack season of the year is not able to do so and has to wait sometimes for weeks and even months by reason of that transportation congestion. Now that wheat and wheat flour have been placed on the free list, that condition will be enormously relieved, in that, if the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, the Government interior elevators and the private elevators elsewhere throughout the country are congested,
I trust that we shall never again see that anomaly of our freight cars, not a few but hundreds and hundreds of them, that have brought settlers and their effects-into western Canada during the early months of the

year, going back to the United States without a single pound of freight. That has happened time and again in this country, and it was most aggravating to the farmers whcr were crying out for transportation facilities to see empty cars going across the International boundary simply because of the tariff on farm products. But fortunately, the congestion can never become so acute in the future by reason of the placing of wheat and wheat flour on the free list. The storage facilities of the great milling interests to the south will be available, and our railways running from western Canada into the United States will he able to relieve the congestion that hitherto has prevented our farmers from marketing their grain at the proper time.
The farmer is not averse to paying his fair share of the revenue of this country, but we all know very well that a protective tariff is not an equitable way of obtaining revenue. Something may be said perhaps in favour of .a tariff based on revenue necessities, but no just argument can be made in favour of a protective tariff, because under a protective tariff a large part of the extra taxation that is borne by the people does not go into the treasury, but into the pockets of the interests receiving that protection. It will, however, he the policy of this country probably for many years to come to maintain a tariff for revenue purposes; probably we cannot get away from that. But a tariff for revenue, as I understand it, means the difference between the cost of production on the south of the line as compared with the cost of production of the same article on this side of the line. . When you go beyond that, you are protecting an interest; it is not the public or the treasury that gets the benefit, but simply and solely the protected interests.
Clause 3 otf the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton, which seeks to have staple foods and food products, etc., come into Canada free of duty, touches a question that is vital to the hearts and minds of the people of this country at the present time. Coming back to this country only a few months ago from overseas, where the people are supposed to be on the brink of a food shortage, and where prices are considered extraordinarily high, it was a very great shock to me to find how high the prices of food products had gone in this country, which is supposed to he a country of production above anything else. It is a marvel how many thousands of people in this country are able to exist to-day in view of the prices they have to pay for every single

article of food that goes on their table. If a wounded soldier returns to Canada, and is classed as 100 per cent incapacitated, he gets a pension of $480 a year. He is unfit to earn a living, and is supposed to keep himself and his family on that $480. Just think of the prices he has to pay right here in the city of Ottawa for everything he puts on his table: 50 cents a pound for butter, 50 cents a dozen for eggs, $4 to $4.50 a bag for potatoes, and so on. In view of these prices, does any one think that a returned soldier, out of business so far as earning his own livelihood is concerned, can live actually live on $480 a year? What is the reason for these high prices? Are prices high because there are no eggs or potatoes in this country? Are we paying 50 cents a pound for butter because no butter is to he found in this Canada of ours? Is the extraordinarily high price of meat due to a scarcity of domestic animals in this country? I have not had occasion to visit any of the cold storage plants in this country, but I imagine if one were to make a tour of inspection of them he would soon discover that there was no very great shortage of the food that the people require for their table. The fact is-I think we all know it; it is a conviction in the minds of the people, at any rate-that the men who deal in food products in this country are storing up food products, using the war as an excuse for so doing, in order that they may charge high and yet higher prices. Somebody may say: You advocated high prices for wheat, you want the farmer to get a good price, yet you complain about the high price of flour. Yes, there might be some contradiction there, if there were any equitable ratio between the increased price of flour and the increased price of wheat, but we know perfectly well that there is not. We know that if wheat is selling on the exchange at $3 a bushel, that is by no means the price the farmer gets for it; it i3 not the price the millers of Canada paid for the millions of 'bushels they now have in storage in their elevators throughout this country. But immediately the price of wheat jumps on the exchange up goes the price of flour, although the miller who is boosting the price of flour has in his possession at that very time wheat that cost him, not $3 a bushel, but perhaps not more than half that amount. If the price of wheat on the exchange were to drop from $3 to $2 to-morrow we know perfectly well there would be no such corresponding drop in the price of flour. '	.
It has never been so; it is not so now. Something has to be done to meet the situaiio	i w


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
tion. We believe that when this war is over conditions in this regard may possibly be very much worse than they are to-day. We have our favoured class of workers, those in the munition factories. These people are getting high prices for their-labour and consequently are able to bear the present high cost of living. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what about the soldier's dependents? We know what the pay of the ordinary soldier is-it is $1.10 a day. If he assigns half his pay, that much goes to his family, and they also get $20 a month of separation allowance from the Government and then a -much smaller contribution from the Patriotic Fund. But add all these together, and consider xhe case of a soldier's wife with several children living in this city, or in Montreal, or in Toronto, or in Winnipeg. Ask yourself how are our soldiers' families actually living, or existing, in view of what they have pay for rent, for clothing, for food, and for everything else.
It is to be presumed that, unless something very radical is done, the cost of living will not be lower than at present, and may be greatly increased. But, immediately the war is over, there is going to be a great re-adjustment of industrial conditions. Munition factories will be closed, and their highly-paid workers will have to seek other employment. Wages are going to drop more to the normal level of the times before the war, but the cost of living will remain high for some time to come. Is ' not this a vital question, to be considered right now by the Government, and the Parliament, and the people of this country? I say quite frankly that I have very little faith in legislation or legislators as a means of breaking up these food combines that, we believe, now exist. There is only one way in which they can be broken up, and that is by competition, by allowing food products, as the amendment says, to come into Oanada free of duty. .
Mr. WEIGHT:: The hon. member has
dwelt especially on the prices of flour. He also says that to allow the free entry of goods will reduce the prices of those goods. Flour is now on the free list, yet the hon. gentleman complains of the high prices. How does he propose to deal with this particular evil?


David Bradley Neely: It is only a few weeks since flour was put on the free list, and so there has not been much time for results. It
EDITION	*

must be remembered also that since this change was made the United States of America have gone into the war, and similar conditions prevail over there to those that prevail here with regard to the price of flour. But I am speaking not only of war time but of the time to come when we shall tend again towards normal conditions. Placing wheat flour on the free list will, in my opinion, have great effect in reducing the price. For my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) knows very well that the people of Canada in pre-war times paid more for their flour than did the people of the adjoining states of the Republic.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I do not know that.


David Bradley Neely: I am satisfied I am correct in that assertion. But wheat flour is not the only item. How about eggs, butter, meat and other products? We have other countries to draw upon for these things, which countries, at present, like ourselves, are engaged in war; but I confidently assert that the free exchange of food products between Canada and these other countries as indicated in the amendment, will have the effect of breaking up food combines in this country.
But, even assuming that I do not offer the right remedy, yet we must admit that we are face to face with a condition that must be dealt with. We are not going to pension our returned soldier at $480 a year and expect him to pay present prices for all that he has to buy. If the Government by legislation can effect a remedy, it is time the Government were taking the necessary steps to that end. For, as we see it, conditions are not improving, but are rapidly growing worse in this regard.
I support the last clause of this amendment also, but in a less whole-hearted way than I support the clauses which precede it. This last clause deals with the British preference, and the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton is that this preference shall be increased to fifty per cent of the tariff. This principle of preference to imports from Great Britain is one which this House adopted years ago, but the fixing of the rate at the definite figure of fifty per cent is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. I presume, however, that if we are to deal with the subject at all, some figure must be agreed upon. Perhaps this is a subject that might very well be considered to greater advantage in the days to come, when the trade relations between the dif-
	,
ferent parts of the Empire will undoubtedly form one of the great questions to be considered by the statesmen of Canada, the other self-governing dominions and the Mother Country. So far as this particular part of the amendment is concerned, while I give my support to it, I do it with that idea in mind-that, if the principle is to be maintained, perhaps this particular percentage is not too great a preference to give to goods coming into Canada from Great Britain.
In conceding my remarks, I febl that every one in this House is seized of the important problems that present themselves for our consideration at the present time and the very great responsibility that rests upon the Government of this country. Government, in ordinary times, is not the easiest thing in a democratic country where free discussion is the order of the day. Anything I have said to-day has not been in the spirit of adverse criticism of the Government but simply to call attention to certain conditions that actually exist and to urge upon the Government and Parliament the necessity of taking action in dealing with the same. I know that the farmer of western Canada does not get very much sympathy these days because of the comparatively high price that he is getting for his products. But, Sir, I have seen the same farmer in the lean years gone by when he should have had a good deal more consideration than he actually got from this Government and this Parliament. It i3 in view, not merely of present conditions, that I support this amendment, but the conditions to be provided for, of the conditions of the future. The Government are proposing some new legislation to deal with the question of the returned soldier and to provide for placing him on our western Canadian .land; I presume that is where they intend to put him because they have not any land anywhere else and they are going to take ours in the western provinces. Under the very best of conditions and circumstances, they will find great difficulty in carrying out this project. Under the very best of conditions, as they have been in the past, we have found it very difficult. We have had to spend great sums of money to get people from other countries to come and settle on our splendid agricultural land. We have had to give a free bonus of 160 acres of the finest agricultural land lying out of doors anywhere. These conditions are rapidly passing away. We have not the free homesteads in the same abundance that we had

in former days. The best of them have been taken up. You cannot go to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, and find first class homesteads nearer than 10 to 15 miles of the railway. You have to go beyond that if you want to secure Government * land for future homestead settlement. These are the conditions that you are face to face with. I will venture .to prophesy, and I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, that the Government land settlement scheme for soldiers will absolutely fail unless the Government undertake to make farming conditions a great deal more attractive in our western provinces than they are at the present time. We hope to attract an increased population to Canada after the war for the purpose of settling on our agricultural lands in the West and for the purpose of increasing agricultural production so that we may be in a position to meet our enormous war bills. But, I venture to say that we will have an insurmountable, an impossible, task on our hands if we hope to secure that immigration or settlement and allow tariff and transportation conditions to remain as they are at' the present time in this country. For that reason, and in order that the agricultural and other natural resources may be developed, in order that our returned soldiers may be induced to go on the farms, in order that a first class immigration may be attracted to this country and in order that Canada's future may be assured, I am here to-day to support, and I am prepared to vote for, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: In accordance with an arrangement with the leader of the House, I beg to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that it will be moved again in due course on Tuesday.	f


William Thomas White: ' The understanding is that on Tuesday the hon. gentleman (M,r. Oliver) may restore the motion which is now withdrawn so that this debate will be in precisely the same position as it is now.



IN COMMITTEE OE SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Amendment (Mr. Oliver) withdrawn and House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
['Most of the afternoon, I presume, will be taken up by Mr. Balfour, and after that we will go on with Estimates or business of that kind.']
Mr. MARCIL:: Before- an item is called, perhaps the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) would allow me to ask him if he has had any report with respect to a difficulty on the Caughnawaga reserve near
110J
Montreal. I saw in the Montreal papers a couple of days ago that some difficulty had arisen there in regard to the exchange of a piece of land for a school building. Has the minister any information with regard to that?


William James Roche: The only information I have is that which I obtained from an article appearing in La Patrie to-day. The information was only placed before me at noon and I sent it down to the department to get a report. I have heard that there was a disturbance on the part of certain of the Indians who objected to this land being utilized for the purposes of building a school. I gave instructions that, if it was believed there was anything in this article, to have an officer sent down to inquire.


Charles Marcil: I conclude that it is not very serious because otherwise the department would have heard of it.


William James Roche: No, we did not have anything brought to our attention.
Department of the Interior-Scientific institutions-Astronomical surveys-Investigations and demarcations, etc., including expenses of Dominion Astronomical Observatory at Ottawa and branch at Saanich Hill, B.C., and $1,000 to J. J. McArthur, as International Boundary Commissioner, $197,500.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation in regard to international boundary surveys now?


William James Roche: The international boundary surveys are drawing to a close. There is yet some work to be done on the Ontario-Minnesota boundary, according to article V of the treaty. The field work undertaken by the British Commission on this section of the line was finished during the past season. It has been decided, however, to improve the triangulation across the lake of the Woods. This will be undertaken by the United States Commissioner, and the Canadian Commissioner will co-operate to the extent of furnishing a motor boat and three men.
Then there 'is the Quebec and Vermont State line. Though the actual demarcation was completed in 1907, it was found necessary and agreed to, between the former Commissioners, "that a controlling triangulation should be executed along the 45th parallel from Hall's stream to the St. Lawrence river, and that the country along the portion of the boundary of New York state should be mapped." This item is to pay the expenses of a survey party to be employed in the execution of such a controlling triangulation, from Hall's stream to the Richelieu river, a distance of 80 miles.

Then there is the Quebec-Maine boundary -under article III of the treaty oif 1908. This article provides for the re-survey of the boundary from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence river. This section has all been completed with the exception of a comparatively small portion of so-called high lands boundary along the eastern side oif the townships of Beauce and Frontenac.
Then there is the St. John and St. Croix rivers survey under articles III and II, for recovering, replacing and tying in of the original boundary reference marks of 1843-5 along the St. John river, and also to assist in executing certain topograph mapping, monumenting and triangulation along the St. Croix river from its source to Baring, Maine. This work along the New Bruns-wick-Maine boundary is to be undertaken by the United States Commissioner, and the Canadian Commissioner proposes sending a representative, with one man, to cooperate.


Mr. TURRIFF:: As these surveys are
made, are they definite and final? We nave been paying hundreds and thousands of dollars every year for these boundary surveys, and we never seem to be coming to an end. Would a survey made five years ago on any part of that line Ibe definite, or do we have to keep going over it every year and voting these hundreds of thousands of dollars for these surveys?


William James Roche: No, this is the last and
final 'Survey. I think there is altogether about ninety-eight miles to complete, and that will wind up the survey part.
Government of the Northwest Territories- Salary of Mr. Fred. White as Commissioner, $1,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: I was under the impression that Mr. Fred. White was superannuated.


William James Roche: He has been superannuated from his former position in the Northwest Mounted Police, but he has been retained 'as governor of the Northwest Territories.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is it customary, when a man has been superannuated as being too old to carry on his work in one position, to retain him in another position?


William James Roche: He "was employed at this
work, but he was also employed in the Northwest Mounted Police. The duties in connection as governor are not of 'a very onerous character.
Schools, $3,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: Where are the schools
referred to in this item, located?


William James Roche: The Sacred Heart, Fort
Providence; St. Joseph, Fort Resolution; Herschell Island; Fort MacPherson; Hay river; Fort iSimpson.
Department of the Interior-Administration of the Yukon Territory, $320,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How much is the
Yukon costing?


William James Roche: $320,000 is the Estimate for this year, a reduction of $30,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: Are there not some other items in connection with the Yukon?


William James Roche: Not in this department.
They would be in the Justice Department.


John Gillanders Turriff: Could my hon. friend
give the committee any idea of the total cost of the government of the Yukon?


William James Roche: Offhand, I could not, outside of my own department. There axe, of course, certain" expenses in connection with the Customs as well as the Justice Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: L went through the Estimates last year ^and found that very little short of $1,000,000 was being paid by Canada for the 9,000 people, or thereabouts, in the Yukon. That is a huge figure. In going through the various items last year, I did not find that the slightest regard was paid to the changed conditions under the war; everything was being maintained at the same old clip, everything was being done without the slightest regard to any necessity for economy. It simply amounted to this, that it cost about $100 per head to keep those 9,000 people in the Yukon. When the proposition is put in that way it does not look very economical. Could the minister tell us wfiether there has been any consideration pf the Yukon situation? Is the Government taking the matter up with a view to seeing whether some money could not ;be saved there?


William James Roche: I can only answer for my own department. I do not know that it is quite ifair to estimate the expenses by taking the population and the amount of money expended and comparing them. The hon. gentleman is aware that a staff was placed in the Yukon for the administration of law and order and to carry on the different departments of Government. Although the population has decreased considerably, the people who still live there are a very good class of people-I can vouch

for this, having visited the place during the past year. The Auditor General sends an officer to the Yukon each summer; I instructed this officer when he last went there to report as to any possible reduction or amalgamation of the staff connected with the Department of the Interior. The result has been that I have reduced the expenditure of this department by some $33,000, closed at least two of the mining offices and reduced the amount for the maintenance of roads. The mining in the Yukon is carried on by large companies who require expensive plants and who have to have the necessary roads, bridges and so on. The amount for the 'Council is the same as it was in previous years. In making a reduction of $33,000, I think I have done as well as I possibly could. I cannot answer for the other departments, but I have no doubt that the question has been looked into by the various ministers.
Mr. 'MACDONALD:	Is anything contributed by the mining companies besides the royalties? In the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia the amounts paid by way of subsidy in such cases are not nearly as large as the amount paid in the Yukon. I should think it is hardly worth while paying such a tremendous amount for the Government of 9,000 people in order to enable some American holders of mines to take gold out. What were the revenues last year?
Mr. 'ROCHE:	In the neighbourhood of
$175,000. In addition to royalties, the gold *companies have to pay local taxes to the Yukon Council.
iMr. MACDONALD:	These 9,000 people,
less the women -and children, must have a great time dividing that million dollars.


John Gillanders Turriff: Imagine, Mr. Chairman, spending $120,000 for the executive office in a community of 9,000 people. It is true that there is a reduction from last year, but in view of the enormous decrease in population I think the minister could have cut the amount down greater than he has. The minister does not seem to consider the need for economy. Officials must be dropping out now and then; why does he replace them? Why should some of the staff not be given work elsewhere if it is necessary to keep them on? There is something radically wrong when $120,000 are necessary in connection with the governing office alone. In view of the minister's proposal to make a total expenditure of $1,000,000 in a territory
occupied by 9,000 people, the minister should take more drastic steps than he has taken.


William James Roche: The expenses to-day are
much less than they were some years ago.


John Gillanders Turriff: Both population and
revenues have decreased.


William James Roche: The expenditures of this
department a few years ago amounted to about $270,000. The insane patients have to be looked after; they are brought down and maintained by government grant in the New Westminster Asylum. Some of the items are as follows: freight and express charges, telegrams, telephones, postage, and so on, $4,520; legal expenses, $2,f>00; commission to the Royal North West Mounted Police, $2,000;
5 p.m. expenses in connection with export tax, $2,500; advertising mining regulations, etc., $5,000; printing and stationery, $5,000; travelling expenses of officials, $6,000; insane patients, $12,000; living allowances, $13,500; salaries, $66,980.


William Pugsley: Does that include the salary of the commissioner of the Yukon?


William James Roche: Yes.


William Pugsley: What salary does he get?


William James Roche: $6,000, with an additional $6,000 for living allowance.


William Pugsley: Who is the commissioner?


William James Roche: Mr. G. N. Williams.
Immigration-Salaries of agents and employees in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries, $580,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does this vote include
the salaries of all the immigration agents scattered throughout Canada?


William James Roche: It includes all the salaries of all the employees of the Immigration Department in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many immigration agents are in the province of New Brunswick, where are they located, and what are their salaries? The reason I. ask is that a number of times within the last year I have been told that there is living in my own town of Woodstock a certain gentleman who, I am informed, is drawing a salary of $2,000 or $3,000 a year from the Immigration. Department.


Mr. EOCHE:: What is hie name?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. A. W. Hay, and to my certain knowledge he is performing no services for the country. He is a gentleman who has occupied a position with the Government of New Brunswick; he is attending to his own business, which is a fairly important one, and I would like to know from the minister whether, as a matter of fact, this gentleman is drawing a salary from the Dominion Government, and if so, how much?


William Roche: I understand that Mr. Hay has been for a few years in the employ of the Dominion Immigration Department and he has been acting in co-operation with the provincial Governments in the colonization scheme they have adopted. I have been given to understand that he has been doing very good work.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If all the other agents throughout the country to whom the minister is paying salaries, are doing the same quantity of work for the salaries they are receiving as Mr. Hay is doing, then this vote, instead of being $580,000, should be cut down to $25, because Mr. A. W. Hay is doing nothing in connection with the Dominion Government and nothing in connection with the Government of New ,Brunswick. He was on a board that was called the Farm Settlement Board. They started out with the idea of buying up abandoned farms and bringing in settlers from England, Scotland, and Ireland, but in the first year or two of the appointment of the Board, they brought in probably 30 or 40 persons of this class. Then they started to act as a land office and they used the money of the province in buying a farm from one man to sell it to another. There was also a political consideration. In the last election, to my certain knowledge, they went to men to whom they had sold farms and said to them: Now you vote right or we will drive' you off your farms because you are in arrears. I do not believe Mr. Hay has brought a single immigrant into the province of New Brunswick in the last two years. It is a surprise to me and it will be a surprise to a good many people in New Brunswick to learn that this man has been drawing, not only a salary from the Dominion Government but a salary from the Government of New Brunswick, I would like to know how much he has been drawing from the Dominion Government.


William Roche: He has been drawing a
salary of $1,500 a year from the Dominion

Government. As I have said, he has been acting in co-operation with the provincial authorities. Their land settlement scheme was in its infancy about the time of the outbreak of war, and that, of course, gave it a setback as might be expected, but Mr. Hay's services have been continued by the department, although we have dismissed certain of our officials, and I am not aware that Mr. Hay has been drawing another salary from the provincial government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister say that he is proposing to pay Mr. Hay a salary of $1,500 this year? ,


William Roche: Well, we have estimated for that salary for the coming year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In that case, I will ask this committee to divide on this proposed vote unless the minister will agree to dismiss Mr Hay summarily.


William Roche: The minister does not usually dismiss a man summarily upon the dictation of a member of the Opposition without making some further inquiries, and I think the hon. member will see that it would be unfair to Mr. Hay to do so. I will inquire into the matter, and if the circumstances are as set forth by the hon. member for Oarleton, I certainly would not feel justified in retaining Mr. Hay dn the employ of the department, if he is being paid by the provincial government and is-doing no work.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is certainly doing no work; he is drawing a salary.


William Roche: If he is doing no work, I would not keep him on the pay-list, but at the same time-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is he also receiving anything for expenses, and if so, how much?


William Roche: If he has received any, it has been a very small amount.


Mr CAEVELL:: I would like to know exactly how much, even if the amount be small.


William Roche: He received nothing at all
for expenses last year.


William Pugsley: The minister says that if the circumstances regarding Mr. Hay are as the hon. member for Carleton says, namely, that this gentleman is not doing any work, the minister will not feel disposed to,pay him a salary. Will that same remark -apply to all the other employees covered by this vote of $580,000, that i's, if the minister is convinced that any of them

are not doing any work? I do not think matters of this kind should require to be pointed out by members. Does not the minister keep in touch with his employees in order to see that they are working?


William James Roche: The minister does not carry on correspondence with all the 500 odd employees of the department. Those who are not at the front are doing good work, but many officials have enlisted and are still receiving salaries. A great deal of extra work that the House does not realize has been thrown upon our immigration officers by reason of the war, in the way of looking after boundary inspection in particular, and assisting the other departments in other work.


William Pugsley: How many immigrants came into Canada last year?


William James Roche: A little over 75,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister say how many other immigration officials he has in the county of Carleton, where they are located, their names and their salaries? I ask this question for this reason: There was a time when foreign labourers were coming into the province of New Brunswick on account of railway construction, and at that time there were a few immigration agents whose salaries were justified. That, however, is all past and gone now, and I know there are, besides Mr. Hay, two or three other men employed as immigration officials, who, I think, are doing very little.


William James Roche: Can the hon. member give me their names?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There have been so many * political changes in that country that I have forgotten the names. There is one at Debec, I think. A man died, and I have forgotten who has been appointed in his place, but in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Hay there must be at least half a dozen other immigration officials who are receiving fair salaries but who possibly may be doing something. I quite understand there may be some justification for these others, but for Mr. Hay there is absolutely no justification whatever except to furnish a good fat salary for a very earnest political worker for the Conservative party. I do not think this country in its present condition can afford to pay salaries of $1,500 a year to friends of the political party of my hon. friend for doing nothing.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman must be misinformed-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not misinformed.


William James Roche: With the exception of Mr. Hay there is no other official in the county of Carleton in the employ of this department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No others? I think there must be.


William James Roche: My information is that in the county of Carleton there are no other paid [DOT]officials of this department.


William Pugsley: What efforts, if any, have been made during the past year to secure immigrants from the United States? Has the minister made any trips to the United States in connection with immigration?


William James Roche: We have carried on a very active propaganda in the United States above all other countries. A year ago there was an active campaign in the press of the United States to prevent settlers from coming to this country. Conditions in Canada were misrepresented. It was stated that settlers who came over here would be enlisted in our army, that that was why we were anxious to get them over here, that they would 'be taxed to death by reason of the war, and that there were such heavy land taxes in the western provinces that it would he unwise for any settlers to leave the United States for Canada, particularly as certain of the states had enlarged the homestead allotments from 160 to 640 acres, though this was generally in the case of inferior land. It was, therefore, considered advisable to have a conference of all our immigration agents in the United States. They met at Chicago, and I attended personally. Before going I invited the premiers of the three western provinces to attend, and each of them were represented .at the conference. We discussed immigration matters, found out the exact nature of the propaganda that was being carried on in the United States, and determined on active steps to combat it.


William Pugsley: What steps did you take?


William James Roche: We carried on an extensive publicity campaign in the press of the United States. Their papers were very fair, and many of them were willing to insert articles giving the actual facts. We .also carried on a more extensive advertising campaign than ever before, with such good results as to bring forth encomiums from the premiers of the western provinces, who personally complimented the department on the work we were doing. They realized . that the slump in immigration from the

United States was not due to any lack of interest or activity on the part of the Dominion Immigration authorities. We secured 75,000 immigrants last year, as compared with 48,000 the previous year, and of that 75,000, 61,000 came from the United States. Our campaign is still having good results, because the immigration during the present fiscal year has increased from 50' to 75 per cent, and from some of the States by 100 per cent. Considering that the war is on, I think we are getting quite a large number of immigrants from the United States.


William Pugsley: That is the best country to obtain immigrants from at the present time?


William James Roche: Yes.


William Pugsley: Will the minister state what means were adopted in the United States to prevent settlers from coming to Canada? What -steps did the minister take to reassure intending immigrants about enlistments?


William James Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is quite aware what steps we took, because the papers were all brought down.


William Pugsley: I do not remember. I saw statements in the newspapers.


William James Roche: In January or February, 1916, I contributed a letter over my signature stating that there was no conscription in Canada, that the Government did not think it either necessary or advisable, and that even if it should be resorted to, it would not apply to American citizens. This letter was spread broadcast throughout the United States.


William Pugsley: They would not be liable to conscription if they became British subjects?


William James Roche: I did not say that.


William Pugsley: They could not take up homesteads unless they were British subjects.


William Roche: Oh, ye6, but they would not be able to secure the patent. They could become British subjects before the end of the three years.


Charles Marcil: Were there any restrictions in regard to the nationality of these , settlers from the United States? Were people of enemy birth or origin admitted?


William James Roche: We exercised discretion in that matter. We do not allow men of German nationality to enter Canada.


Charles Marcil: What about men of German origin who have become American citizens.


William James Roche: We should not debar them if they were American citizens.


Charles Marcil: The suggestion has been made in this House to disfranchise those of enemy origin.


William James Roche: Has the Government proposed that?


Charles Marcil: I understand some -hon. gentlemen have suggested it.


William James Roche: I cannot help that.


William Pugsley: The gentleman (Mr. R. B. Bennett) who made the proposal to the House is reported to have gone to the United States some months ago, as Chairman of the National Service Commission, and- to have succeeded in getting quite a large number of Americans to come over here to assist in farming operations. As the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) is not present, perhaps the minister could tell us the results of his mission.


William James Roche: The chairman of the National Service Commission co-operated with the provincial governments and with our department in order to meet the demand for farm labour. We knew that a very large number of farm labourers would be required, and that it would be impossible to get them in Canada. So, acting in co-operation with the provinces, we added to our staff for the time being just the same number of men as the respective provincial governments appointed; for instance, Manitoba sent six agents to the United States, and we sent an equal number; Saskatchewan sent over ten, and we sent over ten; Alberta sent over -six, and we sent over six. The campaign, I am glad to say, was successful in bringing in all the help that was desired. Between 8,000 and 9,000 men came in, and they were distributed over the different provinces through agencies appointed by -the provincial governments. We had to issue instructions some time ago recalling our men, as the provincial governments had notified us they had all the labourers they wanted.


William Pugsley: Were these labourers Brought in temporarily, or have a number of them become settlers? '


William James Roche: A number of them have no doubt returned, hut we hope and expect that a number of them will -become permanent settlers.


William Pugsley: Has the minister any of the literature that was distributed when that campaign was on in conjunction with the National Service?


William James Roche: The papers were brought down and laid on the Table, at the request of the hon. member for Pictou.


William Pugsley: All the literature?


William James Roche: Yes.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend advertised in the United States for farm hands. Have these papers been brought down?


William James Roche: The advertisements were. Mr. LEMIEUX: How many farm hands were got?


William James Roche: In the neighbourhood of 9,000.


Frank Oliver: How were they distributed?


William James Roche: Alberta got approximately 3,500, Saskatchewan 4,700, and Manitoba 800.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the
minister to say there are no restrictions as regards the nationality of these people?


William James Roche: Oh yes. Positive instructions were given to admit no one of enemy nationality.	-


Frank Oliver: Were there restrictions
as to people of enemy origin?


William James Roche: If the person of enemy
origin had become an American citizen, we admitted him.


John Gillanders Turriff: Were the agents that
the Dominion Government appointed for this special work regular employees of the department or new men?


William James Roche: Some of them were on our permanent staff. Others were nominated by the National Service Commission; they were hired for one month only.


John Gillanders Turriff: When their work was over did they remain in the department?


William James Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: I should like the minister to state what inducements he offered to these immigrants in the way of taking up
homesteads.


William James Roche: Any of these farm labourers from the United States could take up a homestead under our regular homestead laws. The only concession we granted was that the time spent as a farm labourer in Canada this year would be counted as residence upon a homestead.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister had a
table compiled showing how many of these men were of enemy origin or nationality?


William James Roche: We did not keep tab on that, except by judging from the names.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister had occasion to read the Duke of Connaught's farewell address to the Canadian Club, in which he said the future of Canada rested with the importation into this country of people of British stock?


William James Roche: I heard it and read it
with a great deal of acclaim. As the hon. member for St. John has said, the United States is practically our only field for immigrants at the present time I am sure the hon. member would not wish us to deny entrance to Canada to citizens of the United States, which is now one of our . Allies?


Charles Marcil: Are any efforts being
made to secure a larger immigration from the United States?


William James Roche: We, have been carrying on a most active propaganda in the United States. We have had very little immigration from overseas since the war began.


John Gillanders Turriff: According to the minister, the chairman of the National Service Commission took an active part in securing these farm labourers from the United States. Many of these men were no doubt of enemy origin. The chairman of the National Service Commission is also a prominent member of this House, and only a few days ago he expressed the view that these people should be disfranchised. Does the minister think it is fair that the chairman of the National Service Commission should go over to the United States and induce American citizens of enemy origin to come to Canada and then advocate in this House that even if they become British subjects the franchise should be taken from them. That seems to me to be working at cross purposes altogether, and I do not think it will work out well. Was the hon. member for Calgary speaking on behalf of the Government when he advocated that these people should be disfranchised?


William James Roche: I suppose the hon. member does not speak with any idea that I am here to answer authoritatively for the hon. member for Calgary. That hon. gentleman fearlessly expresses his opinion irrespective of whether the statements he makes are authorized by the Government or not. I suppose the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) is

not trying to fasten culpability on the Immigration Branch for having done what it could to help out the western farmer and bring in a supply of greatly-needed fanm labour. Nor do I know on what information he bases the statement that a number of these men were of enemy-country origin. I am not aware that there were a number of that origin. I understand that a large number were Scandinavians, while many were American-born. Of course, I cannot be responsible for the hon. member for Calgary. I assure the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) that that hon. gentleman had nothing to do personally with bringing in these immigrants, other than to visit the western provinces, interview the members of the provincial government, and facilitate the holding of a conference of business men and others in the city of Winnipeg to discuss this whole question. Whatever action was taken as a result of that conference was taken in accordance with the wishes of the governments of the three prairie provinces. I sent a couple of inspectors of the Immigration Branch to enter into conference with them. They decided upon a plan of campaign with a view to bringing in a supply of farm labour to meet the great demand. Alarm was felt at one time that we were not going to get a sufficient acreage seeded, in view of the necessity for increased production, by reason of the want of farm help. As the United States was the only place to which we could look for an additional supply, we assisted in the campaign, which was successful. The farmers were supplied, the wishes of the provincial governments were met, and, so far as I know, there has been no objection to what was done.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am in sympathy with the policy of the hon. minister as carried out; I think it was quite proper to help in bringing in a supply of farm help. But we cannot get nine thousand labouring men from the United States without getting quite a large number who are of enemy-country origin, though now of American allegiance. But I think it unfair to induce these men to come into Canada, holding out to them the hope that they may become Canadian settlers and British subjects, and then hold over them the threat that if they become British subjects in the West they are liable to have the franchise taken from them simply because they originally came from enemy countries.


William Erskine Knowles: We find here a member of the House of whom ministers speak in 
extravagantly complimentary terms ' announcing a policy that affects hundreds of my constituents as well as hundreds of the constituents of other members of the House. That hon. member says these men should have taken away from them that consideration which the Dominion of Canada, or the British Empire, gave them in exchange for their oath of allegiance, and that it should be taken away wantonly and without reason. Many of my constituents have a right to ask of me as their representative, and we are their representatives, whether the Government is endorsing the view of the hon. member for Calgary. It is all very well to sidestep the matter and say that the hon. member for Calgary is a very independent man. I am not so sure whether he is or not, but that is absolutely beside the question. He is a Government official, a supporter of the Government, and I understand that he is very closely in the confidence of the Government. The Government has asked that we consider the matter of immigration, which comes very close to this question, and I ask whether the Government endorses the view of the hon. member for Calgary, and whether the member for Calgary spoke with the authority of the Government. The minister refuses to answer. The question is a proper one, and it will not do for the minister to sidestep it in that way. We have a right to know whether the hon. member for Calgary spoke with the approval of the Government and the constituents whom we represent have a right to know that. Let them be called diabolical Austrians, Germans or Turks, we are in a British country now, and we have a right to ask if the member for Calgary had the authorization of the Government in making that statement, and the question should not be sidestepped. If it is going to be sidestepped, we should not go on and vote money for immigration, but we should withhold our sanction for this expenditure until we have some statement from the Government with respect to it. The minister wrote that letter saying that conscription was ,not in force in Canada. He might as well have told them that they were living in America, for they all knew that conscription was not in force. It was absolutely true, but it was a mere platitude. He told them further that the Government was not going to conscribe Americans. What was the object in making such a statement as that? The Government has no power to conscribe Americans. If it con-scribes Americans it means a declaration

of war against the United States. Yet the minister spends his time writing letters declaring that he is not going to put conscription in force against American citizens who may be found within our borders. What an absurd thing! The minister must have meant something in writing such a letter. You might as well say that you are not going to take them for a flight to Mars or Jupiter as to say that you are not going to conscribe American citizens. You could not do so anyway. You might as well declare war against the United States at once. The minister should deal with us frankly when he asks us to pass this vote, and he should answer that simple and fair question whether the member for Calgary spoke with the authorization of the Government or did not. The minister should certainly know what the fact is with regard to that particular matter.	.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) speaks as if the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), when he gave this opinion to the House, was laying down the policy of the Government. The member for Calgary was giving the House the benefit of his views as to what the Government should do, but he was giving expression to his own personal views. I am not in a position to say if he spoke with the authority of the Government. On the contrary, I feel convinced he did not. I do not know if the hon. gentleman wants any more direct reply than that. The hon. member states that I have sent a letter all over the country saying that we would not conscript Americans, when they knew that we would not do so. If the hon. gentleman could have induced the American press to take that view, it would not have been necessary to have sent that letter. But in view of the fact that a portion of the American press carried on a grossly misleading campaign on this very point, stating that we wanted to get their men into this country to press them into military service, it was necessary to combat that propaganda, and for that purpose I sent this letter. My action did not provoke any criticism last year. I read the letter in the House last year, and it apparently received the endorsation of every member present. I shall read the letter again.
8th January, 1916.
Through either lack of knowledge or from some ulterior motive numerous papers in the United States have recently advised American citizens that by going to Canada they incurred the risk of being drafted as soldiers in the present world-wide war. Were these articles
confined only to that portion of the pro-German press, which without regard to the truth, have been publishing fictitious news items intended to injure .the trade or stir up friction between the States and Canada, the reports might safely be let go uncontradicted, but when responsible journals are misled into publishing erroneous information regarding conscription it seems advisable to make an official pronouncement upon the matter.
I therefore beg to advise you that all troops from Canada for the war have gone voluntarily; that while the Government has the power to enforce conscription, such action has not been considered either advisable or necessary, - and that even were conscription introduced it would apply to Canadian citizens only.
For your information when dealing with this subject, I may say that many Canadians resident in the United States and many American citizens have crossed into Cajiada since the outbreak of war, have offered their services, been accepted, did valuable work and in ^ some cases gave up their life in the cause of liberty and justice.	.
Any publicity you may care to give to this letter will be appreciated by,
Tours faithfully,
W. J. Roche, Minister of the Interior.
That letter was included in the Canadian Atlas and in our immigration pamphlets that we distributed, and it was for the purpose of counteracting the propaganda that was carried on by a certain portion of the American press. If that letter was foolish and absurd, as the hon. member for Moose-jaw says, I wish to say that I sent it for the reason which I have given. If I had not taken steps to check this misrepresentation that was indulged in among the press, and which brought the Department of the Interior many individual inquiries and. letters, I would have been open to the condemnation that I had not taken the best means available for counteracting it. I do not see why I should be censured for writing that letter for the purpose of counteracting that misrepresentation that American citizens , who came into Canada would be subject to conscription.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the letter is objectionable in that the minister, while he states what everybody knows, that American citizens would not in any circumstances be liable to conscription, yet goes farther and says that it has not been considered at all necessary or advisable by the Government of Canada. What was the object of making that statement? It was to induce American citizens to come in and become permanent settlers in Canada. It was to induce them to become citizens of our country and to take up or buy homesteads, and, in that connection, to allay their fears that the minister clearly held out to them the belief that conscription

would not need to be introduced into Canada, that the Government did not consider it necessary or advisable.


William James Roche: Do not forget the date of the letter.


William Pugsley: It was to allay that fear. The minister puts a double proposition forward. First, he says that American citizens would not be liable to conscription under any circumstances, and then he proceeds further to tell them what is the policy of the Government in regard to conscription. If the Government had any notion that conscription would ibe a justifiable and proper policy to pursue in this country he ought not to have made that statement, made, as it was, for the purpose of inducing people to come in from the United States, become permanent citizens of Canada and become also British subjects, because they would have to become British subjects before they could obtain homestead lands and obtain a patent therefor from the Crown. The minister will agree with me that in making that propaganda he intended to go to the extreme limit to allay all possible fears that American settlers might be subject to conscription. If the minister had in his mind, or if the Government had in their minds, at that time, that if this war continued they would introduce conscription into Canada, then the minister ought not to have allayed that fear by writing that letter, because settlers would naturally draw the conclusion from the minister's statement that the policy of the Canadian Government was against, the introduction of conscrip- [DOT] tion. I am very glad to learn that the minister has succeeded in getting a large number of immigrants 'from the United States into Canada last year.
Of course, the number is very small indeed as compared with the number of those who came in during the years preceding 1911. During the period when the late Government was encouraging immigration, settlers came in, not by the thousands but by the hundreds of thousands, from the United States. I should like to see that day^retum. That is what we want in our western country. But in our efforts to get settlers we ought to be very careful not to make any mistakes or misstatements as to existing facts, or as to the policy of the. Government of the day. Nothing would do so much harm to immigration nothing would do so much harm to Canada so far as immigration is concerned, as a, general impression that the Government of this country had not absolutely kept faith with those who

were induced to come into the country. I think that on reflection the minister will feel that in view of the announcements that have been made within the past few days in this House, his statement in regard to conscription was an unfortunate one if, by reason of it, settlers were induced to come into Canada.


William James Roche: My lion. friend, I am
afraid is drawing a long bow. He overlooks the diate of this letter, January 8,1916.


William Pugsley: The war was on then.


William James Roche: And we were in hopes
that before to-day the war would be over.


William Pugsley: On what did the minister base that expectation?
.Mr. ROCHE: If I asked the hon. gentleman now, how soon, in his opinion, the war would be over, what would he say?


William Pugsley: I may tell my hon.
friend, and the Minister of Marine will vouch for the statement I make, that my opinion, given very shortly after the war began, was that it would last for a number of years. I never could understand on what ministers acted when they told the people of this country that it would probably be over in three months, nine months or a year.


John Douglas Hazen: The Government never told people that.
Mr. PUGSLEY- One o.f the ministers, the other day, said that most people expected that in three months it would be ever.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a very different
statement.


William Pugsley: I have no conception
on what anybody would base that idea. Here was a country, Germany, which, as the evidence has shown, had been preparing for forty years for this war, and how anybody could suppose that Germany could be crushed in one or two years or three years, be worn down or crushed out, tht Prussianism, monarchism in Germany could be is beyond my comprehension. Here, in 1916, when the minister is starting a propaganda in the United States to get settlers to come into this country, not merely getting people for temporary purposes, for the purpose of doing work on the farms, but in order that they might become settlers in Canada; and knowing that they could not acquire patents to homesteads without becoming naturalized citizens, the minister de-

olares to those people in Chicago that the policy of this Government is not to have conscription in Canada. I say that unless the Government had determined upon that course of no conscription they should not have acted in a way which would be calculated to induce these settlers to believe there was a breach of faith in case conscription should be introduced. I repeat that, in my judgment, unless the Government had a settled policy on the subject,, the minister's statement, made while the war was on, that there was no intention of introducing conscription, was neither necessary nor advisable. It was an unfortunate statement to make and one that might mislead the people and induce many to settle in this country under a misapprehension.


William James Roche: Has the hon. gentleman
heard of any grievance on the part of those who came into Canada on that representation?


William Pugsley: Do I know? It is too
early to learn that, because conscription has not been enforced as yet. But I should rather suppose that any man who had been induced to come into Canada and had become naturalized in consequence of the statement which the Minister made in Chicago, with the authority of this Government, would have a very just ground of complaint.


William James Roche: It takes three years from the time the man comes into the country and applies for this homestead before he can become a naturalized subject. He cannot become naturalized in the country until he has been in the country three years.


William Pugsley: He takes his first step
by applying for a homestead.


William Erskine Knowles: I would ask the minister whether in the spring of last year he became aware that conscription would almost surely be necessary in this country. The hon. member for Victoria and Halibur-ton (Sir Sam Hughes) has stated that, in the spring of 1916, the Prime Minister gave him instructions that recruiting was not to be keenly followed up, and we all know that has been the system for a year, go easy and recruit as few as possible; and, as a result, no recruits in any number were secured during the past year. I suppose the minister would know that conscription was going to be necessary as soon as the decision was reached by the Government that recruiting should be let up on. He would then know that in all human probability conscription would become necessary in order to secure the 500,000 men that had been promised. I ask the minister whether, in thn spring of last year, he was also aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had reached a decision which he had communicated to the then Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), namely, that he desired that they should let up on recruiting.
M. ROCHE:	I am not aware that the
Prime Minister gave voice to any such instruction. In fact, on the contrary, I heard him in his place deny that he ever made such a statement.


William Erskine Knowles: Has the minister not
read- the speech of the late Minister of Militia and Defence in which he so stated.


William James Roche: I am telling what the
Prime Minister stated.


William Erskine Knowles: Has he read the speech of the ex-minister?


William James Roche: Ye.?, I have read what
the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia stated. On the other hand, we have the reply to that by the Prime Minister. I am going by the Prime Minister's statement.


William Erskine Knowles: Then I ask if he contradicts his then colleague, the ex-Minister of Militia?


Mr ROCHE:: Oh what nonsense.


William Erskine Knowles: That answer "nonsense" is worthy the minister, but it is not an answer to my question. This is a serious question, whether or not a decision was come to a year ago to ease up on conscription. The Prime Minister says it was not; the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence says it was. I am addressing the colleague of both these gentlemen; he knows them both, and I ask him if he had any information communicated to him such as the ex-Minister of Militia states was conveyed to him in May, 1916. Did the minister have any intimation that there was going to be an easing up of recruiting?


William James Roche: I am quite well aware that no statement was ever issued on the part of the Prime Minister or any member of the Government to the effect that there should be an easing up on the recruiting.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. minister does not mean that there was no statement made by any member, because the Minister of Militia and Defence was a very important

member of the Government, and he so stated.


William James Roche: Did he state that while a member of the Government?


William Erskine Knowles: He has stated now that that intimation was made to him.


Mr PUGSLEY:: Does the Minister of
the Interior suggest that he would be more truthful when a member of the Government that he is now?


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is
doing the suggesting.


John Gillanders Turriff: I want to say that you have two statements, one by the Prime Minister and one by the ex-Minister of Militia, and only one of them is the truth, because they are directly opposed to each other. But all the corroborative evidence would lead one to judge that the ex-Minister of Militia was telling the truth. I will tell you why. Upon the return to Toronto of a delegation which had come here to interview the Prime Minister, some of its leading members made statements exactly along the line of the statement made by the ex-Minister of Militia. And there is this further corroborative evidence: at the time the ex-Minister of Militia received, as he says, instructions from the Prime Minister to let up in recruiting, recruiting dropped from 25,000 to 5,000 men a month. It looks, therefore, as if the exMinister of Militia was telling the truth. To my mind, explanations should be made not by the ex-Minister of Militia, but by some member of the Government, because there is no doubt that recruiting fell as I have stated. Why should recruiting fall so suddenly if word had not been passed around,-as the ex-Minister of Militia says, on the direct instructions of the Prime Minister,-that there should be a let up in recruiting?


William Pugsley: I hope that the minister is not disposed to let a serious statement like this pass without notice. The truthfulness of the ex-Minister of Militia has been emphasized in another way. The exMinister of Militia, in a letter which he ' wrote to the Prime Minister in May, 1915, stated that for three whole months his operations had been blocked by a committee of the Cabinet; that he had not been permitted to proceed with the purchase of trucks because this committee were deliberating as to how the contracts could best be let in order to distribute as much commission as possible among its friends. That [M. Knowles.1
is, I think, as serious a charge as could possibly be made by one member of the Government against his colleagues;- yet neither the Prime Minister nor any other member of the Government has ventured to question this statement of the ex-Minister of Militia. Whatever may be said of the ex-Minister of Militia, I do not believe he can be charged with untruthfulness, and it would require a good deal of evidence and the exercise of exceptionally good memory on the part of members of the Government before they could induce the people to believe that the ex-Minister of Militia deliberately misstated the facts in regard to this very important matter.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.


Frank Oliver: I asked the minister
some little time ago in regard to advertising done in the United States to induce men to come to Canada for farm work, and he replied that the announcement was that those who worked for farmers this summer would be allowed -six months' residence on their homesteads.


William James Roche: They would be allowed the time they spent on the farms to count as residence.


Frank Oliver: Is the minister sure that that offer applied only' to one season's work and did it apply to two seasons' work?


William James Roche: To 1917 alone.


Frank Oliver: The minister is absolutely positive on that point?


William James Roche: That is what I am informed. That certainly was the intention.


Frank Oliver: I was given to understand that in a Seattle newspaper the immigration agent, Mr. Grieve advertised that two seasons' residence could be put in by working with farmers, so that a man takings up a homestead and working for two summers with farmers would have to put in only six months' residence on his homestead [DOT] in order to obtain his patent.


William James Roche: That is not the intention.


Frank Oliver: That is not correct?


William Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: By what authority was
that privilege given?


William James Roche: I am inclined to think it
was done by Order in Council. I am not just sure as to that at the moment.


Frank Oliver: I would like the minister to inform the House definitely at a later date, because I am under the impression that an Order in Council would not be sufficient; that the Act of Parliament is absolutely explicit as to residence duties to be performed by homesteaders; and my impression is that when the Government undertook to vary the terms of residence, as they admittedly did, they did so absolutely without authority. In my view such variation in regard to homestead duties was absolutely contrary to the public interest, to the well-being of the western country, and to good policy in securing its settlement. If there is one curse greater than another that the actual settler of the West has to put up with, it is that of the non-resident homesteader. That policy of the Government which undertakes to permit non-resident homesteading is not promotive of settlement, but is a most serious detriment to settlement and is a very positive injury to those who are actually in occupation of their homesteads and fulfilling their duties in accordance, not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the law, establishing homes in the country, building up the country, and handicapped in doing so by the holding of vacant land by transient homesteaders, not under the law, but under the authority of a minister.
Dealing with the question of the propriety of citizens of Canada, British subjects who are of alien enemy origin, being deprived of their franchise, I would point out that the Minister of the Interior and his colleagues in the Government, did, as a matter of fact, within the past few months vary the terms of the Land Act, arrogating to themselves an authority that did not belong to them for the purpose of holding out special and unwarranted inducements to people of alien enemy origin if such desired to take advantage of those inducements, and that they, or their supporters at any rate, are not in a position to question the right of such people to the franchise which they have acquired in our country under the laws administered by the minister. The minister has disclaimed all responsibility for the utterances of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). Technically I think it may be admitted that he is entitled so to repudiate those utterances, but
as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Calgary occupies the same relation to this Government as does the hon. member for Shellburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) or the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark), except that he does not draw a salary and does not hold a title, but his duties are of the same character or are indeed more of an administrative character; and although when he does make a pronouncement on the floor of the House,. the Government are within their rights when they repudiate it, they are not acting in good faith with the country in doing so. They must in fairness assume a measure of responsibility for that member of Parliament to whom they have delegated duties which at one time were supposed to be important and responsible, who is acting as special commissioner of the Government in regard to those special duties which had special connection with this very matter of the bringing people across the line and necessarily with their rights after they came. This very member of Parliament, occupying this position in connection with the Government, having those important duties and responsibilities, who belches forth on the floor of this House against the exercise of their rights by people who have acquired those rights in all honesty and fairness at the hand of this Government- this very gentleman is himself the active agent, in conjunction with this Government and for the Government, in bringing such people across the line and in offering them, contrary to law, inducements to come here.


William James Roche: My impression is that this procedure was taken by means of an Order in Council. Such procedure would be under the War Measures Act, and therefore within our jurisdiction. The hon. member says that the minister has repudiated statements made by the hon. member for Calgary. I have not repudiated statements made by the hon. member for Calgary; I was asked by the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) if the hon. member for Calgary was authorized by the Government to make the statements he did in his speech when discussing another subject, namely, the Franchise Act. I. stated that so far as I was aware the hon. member for Calgary was not authorized by the Government; that is as far as I have gone; that it is as far, I think, as I am called upon to goi. I am not responsible for the personal views held on this or any other subject by the hon. member for Cal-
174a

gary or any other h-on. member. The hon. member for Calgary has done good service for the Government as chairman of the National Service Commission and in other capacities. He 'has endeavoured to bring the man power of this country to bear on the war to the very best purpose, and as Chairman of the National Service Commission he took up with the various provincial governments the question of the best means of supplying the demand for farm labour. Apart from that, the hon. member for Calgary had nothing whatever to do Iwith bringing these men in from the United States. No special inducements were held out to men of enemy nationality, as the hon. gentleman would lead the House to believe. On the contrary, we issued pos-( itive instructions that men of enemy nationality were not to be admitted.


Frank Oliver: I said of enemy origin.


William James Roche: The men who came in were citizens either of the United States or of an Allied country, and not citizens of an1 affien enemy country. There are in the United States citizens whose antecedents came from Germany or Austria, but we have these people in Canada as well, and many of them have become naturalized and taken up homesteads here. What would the hon. gentleman have had us do? Would he have had us keep the farm labourers out, although they were citizens of the United States, simply because their antecedents came from Germany or Austria? I do not think the hon. gentleman would have taken that stand; it would have been unreasonable for him to do so.
The hon. gentleman also spoke about the land laws and said we were not warranted in taking the action we did. I can tell him that we have been complimented on holding out this inducement to farm labourers no matter whether they came from the United States or'from any part of Canada. There was such a great demand for farm help in the West, consequent on the heavy enlistments from those provinces, that some steps had to be taken to get farm labourers, and we have been complimented by the hon. gentleman's own political friends in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for offering to count the time these men spent with a farmer as residence on their own homesteads should they care to fake one up. It is all right for the hon. gentleman to say that we were not warranted in offerfMr. Roche.]
ing this inducement after the demand has been supplied, but if we had not supplied the farm labour the hon. member would have been the first to condemn it, especially at a time when everybody is preaching and diesiring to practise increased production. I do not think the hon. member can hold this Government responsible for any individual opinions the hon. member for Calgary may have expressed on the franchise question. As I have said before, if the hon. gentleman condemns us for holding out this inducement to farm labourers, he is certainly not in agreement with his own political friends in western Canada, for they most assuredly have endorsed the action of the Government in this respect.


Frank Oliver: I can only say in regard to that what the minister himself says in regard to his colleague: I am not responsible for the opinions of my friends. I take responsibility for stating in my place in this House my opinion of the action of the Government. That action is not only unwarranted and ill-advised, but illegal as well. And that action was taken in pursuance of a policy the logical conclusion of which is condemned by the very men who were parties to it. I did not suggest any, condemnation of the Government because they permitted labourers of alien enemy origin to be brought into Canada. But I condemned the colleague of the Minister of the Interior who refused to recognize the same right of citizenship conferred by this Dominion under the authority of the British Government that the minister says here to-night, and says very properly, he ought to recognize when conferred by the United States of America. As to the assertion that the Government is not responsible for the utterances of their supporter, I reply that when their supporter occupies a responsible position in which he acts on their behalf it is not for the Government to dissociate itself from the utterances of that hon. gentleman in this House in regard to a matter of public policy. Technically, they may be able to do so, but as a matter of fact and as a matter of right they cannot do so. The Minister of the Interior must either shoulder responsibility for the utterances of the hon. member for Calgary, or he must, on behalf of the Government which employs that hon. member, repudiate that hon.'member's sentiments, and this he has not yet done.	*
Now, I wish to ask the minister if the department keeps a record of the movement of people from Canada to the United States.


William James Roche: No. No statistics are kept by the Canadian authorities of those going from Canada to the United States.


Frank Oliver: Has it ever been the custom of the department to keep such statistics?


William James Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: I remember very distinctly that when my hon. friend. (Mr. Roche) was in opposition his friends, if not himself, were very insistent that such statistics should he kept, and they were very strongly of the opinion that without such statistics the record of immigrants coming into the country was not complete or convincing. At that time the flow of immigration into Canada was very great, the settlement of the country was progressing rapidly and development was going on at a rate never heard of before and certainly never heard of since. At that time possibly it was not important that we should keep account of the people who went out. But, at a time like this, when immigration has languished, when our population is at a standstill, so far as we are aware, it would certainly be of the greatest interest to the Canadian public to know how many people are leaving Canada. I would suggest that, if the minister has not kept such records in the past, he should take means to keep them for the future. Further, while I would not wish to contradict the minister in a matter of his own department, I am still strongly under the impression that at some time such a record as I speak of was kept. Would the minister inquire about that?


William James Roche: I am informed that there has never been any record kept by the Canadian immigration authorities of those leaving Canada for the United States. Nor has any record been kept by the United States of the movement of their population into Canada. Sometimes they ask us for our figures, and sometimes we ask them for theirs. But both Governments act on the same plan-neither keeps a record of the exodus from its country.


Frank Oliver: I should be sorry to get into an argument with the minister on that point, but I think he will find on inquiry that the United States either did keep or professed to keep a record of the movement of their people into Canada. Such figures have been given in the American report.


William James Roche: They took our figures.



Frank Oliver: No, because it was said that their figures and ours did not agree, and this was brought to the attention of the House by friends of the hon. minister, then in opposition. However, we shall not get very far by arguing that question of fact. But I would point out that during the past year there has been an important movement of people from both eastern and western Canada to the United States. This movement must have been within the cognizance of the officers of the Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend and his officers were absolutely derelict in their duty if they did not take account of that movement. It was stated as a matter of fact that, owing to the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Director of National Service, so-called, there was a very active movement of men eligible for military service from Canada to the United States during the months of October, November, December, and part of January. And, now that I think of it, that movement did come to the attention of the hon. minister and his colleagues. For on the day that Parliament met, or one or two days before or after, a despatch was sent throughout Canada op behalf of the Government, announcing that this movement having taken place because of the fear of military conscription under the so-called national service proposals, this was to assure the people that National Service did not mean conscription for military purposes, and they need not run to the United States in order to get away from it. This movement having been sufficiently important to demand the attention of the Government in the very prominent manner to which I have referred, I say again that the Department of the Interior and its Immigration Branch certainly was asleep at the switch if it did not take cognizance of the volume of that movement. And I say further that, that movement having been caused by the injudicious expressions and declarations of policy on the part of the Prime Minister and his Director of National Service and their newspaper mouthpieces throughout the country, they must take the responsibility for its existence as they took responsibility for attempting to stop it. I wish to point out-and I am sorry the Director of National Service is not here -that though a number of men were brought into Canada ostensibly for farm labour in the West, with a special inducement of non-resident homesteads and special assurance of freedom from conserip-


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
tion, yet the number was not nearly as great as the number of men of like age and capabilities who left the country in the months that I speak of because of the declarations and assertions of the same Director of National Service.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Is the hon. member
speaking of the West now?


Frank Oliver: I am speaking in large
measure of the province of Ontario. I have in mind the fact that the newspapers of Detroit published an express welcome to 17,000 young Canadians who had recently taken up residence in their fair city.


James Arthurs: It was probably better for us that they .should stay in the States, if they went away for that reason.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree with my hon. friend, and that is precisely why I am pointing out to the minister that it was not sound public policy to offer non-resident homesteading in the western provinces to the same men, or men of a like kind, to bring them back to reside amongst us. That is the policy and practice that I am speaking of, and I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) will join with me in condemning it.


Mr ARTHURS:: I had not intended taking part in this debate. But, in listening to the addresses I have gained the impression that hon. gentlemen opposite are barking up two trees at the same time. They are trying, apparently, to play for the German-Austrian vote in the West, and at the same time to condemn the Government for bringing citizens from the United States to help in the harvest. The whole trend of their remarks has been to condemn the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), for saying that these men who had been only recently, if at all, British citizens, should not be allowed to vote I agree absolutely with the hon. member. I am not speaking for the Government, but for myself, and I have no hesitation in saying what I do though in my own riding there are a good many Germans. But I am not playing one game in one place and a different game in another place. The Minister of the Interior is perfectly justified by the results of the action he took. In the West they were greatly in need of additional farm help, and the minister was justified in bringing in citizens of the United States He could not possibly stop them under international law; the fact that they were citizens of a neutral country precluded us 
from debarring them from Canada. The point of this whole argument, so far as I can see, is only that some hon. members are anxious to secure the support of these men whom they are condemning the Government for bringing in.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) has a logic of his own.


James Arthurs: So have you.


Frank Oliver: I agree with that, but it certainly is not the same as the hon. gentleman uses. He says we are barking up two trees at the same time What is the Government doing? According to the announcement of their friends, they are going to disfranchise these people who are ot Austrian and German origin.


James Arthurs: The Government did
not announce that.


Frank Oliver: Through their director of National Service. And the Government have no right to repudiate those whom they trust with important duties of that kind. At the same time, they are claiming credit for disposing of their lands in the Northwest in order to bring back the very men which the loose talk of the Director of National Service was driving across the line. The Government and its friends should take either one side or the other. They should speak of what they intend to do, or they should hold their tongues. They should not talk of conscription unless they intend to enforce it; and if they intend to enforce it, they should enforce it not talk about it. And when they talk about disfranchising citizens of this country because of their origin, they should not at the same time offer special inducements to people of the same origin but of United States nationality to come in and occupy our lands on terms unfair to our own settlers.


James Arthurs: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if any great- proportion of those men who came over to work on the farms of the West were such citizens as he has described here?


Frank Oliver: I do not know who ot
what they were but there is no reason to suppose that they were not. The Minister of the Interior has assured my hon. friend that if they were .of that character they wo-uld not have been stopped from coming.


William James Roche: They were American citizens.


Frank Oliver: They were American citizens. Why should not British citizenship be just as good and get the same rights as United States citizenship at the hands of this Government?


William James Roche: The hon. member for
Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) asked if we would extend the same privileges to Prince Edward Islanders who might go out West and I said: Yes, certainly. If they came from the United States they would have been United States citizens of British nationality but if they came from any of the other provinces of the Dominion they would have 'been given the same privilege.


Frank Oliver: A United States citizen of alien enemy origin was given by the Director of National Service, under the authority of the Minister of Interior, the special privilege of non-resident homesteading in the Northwest while the same Director of National Service was declaring that a man of British citizenship but of the same alien enemy origin should be disfranchised.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is the same privilege of non-resident homesteading given to men resident in Canada who might go out and work on the farms in the West?


William James Roche: Certainly.


Charles Marcil: Are any inducements
given to residents of the other provinces to go West?


William James Roche: The same.


Charles Marcil: Was any advertising resorted to in order to make the facts known?


William James Roche: It was advertised in the
press of the country. The privileges were extended to people from any province in the Dominion.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister know if any considerable number went from the Canadian provinces?


William James Roche: We did not encourage them to go from the other provinces for the reason that we were informed that in all the other provinces they were just as badly off as they were in the West.


William Pugsley: How many homestead entries were taken up during the past year?


William James Roche: During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, the total number of homestead entries was 11,199.


William Pugsley: It appears that 70,000 settlers came in, but only 11,000 homesteads
were taken uip. Has the minister any information as to whether the others only came temporarily, or whether they bought land, or went into the cities? ,


William James Roche: The 60,000 who came in from the United States included men, women and children, and, of course, children are not supposed to take up homesteads.


William Pugsley: Still, immigrants as a rule do not bring in many children.


William James Roche: Yes, they come in with quite large families.


William Pugsley: In what provinces were these 11,000 homesteads taken up?


William James Roche: The three prairie provinces' and particularly in the northern part of Alberta.


William Pugsley: In the Peace River district?


William James Roche: A great many went into the Peace River district.


William Pugsley: Are there many available homesteads having good soil in that part of Alberta south of the Saskatchewan river?


William James Roche: South of that latitude there are no large blocks of land still available and not disposed of. There is land here and there, but no large amounts, such as a township. There is comparatively little in Alberta south of Edmonton.


William Pugsley: I do not mean townships, but is there any considerable extent of good land still open for homesteading south of the Saskatchewan river?


William James Roche: Comparatively little.


William Pugsley: The reason I ask the minister is that he has upon the Order Paper a proposal, of which a good deal of notice has 'been taken, and which proposal was put forward to a committee in England by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) to assist returned soldiers to take up homesteads and give them a loan of money. What I was desirous of knowing was whether, in order to avail themselves of this offer, settlers would have to go north of the Saskatchewan. From what the minister says, I judge that will be substantially correct.


William James Roche: To get blocks of land of any extent they will have to go to the northern part of the province.


Frank Oliver: Did I understand the minister to give the number of homestead entries during the past year?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: How many?


William James Roche: 11,199.


Frank Oliver: I take it that the expenditure on immigration is primarily for the purpose of securing settlement on homesteads. Am I right?


William James Roche: We are particularly desirous of getting those who wish to locate upon the land and we are making a special effort to secure farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants.


Frank Oliver: The expenditure is largely for the purpose of securing homestead settlement. I think we all agree that that is right. We find that during the past year the efforts of the immigration department resulted in securing 11,000 homesteaders, and I find, on referring to the figures, that in 1910-11 and 1911-12 we had in the neighbourhood of 44,000 homesteads taken, or four times as many as we had in this past year. I suppose that that would argue that there was four times as much work done by the immigration department; at any rate, the results of the work done were four times as great as they were last year. I wish to point out, in the same line of reasoning, if my hon. friend over here (Mr. Arthurs) will permit me, that 1 used the other night in regard to the estimates of the lands branch, that the expenditure by the Department of the Interior in regard to immigration in this time of war, when we are voting half a million dollars for war expenditure, is extravagant beyond all reason, because we are spending this year, according to this estimate, considerably more money than we did in the year 191011, or the year 1911-12, when we were securing four times as many homestead settlers. I desire to emphasize that this Government in all its departments, and certainly in its Interior Department, does not know that there is a war on or that this country, in view of the extraordinary expenses of the war, demands that the expenses for the ordinary services of the country be cut down in accordance with the war conditions which reduce the possibility of results from those services. We have actually increased our expenditures for these services, notwithstanding the tremendous demands made upon ue by the war. Here is this instance, the Immigration Department demands 11,215,000 for the year 1917-18, and in the year 1910-11 the demand was for $1,040,000, and for 1911-12, for $1,066,000. The only difference in the service is that in those 
years we paid $15,000 to the Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospitals, and in this year that sum does 'not appear, but there is $29,000 for Chinese immigration. The Minister of the Interior convicts his Government of absolute extravagance and of disregard of war conditions.


William James Roche: I may tell the hon. gentleman that he is away off in his figures. He states that we do not know that there is a war on, viewing it from the standpoint of the expenditure of the Immigration Branch, and that we have not 'been reducing our expenditure.


Frank Oliver: No, I say your expenditure is out of proportion to the result of your work.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is
qualifying the impression that he conveyed to the House, that we have not taken any steps to reduce the expenditure because of the war being on- I beg to say that his figures are not quite accurate as to the actual expenditure in 1910-11. For the year 1911-12, which was the last year the hon. gentleman prepared- the estimates for the Immigration Department, the expenditure was $1,354,736, and the expenditure of this past year has been $1,152,275.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many people
came in 1910?


William James Roche: The people who came in
1910-11 were 311,084.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And last year?


William James Roche: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I took my figures
from the public accounts; I have them here.
Mr. RO(5hE:	I do not think the hon.
gentleman will find such figures in the public accounts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have them here.
I compared* the figures of 1910, which were $1,079,000, and those of 1915-16 which were $1,307,000.	.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman said four years ago, my attention was drawn to his remarks in Hansard; he said that the Minister of the Interior was spending $300,000 more now for immigration than four years 'ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman must realize that I was referring to the last year of the Liberal administration


William James Roche: Four years ago. It is
$700,000 less to-day. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was quoting the estimates for last year and said we had spent $1,574,000.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon, I did not quote the estimates of last year.


William James Roche: Was he referring to the estimates of the present year?


Frank Oliver: Yes, this year.


William James Roche: The estimates of this year are considerably below last year, nearly $300,000. So I think there cannot be any charge-


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman say how the deduction of $300,000 was made up?


William James Roche: By sweeping reductions all along the line. In some instances by the reduction of the staff. Where offices would become vacant in many instances we did not fill them, and we have had reductions
all along the line. And it is a substantial reduction below last year, $300,000, and below four years ago, $700,000.


Frank Oliver: I find on reference to the public accounts that the expenditure on immigration in 1910-11 was $1,079,129; and in 1915-16, $1,307,480, an increase of $238,351. I say that increase of expenditure, with the decreased business done, is absolutely indefensible, and I wish to say further that when the minister talks about decreasing his expenditure from one million eight hundred thousand down to one million whatever it is this year, I would respectfully ask him on what ground he increased it from $1,079,000 in 1911 to $1,800,000 in 1914. Under what possible state of circumstances could he justify that enormous increase at that time and in that period?


William James Roche: We had a very large immigration continuing until the outbreak of the war, and then immigration did drop; the overseas immigration since then has been almost a negligible quantity. But we have had other expenditures in connection with immigration which the hon. gentleman did not have to the same extent, because it is only of comparatively recent years that we have instituted this rigid system of boundary inspection. It was done before the hon. gentleman left office, but we have had to increase the boundary inspection and during the war we have had to put on an additional number of boundary inspectors to watch the boundary and assist other departments in their work. Our boundary inspectors have been called upon to do considerably more work since the war broke out, and that work has increased very materially. In England all our immigration agencies have been maintained, and we have carried on a much more active propaganda in the United States. The hon. member, being a journalist himself, realizes how very much more expensive it is to get out literature; paper is higher, labour is higher, our advertising is higher, and getting out literature is in every way much more expensive.
We have spent a great deal more money in the United States than we did prior to the outbreak of war. We have made special efforts to get immigration from the United States since we were shut off from overseas immigration.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister kept up the work of the repatriation of Canadians?


William James Roche: Yes.


Charles Marcil: What was done last year?


William Roche: Colonization agents visit
*the New England states and bring back and locate in the various provinces French Canadians or their descendants who had gone across the line. These 9 p.m. agents, who report to the department frpm time to time, claim to have met with a considerable degree of success in their work. They have located some of these persons in Northern Ontario, Northern Saskatchewan, Northern Alberta and some in the province of Manitoba.
.Mr, MARCIL:	Has the minister any
figures as t,o the number of persons brought in last year as a result of this work?


William James Roche: The figures are not separated from the general statistics. They are contained in the reports sent in by the colonization agents.


Charles Marcil: How many of these agents have you in the United-States.


William James Roche: These are special colonization agents who visit the New England states and act in conjunction with our established agencies there. We have eight of them.


Charles Marcil: What are their names and their places of residence?


William James Roche: J. E. Robillard, Lanoraie, Que., $1,500; G. C. Poulin, St. Johns, Que., $1,200; Odilon Rathe, Henryville, $1,200; J. B. L. Bourassa, Montreal, $1,200; J. B. H. Giroux, Montreal, $600; J. A. Norman-deau, Montreal, $600 ; 0. Corbeil, Montreal, $600; Napoleon Poirier, Bellegarde, Sask., $600.


Charles Marcil: What kind of work does the hon. minister expect a man to do at $600 a year, in view of the high cost of living?
iMr. ROOHE: Is the hon. gentleman objecting to the salaries being so low? Does he desire that they be increased?


Charles Marcil: I was wondering what the minister expected a man to do at a remuneration of $600 a year.


William James Roche: I understand that they are satisfied with the .salaries.


Charles Marcil: Are they expected to give 12 months of their time for $600?


William Roche: They are allowed certain travelling expenses in addition to their salaries.


Charles Marcil: Wihat did these additional expenses amount to last year?


William Roche: They are published in the Auditor General's report.


John Gillanders Turriff: The minister mentioned the name of M. Poirier of Bellegardie, Sask. What does M. Poirier do, aside from the work to which the minister has referred?


William James Roche: He is a clergyman.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the minister
doing in the way of bringing labouring men for the farms into the province of Ontario?


William Roche: The province of Ontario
has received a fair proportion of the farm help that has come in; it has its own immigration organization as well. The special agents sent to the United 'States by the province of Ontario this spring have been acting in co-operation with our agents there. I understand that quite a number of farm labourers-I do not know Ihow many-have come to the province of Ontario this spring.


Mr NESBITT:: I do not know of any; certainly none have come into our section of the country. I was wondering if the minister was doing anything in this respect, because we have been very short of farm labour in Ontario. The department used to pay certain persons, who were not given a regular salary, so much for every man that they placed on the farms. I3 that work still carried on?


William James Roche: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Who is doing that work in the county of Oxford?


William James Roche: Samuel Nagle, Ingersoll; F. W. Burgess, Woodstock; Thos. Milson, Tavistock; Messrs. Hollier and Walsh, Til-sonburg; John Pollock, Norwich; Sam L. Foe, Richmond, and Richard Hanson, Tavistock.


Mr NESBITT:: Who in the world is F. W. Burgess?


William James Roche: I can not tell the hon. gentleman who he is, but his name appears as one of those colonization agents who is paid $2 for every farm labourer he places in the province of Ontario.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know him. A man by the name of Burgess is engaged in the sewing machine business in Woodstock; surely it is not he?


William James Roche: I do not know, I am
sure.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Such a man would not be in touch with the farmers.


William James Roche: Perhaps the farmers would be in touch with him.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They might be in touch with him the wrong way. A man by the name of Burgess was turnkey in the jail, but he is dead. A Mr. Irving was engaged in that work, but he died recently, and I was wondering who took his place. I wish my hon. friend would ask his department to make inquiries as to who F. W. Burgess is. I am not speaking from a political standpoint when I say that the minister should engage for this work men who are in touch with the farmers.


William James Roche: The work .these men were appointed to do has fallen off very materially since overseas immigration ceased. They were largely engaged in placing men who had come across the ocean and located on the farms in Ontario.


Mr COPP:: Can the minister give me
information with regard to the work done by Mr. Wilmot of the Fredericton agency? The office there costs about $2,000 a year.


William James Roche: While Mr. Wilmot, I understand, has been doing a good deal of work along this line, he was not on the pay-list of the department during the past year.


Mr. COPP:: Is he not now employed by the Government?


William James Roche: He is doing the work I
understand. I am informed that he is very much interested in the work and he is quite willing to continue to work without salary.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He is doing work without
salary now?


William James Roche: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no Fredericton
agency at the present time?


William James Roche: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In regard to a matter that
was brought up by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) have you any report of work done by Mr. Hay, the Woodstock agent, during the past year?


William James Roche: Mr. Hay was under discussion here prior to six o'clock. He sends in to the department his diaries giving particulars as to his work. We have nothing here as to what he has done during the past year. My private information is that Mr. Hay was doing good work, acting in cooperation with the provincial land settlement board, locating, settlers on the land. An hon. member stated this afternoon that Mr. Hay was in the pay of the provincial government. I was unaware of that fact, and I promised to make some further inquiries with regard to the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know nothing personally about this matter, and I was rather surprised when I heard the statement made by my hon. friend from Carleton regarding this man's salary, and I think the minister must have been mistaken or else I misunderstood him this afternoon when he said that Mr. Hay did not receive anything but his salary. I see by the Auditor General's report of last year that Mr. Hay received besides his salary four hundred and some odd dollars for travelling expenses.


William James Roche: What year is that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Auditor General's Report for the year ended March 31, 1916.


William James Roche: I was speaking of later
than that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am referring to the year
of the Auditor General's Report that is in the hands of hon. members, and from that report I find that last year Mr. Hay received $1,963.30 for his services. In view of what my hon. friend said this afternoon with regard to this gentleman's work-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Hay got $1,900 more than he was entitled to.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know nothing personally
about this man, but it seems to me that as this money is being spent in the province of New Brunswick, we should have some person doing some work in the interest of colonization and the money should not be thrown away.


William James Roche: I am given to understand
that Mr. Hay has made a trip to the United States for the purpose of securing immigrants.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He made a special trip
with his wife to California. He attended a fair of some kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In war time?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, in war time.


William James Roche: That does not at all contradict what I stated. The hon. gentleman is trying to leave the impression that Mr. Hay took his wife to California on a pleasure trip and oharged up his expenses to the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is any doubt about that.


William Roche: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am serious in regard
to the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to put on Hansard what the minister has been doing. In 1910-11, this country expended $1,079,129.85 on immigration and in that year there came to Canada 311,084 people. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916, my hon. friend spent $1,307,480.46 on immigration and with that increased expenditure of some $228,000 my hon. friend succeeded in getting 48,537 people to Canada. From my hon. friend's immigration work, it seems that the moTe money he spends the fewer immigrants he secures. I do not know whether .that is a splendid rule to apply for the purpose of economy in war time or not, but perhaps the minister is acting according to the wordis of the Minister of Finance who always declares that no matter what shortcomings the Government have committed at any time and under any circumstances, everything is done for the purpose of winning the war. My hon. friend was throwing away the . money of the people of Canada to the extent of $228,000 a year and he was getting only 48,000 immigrants, whereas, under the guidance of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and with a much smaller expenditure, over 311,000 people were induced to come into Canada. My hon. friend was good enough to refer to my criticism with respect to these expenditures, and my figures, I think, are somewhat illuminating and will lead the House and the country to realize just what kind of reckless administration my hon. friend is carrying on in his department.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister the figures of the immigration for 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?


William Roche: Yes; the immigration for 1912-13 was 402,432; for 1913-14, 384,878. Then the war came on and in 1914-15 the immigration was 144,789. In 1915-16 the immigration was 48,537,when the overseas immigration practically ceased and in 1916-17 the immigration, largely from the United States, amounted to 75,374.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many came
from Great Britain in 1916-17?


William Roche: 8,282.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And the balance
from the United States?


William Roche: Mostly, there were some
from the Continent.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister the expenditures from 1912 and 1913?


William Roche: In 1912-13 the expenditure was $1,399,954, and in 1913-14, $1,859,671. The expenditure has been considerably reduced every year since the outbreak of war. For the coming year the expenditure will be $700,000 less than it was four years ag6.


Frank Oliver: There was an increase of about half a million dollars between 1912-13 and 1913-14, and a decrease of immigration of over 17,000.


William Roche: It is impossible to figure immigration as costing so much per capita, because we have our standing expenditures that are running on. Some years, for instance, we have increased expenditure for literature. Our literature perhaps is going out in very large quantities this year, while next year that item will be considerably less, and it is impossible to judge accurately as to the expenditure being so much by reason of so many immigrants coming in. .


Arthur Bliss Copp: I notice the estimate for immigration last year was $630,000. Was that whole amount spent last year?


William Roche: No, of last year's estimate we expect to save approximately $400,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before six o'clock I stated that I thought there were half a dozen immigration officers in the vicinity of this Mr. Hay, and the information I received from the minister was that there were none in the county of Carleton. I have here the Auditor General's Eeport for the year 191516. Of course, I do not know what may have taken place since the 31st day of March, 1916, but there has not been very much of a change unless it be upwards. I would like to call the minister's attention to this. I stated that I thought there was an agent at Debec junction,: which is only eleven or twelve miles from Woodstock. There you have Mr. E. E. Kennedy, with a salary of $900, and expenses of uniform suit, $20; meals, $55.20; sundry outlay, $7.26, making a total of $982.46.
I come next to a place called Eichmond, N.B., only six miles from Woodstock. There you have an inspector named Daniel Barrington, at $300. At Oentreville, a few miles north of Woodstock, is A. C. Gibson, with a [DOT]salary of $79.44. So there you have three

men all around Woodstock. I think, perhaps, they are doing something, although there may be a little less to do than some years ago. These men, who are really looking after immigration (business, are getting salaries ranging from $79.44 to $900, and yet this other man, who is simply a Conservative organizer, is getting nearly $2,000 a year; that is the objection I have to make. I think I am justified in bringing this matter up and asking the minister to cut this item out, or at least to make a thorough investigation before he proceeds with it. All along the boundary line, at Grand Falls, St. Leonards, Canterbury, McAdam Junction, . St. Stephen, there are immigration officials receiving from $300 to $900 a year. I admit these men are doing something. They are at the proper location, and I am not asking that their services be dispensed with, but here is a man receiving this enormous salary and doing absolutely nothing. I am sure if the minister looks up this man's diaries he will find he has done practically nothing. I was sure when I made my statement this afternoon that there were other officials in that district, and I have now given the minister the names. He will find them in the Auditor General's Report for 1916, pages K-36, 38, 39, 40.


William James Roche: There must be a misunderstanding. We were discussing whether Mr. Hay occupied the position of colonization agent in the county of Carleton. The men whose names the hon. gentleman has mentioned are boundary inspectors. There are quite a number of them in the province of New Brunswick.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there are any more in the county of Carleton I should like to have their names.


William James Roche: The list for the province of New Brunswick is as follows:	Willard
Tucker, H. G. Maloney, W. H. Smith, C. H. Maxwell, R. W. Whitlock, R. O'Shaugh-nessy, H. W. Cleland, R. E. Kennedy, D. H. Purinton, E. W. Larlee, C. A. Kirkpatrick, F. A. Roy, L. R. Belanger, W. T. Perron, Thomas Levesque, A. C. Gibson, W. H. Hawthorne, J. A. Newman, Alvin Parker, Jos. B. Porter, O. Robinson, W. E. Spike, J. Theriault, T. H. Wetmore, J. J. Walsh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not finding any
great fault with the appointment of these *gentlemen because they are located at points where people might come into the province, and they are rendering some service for their salaries. I would like to know whether Mr. C. A. Kirkpatrick of Grand Falls has been receiving his salary during the past year. I see he received a salary of $900 and the ordinary perquisites for the year ending March, 1916.


William James Roche: Mr. Kirkpatrick's name is on the list of our inspectors, and he has been drawing his salary of $900 during the past year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister know whether he has been performing the services of his office or not?


William James Roche: Most assuredly he has, if he has been drawing his salary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister may be surprised, but I can tell him that this man has only been in Grand Falls once or twice in the last two or three years on a visit. I don't want to say anything unpleasant, but I will say this much; this man is an officer in the King's army who has belonged to various units since he enlisted, and he has never left Canada. I wanted to know whether he was still receiving his salary from the Immigration Department.


William James Roche: He would be treated on exactly the same terms as others who enlisted before November, 1915.


Frank Oliver: A few days ago I asked for information in regard to enlistments from the Interior and Indian Departments. Could the minister tell me when I may receive the return?


William James Roche: I am informed that it will soon be ready.


Frank Oliver: I should be glad if the
minister would expedite it as much as possible.


William James Roche: I will.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood the minister to say that Mr. Hay was doing work with the Farm Settlement Board in New Brunswick. As I understand it, the Farm Settlement Board is purely a provincial .organization, which is concerned with the placing of settlers on the land. I cannot understand how Mr. Hay, a Dominion official, should have anything to do with provincial funds expended under this board.


William James Roche: I do not suppose the hon. gentleman objects to the Dominion Government paying Mr. Hay for doing colonization work. We are paying other gentlemen for doing similar work in other provinces. If

it is a fact that Mr. Hay is in the employ of the provincial government, I quite agTee that he should not be drawing a salary from the Dominion Government as well.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was not objecting to the
salary at all. I had not heard of the gentleman until my hon. friend from Carleton spoke of him. My point was that the Farm Settlement Board was entirely a provincial matter, with which the Dominion Government had nothing to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has any one been appointed temporarily in the place of Mr. Kirkpatrick at Grand Falls since he enlisted?


William James Roche: I cannot say offhand, but I can get the information fpr our next sitting.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Who is the immigration agent at Edmonton South?


William James Roche: Mr. Clegg is at Edmonton, Alberta. That is the only one at Edmonton that is given in the list before me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What duties are performed by Mr. Fielding, of Windsor, Nova Scotia, whose name appears in the Auditor General's Report as immigration agent there?


William James Roche: He is not now-in the employ of the department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is one of the men dropped last year?


William James Roche: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has anybody been appointed in his place?


William James Roche: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is T. J. Webb still in the employ of the Government at Anti-gonish?


William James Roche: He is not now in the employ of the department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understand the Windsor office is abolished?	*


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Who is the immigration agent at Grande Prairie?


William James Roche: I have not in the list before me the name of any officer located at that point.	-


Frank Oliver: There is an immigration hall at Grande Prairie for which the department pays a rental of $65 a month. There

are a considerable number of people going in, and I was curious to know to what extent the hall was being utilized. It seems strange that we should pay rent for a hall and have no one to look after it.


William James Roche: The hall is being utilized and a caretaker is in charge, but I have not his name before me.


Frank Oliver: A hall for immigrants will not take care of itself, and if the building is to be utilized-and I assure the minister it is desirable that it should be utilized, as a considerable number of immigrants are going in at that point-if there is not some person taking care of the hall the minister should make arrangements to have some person in charge. I believe that for some time the department was paying rental for this hall, and that, as it was not needed for immigration, it was being used for other purposes. But at present there is need for immigration accommodation at that point. I hope that the former condition does not prevail, but that the hall, which is not an unsuitable building for the purpose, is used and is properly taken care of.


William James Roche: The hall is utilized and some person is in charge, who is paid out of contingencies.


Frank Oliver: I have a question on the Order Paper, but, perhaps, the minister can give me the answer now. What number of people will this hall accommodate, and is sleeping accommodation provided?


William James Roche: It is a small building and not as suitable as we would like. I think there are nine beds in it. I understand the Public Works Department are negotiating for a more suitable place.


Frank Oliver: I did not inspect the building personally, but from the cursory view I had of it I should not say it was wholly unsuitable, and I should have thought that a larger number of beds than nine could be arranged in it. I suggest to the minister that he should take cognizance of the fact that there is a demand for immigration accommodation at this point, and that while he is arranging for his new building the present building should be utilized in the fullest reasonable measure. Grande Prairie is a railway terminal point in an area that is receiving a great deal of immigration attention and is a proper point for suitable immigration accommodation.


William James Roche: We do not desire to make an appropriation for a new building of this kind. Some negotiations have been carried

on for the renting of the Empire hotel there, which, I understand, would be a very good building for our purposes. If it can be secured at reasonable rates- we think it would be much better to take it for the next two or three years.


James McCrie Douglas: Following up my question with regard to Strathcona, I see by the Auditor ' General's Report that Adolphe Adam is named at a salary of $1,314. Can the minister inform me if Mr. Adam is still on the payroll?


William James Roche: I am inclined to think he is not. His name is not on the list before me as that of one of the officials at that point.


James McCrie Douglas: Is the minister aware of the reason why Mr. Adam is not on the payroll?
, Mr. ROCHE: I am pretty sure his services were dispensed with.


Frank Oliver: While I do not wish to interfere with the minister's plan, I desire to say that in my judgment, if suitable arrangements can be made with regard to the Empire hotel at Grande Prairie, as it is a large building and moderately new, I think it would be wise to make arrangements for it as quickly as possible. Now is the time when the people are going in and the time when they need the accommodation. Two or three months from now they will not be going in. The present building, I should think, is not large enough to accommodate the people going in. -So if there is to be a change the quicker the better.


William James Roche: I understand an officer was sent in there several days ago to try and get a building.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to hear it. I think there was an appropriation for an immigration hall at Spirit River.


William James Roche: I understand there is to be an immigration hall at that point. I think the Public Works Department have an appropriation in for its construction.


Frank Oliver: There are three points in the Peace River country that are receiving a very considerable immigration at the present time. There is, first, Grande Prairie, which is the terminal point of the railroads and from which radiates a settlement perhaps 60 miles in length by 25 miles in breadth. Then there is Spirit River, which is a smaller settlement and which is at the junction of the Grand Prairie branch railway. I do not know that there is any accommodation provided at the present time.
I am under the impression that there is not, but I believe an appropriation was taken for the construction of a hall. I would be very glad to see a hall erected at Spirit River. The erection of the hall, if it is in progress now, will not be of very much present value. There are people going to that point at the present time and I would suggest that the minister take cognizance of the situation at Spirit River and secure, if possible on reasonable terms, immigration accommodation at that point without delay. I would like to say a word also regarding Peace River. Peace River is the terminus of the railroad on the Peace river and is the railway point for a settlement 60 miles in length and with prospects of growing up and down the river. I do not think there is any immigration accommodation at that point at the present time and I would urge upon the minister the desirability of securing, again if it is possible on reasonable terms, immediate temporary accommodation with the view of establishing permanent accommodation at whatever later date circumstances will permit. Grand Prairie, Spirit River and Peace River are all urgent in the matter of immigration accommodation during the present season.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understood the minister to say that the Fredericton agency had been abolished. Am I right?


William James Roche: That is where Mr. Wilmot
is?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


William James Roche: I stated that Mr. Wilmot
asked to be allowed to continue doing his work but without pay.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not speaking of
Mr. Wilmot alone but of the whole agency. I find a couple of names here in the Auditor General's Report-F. E. Fenety, assistant agent, $1,000 a year; a stenographer, Miss Thomas, $600 a year; a janitor, office expenses, etc.


William James Roche: I believe these are on the list yet.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what I think.
What office do they rent in Fredericton and to whom do they pay the rent?


William James Roche: I will have to take a note of the question of my hon. friend as I am not personally aware of the circumstances.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While the amount is not very great, the remarkable thing about it is that there was a building erected in Fredericton some years ago as a post office and customs house. It was plenty large enough for a city the size of Fredericton for a good many years to come. But, a few years ago this Government, in its wisdom, erected another building immediately alongside of the old building at a cost of about $150,000. It seems rather remarkable that you have to go and hire an outside office to get public accommodation in the little city of Fredericton. It seems extraordinary that you have to pay $105 for office expenses and janitor when you have such splendid accommodation in Fredericton.


William James Roche: I have no personal knowledge of the building or as to who owns it, or what rent we pay for it, but I will take note of what the hon. gentleman has stated and make inquiries. Does the hon. gentleman know who owns the building?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not. but I have a very shrewd suspicion. I do not want to mention any names without feeling sure of them. I would be very much obliged to the minister if he would look into the matter and let us know who is receiving this small honorarium, because there is no office being occupied, and I doubt very much if there is any janitor being employed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What position does Mr. Fenety hold there?


William James Roche: Assistant.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Last year he was assistant, but if there is no principal I do not see how there can be an assistant.


William James Roche: This gentleman has been
there for some time and his services have been retained. Mr. Wilmot was informed that we would have to dispense with his services and we were about to close the office but the proposition was put up by Mr. Wilmot that he would be glad to give what services he could personally without charging any remuneration for himself. It is absolutely impossible to close the office entirely. I do not think he has any personal financial interest in having the office ' retained.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection to
Mr. Fenety and Miss Thomas receiving their salaries, but it is an absolutely useless waste of public money. They are not doing anything because there is nothing to

do and there never has been anything to do. There was a time when Mr. Fenety was interested to some extent in what they called the Farm Settlement Board, but it ceased to exist as an immigration factor three or four years ago. I do not think I am revealing any political secrets when I tell you that it will absolutely cease to exist in the course of a very short time because there has been a change in the affairs of New Brunswick within the last three months. As an immigration agency there is nothing doing, nothing has been done and nothing will be done, and unless my hon. friend wishes to keep these two people employed-the amount is not very great-he had better cancel the whole thing and get rid of the agency.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In what foreign
country has the minister Canadian agencies other than the United States?


William James Roche: We have no agencies now in any foreign country that I can recollect. We had one in Copenhagen. That has been closed since the war. We had one at Antwerp and that- also has been closed. We had a Paris agency also. The foreign agencies have been closed except those in the United States.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the expense of the Paris office?


William James Roche: In France there has been a very slight expenditure. We have a clerk, Mr. Martin, at $660 and a typist, Mrs. M. Martin, at $720, so that the total salaries there axe $1,380.


Mt. LEMIEUX:: I am glad that my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has raised thfis question about the different agencies in foreign countries. It seems to me that the Minister of the Interior should state the policy to be pursued by the department after the war as regards those European agencies. I concede that the best immigrants we can secure for the country are the Americans-, although it is very difficult to draw a distinction between the American born and the foreigner who has settled in the United States. That may give rise to very serious difficulties in view of the problem which was raised a few days ago on the question of the franchise. The Government ought to have a polficy for the period after the war. I put aside -at once the question of encouraging immigration from the Central Powers to Canada. It would be a great mistake to attempt to attract to Canada people from Germany

or from Austria. But, although the losses caused by this war will be enormous and although there will be, on the part of those countries devastated by the war, a desire to keep their nationals wttthin their own boundaries, yet, wife millions remaining and with the horrors that the present war will have left in the minds of the present and the coming generations, it is to be hoped that thousands and hundreds of thousands will, after the war, seek a refuge and a home in America.
Of all the countries that we as Canadians must rely upon for an excellent stock, I shall name first the British Islands. I do not know to what extent immigration will come from the British Isles, but I daresay it will be far easier to secure immigrants from them than from any other countries because it seems that after the Conference which has taken place of late during the visit of the ministers to London the tendency in England will be to encourage Britishers to settle in the various dominions and colonies. That immigration will, of course, be welcomed to Canada. But we have other countries also to which we may look as fields for immigration. I hope, in spite of what has been said, that we may expect a large flow of immigration from little Belgium. We all know that Belgium is too small a country, geographicaly speaking, to contain its relatively large population. We were given some months ago, during a debate in this House, a statement of the number of people per square mile in Belgium. It is something appalling to think of the number of people who have to dwell on the few thousands of acres which comprise the area of little Belgium. It seems to me that the Belgians, who are such hard workers and such excellent operators, and especially such good farmers and gardeners, should be encouraged to come to Canada. I am not sure that the Minister of the Interior should not take advantage of the fact that at the present moment there are thousands, and I may say hundreds of thousands, of Belgians in England, and try to get some of those good immigrants for Canada.
It is very difficult to expect a large flow of immigration from France. Before the war even, it was difficult to attract settlers from France, and after the war it will be still more difficult, because so many thousands of young men have been mowed down * since 1914. But still, from what I learn from my correspondents in France, it is remarkable how many Frenchmen would be pleased to come to Canada if they could receive the
necessary encouragement from this Government. Some years ago a policy was inaugurated by the Government which gave excellent results. I remember the day when immigration to Canada from France was practically nil. But with a system of advertisement and with good immigration officers in Paris and in the various centres of France, a relatively large number of French immigrants came to Canada.
There are also immigrants of the best quality to be had from the, northern section of Italy. I do not say that the southern section of Italy would be a proper field for Canadian immigration effort, but I do say that the northern part of Italy is an excellent field for securing immigrants. There is a large body of good farmers in that section of Europe. Some years ago a number of them came to Montreal and settled on the island, and I may say that to-day the most prosperous gardeners, and indeed the most wealthy gardeners, in that district are Italians. They come from around Milan and Turin, and have been quite a success in their farming venture on the island of Montreal. I hope that my hon. friend will add a little more to his expenditure for immigration officers in Paris. A well-managed, well,equipped agency at Paris, which is an important European centre, which send to Canada quite a large number of immigrants. I hope that the Government will soon announce its policy concerning immigration after the war.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is probably aware of the fact that the French Government are not in favour of our carrying on an active propaganda for the encouraging of emigration. They do not like to see their settlers emigrate; what we have done in France, therefore, has had to be done very diplomatically. Unfortunately, the gentleman who was our agent there enlisted and was killed. We have not been spending much money on this work in France. We have been doing some advertising, but it has had to be done in such manner as not to attract too much attention, We would not be permitted to carry on an active propaganda such as we do, for instance, in the British Isles. I understand that a proposal has been made by or on behalf of Mr, Roy, who is acting under the Prime Minister's Department, that the immigration staff be merged with that of his office. The immigration authorities, however, find that it is better that matters affecting immigration should be dealt with by a separate branch. In London at one time the immigration business was largely

handled through the High Commissioner's Office, but it was thought that the work would be done more advantageously and with less red tape and restriction if it was dealt with by a separate immigration branch. As to Belgium, it is not in favour of even the refugees coming across the ocean. The authorities there want to keep their own people in their own land in order to build up their devastated country after the war is over. Several offers have 'been made by Belgian priests to come over and act as colonization agents. By reason of communications which we had received from Belgium discouraging any attempts on our part to secure immigration from that country, I did not encourage this proposal. We have felt that we should not do anything opposed to the wishes of the Belgian people, especially with regard to attracting people from their own country during the war. As to an after-the-war policy, we have not yet matuied any particular scheme. We think there is plenty of time, our information being that a large portion of the first year after the war will be occupied in bringing tack our own soldiers, having regard to th" facilities of (transport. An after-the-war pol't-y of immigration, however, has been under consideration, in respect not only of Britain, but of other countries as well. It will be formulated in due time; certain reforms may be adopted, and in connection with after-the-war conditions, the remarks of my hon. friend will be given full consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because of certain correspondence that I have received, I am aware that my hon. friend has done his best with regard to the French immigration office during the war. I hope that after the war he will see that the immigration office in France shall be properly equipped. Has my hon. friend been interviewed by a so-called delegate representing a Japanese company, and offering to get Japanese labourers to do farming work in western Canada?


William James Roche: I was interviewed by a
representative of some company that was to be organized and incorporated if the Government viewed its proposals with favour. He did not in any capacity represent the Japanese Government, who were entirely unaware of his mission. The Japanese Consul here, to whom I referred the gentleman before giving the matter further consideration, did not, I think, view the proposal with favour.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister knowledge of an effort at Belgian colonization be-
tween Smoky river and Sturgeon lake in the Peace river country?


William James Roche: A Belgian priest waited on me some time ago, suggesting that he should be permitted to go to Belgium, bring some Belgians to this country and locate them on land's in Northern Alberta. I informed him that communications which we had received from the Belgian Government indicated their antagonism to the carrying on of any propoganda of that character. I did not, therefore, encourage the proposal any further.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: According to the
Canada Year 'Book, there came from the United Kingdom, during the period from 1912 to 1916, a total of 483,225 people; from the United States, 476,965, and from other countries, 374,683. Adding to these figures those which the minister gave this afternoon as to the number of persons who came in during the last year, the approximate total for the five years and a half would be 491,000 from Great Britain and 916,658 from the United States and other countries. This disparity between the immigration from Great Britain and that from the United States and other countries is interesting, having in mind the suggestions made without due deliberation by some hon. gentleman with reference to the method of dealing with people who have come to Canada in large numbers in recent years, under the
10 p.m. tutelage and direction of this Government. I mention that simply because it is well that the figures should go on Hansard for future reference. I wish to ask the minister whether there is any truth in the rumour that a large settlement scheme is being arranged in Great Britain by certain well-known men who are said to be working in conjunction with this Government, undeT which certain lands in the Northwest are to be purchased and dealt with on a settlement basis.


William James Roche: If the hon. gentleman refers to the same report that I saw in the press, so far as this department is concerned there is nothing in it. No negotiations have been made with any company of that nature.


Frank Oliver: Is this project to which
the minister refers the same concerning which I have a question on the Order Paper? The general manager of the company is a Mr. Fletcher.


William James Roche: I informed the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that no

negotiations at all have been conducted by this Government with any such company.


Frank Oliver: 
William James Roche: There has been no departure from that policy.
Administration of Chinese immigration, salaries, $24,000.


William James Roche: There is a decrease of

member thought we were dealing harshly with a particular class of Chinese, and I informed him at the time that it was the intention of the Government to introduce at this session legislation waiving the head tax on Chinese students coming into Canada to attend educational institutions. The Bill has received its first reading and is on the Order Paper for second reading.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While I am raising no objection to the immigration of Hindus, which has been discussed by the Imperial Conference, because I am not so opinionated as are the members who represent British Columbia, yet I would like to have an expression of opinion from the minister in regard to that very important question. Since the news was spread broadcast that facilities would be given to Hindus to settle in Canada, bringing their wives with them, has the Government received any protest from the Government of British Columbia, or from the members who represent British Columbia in this House? Personally, I am not interested except from a sense of duty as a Canadian representative. I know that there is in the province by the Pacific ocean and in the other western provinces quite a sentiment against any more Hindu immigration. Let me give my experience to the minister. Some years ago it was my privilege to represent Canada at the inauguration of the new constitution in South Africa and I took that occasion to visit the cities on the coast of South Africa. I found that as a result of the immigration of Hindus, which had been encouraged by the then British authorities in South Africa, the cities and towns from Cape Town to the boundary line of Delagoa bay were filled with Hindus, and that they had practically obtained control of all the small trades in all those cities, towns and villages. I found the Hindus swarming throughout every part of South Africa. Now, if you go to Cape Town, Johannesburg or Durban, you find as many mosques as you find Christian churches. I do not raise this question to embarrass the Government as to the future; but in South Africa to-day, besides the ever-present problem of the blacks, you have the problem of the Hindus. Any man who has been in South Africa or any minister of the Crown in South Africa will tell you that a danger in that country to-day is the presence in such large numbers of the Hindus. Personally I have no objection to the Hindu, and I know he represents a very old civilization, but I am speaking for my hon. friends from British Columbia who some years ago were so


Frank Oliver: What number of Chinese came into the country during the past year, and how does that number compare with the influx during preceding years?


William James Roche: In the year 1916-17, there were 121 exempt admissions and the head tax was paid on 272. In the year 1915-16, there were 69 exempt admissions, and the head tax was paid on 20.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister the figures of the last year in which the influx was large? I want to find out when the change took place between the very large influx of some years ago, and the present very small number of admissions.


William James Roche: In the year 1912-13, there were in round numbers -7,000 admissions on which the head tax was paid; in 1913-14, 5,274, and in 1914-15, 1,155.


Frank Oliver: Has there been some recent change in the imposition of the head tax in regard to any particular class of Chinese?


William James Roche: There has been no change except that embargo that was put on a couple of years ago by an Order in Council prohibiting the entry of labourers or artisans from any country into British Columbia, and, of course, that shut off the influx of Chinese into that province very materially, but there has been no change in the method of imposing the head tax.


Frank Oliver: That order is still in
force?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Was there not some recent change in regard to the admission of Chinese students?


William James Roche: There is legislation in contemplation at the instance of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who brought this matter up before the adjournment of the House in February. That hon.

intense in their efforts to prevent any immigration from the Far East into their province. My hon. friend knows what an outcry was raised against the late Government because, forsooth, that Government was not for a white British Columbia. I see some hon. members here from British Columbia. They know what the policy is to-day, to pave the way for Hindu immigration into British Columbia, and yet not a sound is heard from them. Surely the minister must have received from those representatives very loud and strong protests against this new departure. The Hindus are going to come in; they are going to bring their wives with them-


William James Roche: Is that the case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: -and the white labourer will be at the mercy of our new fellow-British citizens of that vast country of India.


Mr. ROGERS:: Where did my hon. friend get all that information?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I got it from reading the report of the Imperial Conference.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend had better read it again and read it correctly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The report has not been laid upon the Table, but I know enough to say that this policy is to be encouraged, and as you have admitted India into the councils of the Empire, surely India is not going to sit silent and to be refused admission into the British dominions. The Government knows more than I do, and I would like to know what their policy is on this question.


William James Roche: I am afraid the ,hon.
member has formulated a policy for himself on a newspaper report. I did not so understand what I read. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Prime Minister, but I understand that at the conference certain proposals were made by the representatives of the various governments. Those proposals were not laid down as a policy, nor have they been acted upon by any government; they were simply to be referred to the respective governments for consideration, and they have not even been considered by .this Government. So that when the hon. member talks about the Government permitting the almost indiscriminate immigration of Hindus into British Columbia, he is drawing pretty largely upon his imagination, for no such policy

has been decided upon, and consequently no protests have been heard. I think it will be time enough for the British Columbia members to protest when they realize there is something tangible to protest against. There is undoubtedly a feeling in British Columbia against indiscriminate Oriental immigration. There are comparatively few Hindus in British Columbia at the present time. A few years ago there were from 5,000 to 6,000, but many of them have gone to their own country or to California, and now there are not more than 2,000 in that province.


Frank Oliver: In making his announcement to the House as to the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say, if my memory does not deceive me, that a resolution was passed that India should be represented at future conferences on the same basis as the other dominions, and that he had moved or agreed to an arrangement whereby the rights of Hindus in Canada would be measured by the rights accorded Canadians in India. Now that seems to be going very far towards assuming a direction and authority that certainly should not be assumed lightly, and which in my humble judgment should not be put forward except through this Parliament of Canada. The question of Oriental immigration has been serious in Canada in years past, and if the Prime Minister truly expressed the attitude of this new cabinet of the Empire towards the subject of Hindu immigration into Canada, I would say that our position will be very much more dangerous in the future than it has been in the past. I say nothing against the people of China, or Japan or of India. Their civilizations are older than ours. For them their civilizations may be better than ours. But they are not ours. Our civilization suits us just as their civilization suits them, I suppose. Our purpose in this country is to establish firmly, to build up and improve our civilization according to our best ideals, and we can only do that by retaining the control and direction of affairs in our own country so that we may direct them in the interests and up-building of that civilization. If, in dealing with those older civilizations which come amongst us, our hands are tied by Imperial authority, then we are handicapped in the purpose we had in view in establishing ourselves in this country. We claim that this Empire of ours is the most perfect fruit of the civilization of which we are a part. Our claim is that it stands to-

day at the head of white civilization. It can only retain that position by being maintained by a white civilization, and that white civilization must be maintained in the self-governing dominions of the Empire, or this Empire cannot be maintained finally and completely as a white man's empire. There may from time to time be occasions when it seems for the moment to conduce to the welfare of the Empire to permit the projection of this Oriental civilization into the white civilization of this or that or the other dominion, but under no possible circumstances can it be for the ultimate welfare of the Empire to permit that projection of these Oriental civilizations.
We have here a country of vast extent, of marvellous resources, of tremendous possibilities, with a population of 8,000,000. Our Pacific province is just as well suited for occupation and exploitation by the people of China and Japan as by ourselves, and it is approximately just as well suited for occupation and exploitation by the people of India as by ourselves. There are 300,000,000 people in India, 400,000,000 in China, and from 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 in Japan. To permit the movement of people from any or all of these countries into Canada at their individual will or wish could, and ultimately, we may say, would, under certain circumstances, mean the submergence of white civilization, certainly in our Pacific province, and I see no reason why not from one end of the Dominion to the other, without the drain being noticed in either one of these three Oriental countries. A successful policy of peaceful penetration is conquest and destruction just as much as occupation by force of arms; and if we do not, as a country, and as an Empire, recognize that fact, then we are building for nothing and our hopes will not bear fruit.
It is held by some that a citizen of the British Empire should have equal Tights with every other citizen in every part of the British Empire. That sounds well, and there may be conditions when it would be desirable. But in this British Empire, which includes a portion of every quarter of the globe, and every race of men, and every form of civilization on earth, however beautiful it may toe in theory, it is not possible in practice. We ndted not discuss the theory. We may be well satisfied to consider our own circumstances and conditions and to guide our course accordingly. It is absolutely necessary foT the preservation of our civilization that we should retain to ourselves the right to say who shall and who shall not be admitted to the advantages, the benefits, the occupations, or the citizenship of this country. There is no other way by which we can retain and control the civilization that we have established, that we enjoy, and that we intend to transmit' to the generations that are to come after us, that they too may continue to improve it. There is no Imperial exigency, there is no condition of world politics, or of world war, that can be allowed to derogate from that right and the exercise of that right. It is a fact that there are soldiers from India fighting the battles of the Empire; and that the soldiers of Canada are fighting the battles of the Empire. They are both fighting in the same cause. But that does not say that the citizens of Canada may project their civilization amongst the peoples of India any more than it says that the peoples of India shall toe entitled to project their civilization amongst the people of Canada. India is fighting for her liberty, to do what she pleases within her own area. Canada i6 fighting for the same purpose. The fact that we are fighting to protect our rights and interests in our own country gives us no right or authority to dictate to the peoples of some other part of the Empire what they shall do in their country and under their own conditions. So we say, however well the soldiers of India may fight, however much India may do in the cause of the Empire, we still have the same right to protect ourselves and our own country, to protect the civilization our fathers established here, civilization that we are giving our best endeavours to build up, and to-day are making sacrifices for, in order that we may transmit it to out children that they may carry the torch of liberty and civilization on down the ages.


Robert Rogers: The remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) would tend to give the House the impression that some rights of this Parliament, or of the Canadian people, have been given away as a result of the recent Imperial Conference. Let me assure my hon. friend that no rights have been given away, that there has been no thought of any rights as likely to be given away. We did discuss with the Indian representatives the question of immigration, and we distinctly and clearly informed them that it would be impossible for us to hold out any hope of any particular change in respect to immigration to the province of British Columbia. The only thing that passed was a resolution to sub-



mit to the people and Parliament of Canada favourable consideration of the position the Indian Empire is taking in this great struggle, in which their soldiers are fighting side by side with the soldiers of the other parts of the Empire, while their people are assisting by large contributions of money toward the purposes of the war. We said that we would give favourable consideration to the requests they made, but we assured them that we had not any hope that these representations would meet with any success in the way of a change in the policy that Canada had adopted in the past with respect to immigration from the Indian Empire.
I rise to say this word in order that the statements that have fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Edmonton may not be misunderstood either by this House or by any portion of the country. I am sure he does not desire to create a wrong impression, and it would be most undesirable that a wrong impression should be created. We appreciate, I am sure, what the Indian Empire is doing in the war. At the same time, the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) correctly stated the condition when he said that we, too, are fighting for our rights, and that we in Canada have our rights, as they in India have theirs. We purpose to maintain the right that we have ever maintained, that of receiving and accepting those who, we think, will make desirable settlers in the building up of the great population of the Dominion. We discussed the matter with the Indian representatives, but we have promised nothing more than was stated to the House by the Prime Minister the other day. Nothing has been given away and there is no understanding that anything shall be given away in the policy with regard to foreign immigration coming to Canada at the close of the war.
Progress reported.


THE EIGHT HON. A. J. BALFOUR.
Robert Rogers: Mr. Speaker, with the
consent of the House, I would move that when this House adjourns to-night it stand adjourned until two o'clock on Monday next. This is suggested in view of the fact that we are to be honoured by the visit of a very distinguished gentleman on Monday afternoon. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn and that it stand adjourned until two o'clock on Monday next.


Frank Oliver: Will there be any business besides meeting this distinguished gentleman?


Robert Rogers: Most of the afternoon, I presume, will be taken up by Mr. Balfour, and after that we will go on with Estimates or business of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Llouse adjourned at 10.45 p.m. Friday until two p.m. Monday, May 28.
Monday, May 28, 1917.