1923-03-13

REPORTS PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
First report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.

Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) moved:: That the third report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved:: That the fifty-fifth annual report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the fiscal year 192122 be referred to the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.   S@: That the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Admiralty Act, chapter one hundred and forty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, appoint for any admiralty district one or more deputy local

Hansard

Missing Pages
judges, and revoke such appointments; appoint for any district or registry division of any district a deputy registrar; and when the local judge of the Quebec Admiralty district resides in Montreal, the deputy local judge residing in Quebec shall be paid the salary which he would have received if he were the local judge of the district; and when the local judge resides at Quebec, the deputy local judge residing at Montreal shall receive the salary which he would have received if he were the local judge of the district; but not more than one deputy local judge in any district shall Teceive a salary.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, and has been pleased to recommend the same to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us now when we may expect an end of the present makeshift arrangement as to the Department of Railways and Canals?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The present arrangement is a very good one.


Arthur Meighen: I think the House has a right to a better answer than that. I used the term "makeshift" because it was the name the Prime Minister himself applied a few years ago to a similar arrangement. I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to say what his intentions are as to time in this regard-how long he expects it will be before there will be a regularly constituted minister in charge of this department. The House is in .session and the need of a regularly constituted minister is much greater than if the House were not in session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not thinlc the House has been embarrassed in any way, in view of the arrangement at the present time. My hon. friend will appreciate that, in the matter of filling a cabinet vacancy, the Prime Minister must be allowed sufficient time. I do not think it is imperative to fill the vacancy at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I know the Prime Minister must be allowed sufficient time, but all I am asking is, not that he be not allowed the time, but that he advise the House as nearly as he can what time he considers necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position to give my right hon. friend a definite answer.



HANSARD-MISSING PAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I would like to direct the attention of the House to a matter which occurred on 6th March when the estimates of the Defence department were before the committee. I asked a question with reference to an item and was told that the information I desired was contained in Hansard of last year. I sent to my room for the bound copy of Hansard which had been supplied to me. Afterwards I made further reference to the matter, but was informed by the chairman of the committee that I was out of order in doing so. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked me a question, and, instead of answering him, I sent across the floor of the House the bound volume which I had obtained. He is reported in Hansard to have said:
In the copy of Hansard which ray hon. friend has just handed me it looks as though those pages had been cut out.
I did not take notice of it at the time, but I have observed since that several references have been made to it in the press, and the impression is being given, or the insinuation made, that some person was a party to cutting these leaves out of Hansard. I called up Mr. Cook, who, I thought, was still connected with the Bureau. A few days ago I handed him the volume and he took it to the Librarian of Parliament. I interviewed the librarian, and from him I have obtained the following statement which, with your permission and the consent of the House, I would like to have placed on Hansard:
Ottawa, 8th March, 1923. Donald Sutherland, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear sirI beg to confirm what I mentioned to you this morning: Mr. Fred Cook brought to the library, this morning, a copy of the House of Commons Hansard, vol. 3, 1922, out of which after page 2082, a whole signature was missing. Being asked if there was any trace of this signature having been either torn from the book or otherwise separated from it, I carefully examined the appearance of the volume, and found no sign of cut thread, or remnant of the sewing thread. I concluded and answ-ered that this was evidently a case of the gatherer at the printing bureau having omitted to insert the missing signature in its proper place, or having wrongly placed it elsewhere. I brought the volume to our expert binder, Mr. Brown, and asked him what he thought of the appearance, and he fully confirmed my impression.
Yours very truly,
J. de L. Tache,
.	General Librarian.
10S2
Supply-Immigration

If there is any suspicion in the mind of any hon. member with regard to the matter, I would ask as a personal favour that a committee of the House be appointed to examine this volume and report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether
my hon. friend wants a word from me, but if he thinks I intended to cast any reflection on him personally, I am very sorry he gathered that impression; I had not the slightest intention of so doing. The volume I had in my hand, which he sent over to me, had a distinct cleavage in it at the place the pages were missing, and it did look to me as though these pages had been taken out, and I so expressed myself. I would be glad to have any member of the House examine the volume, but I did not mean to say my hon. friend had taken the pages out. He made a great deal of the missing pages. I did not make any reflection whatever.


Donald Sutherland: The statement of the Prime Minister has made it more apparent than ever that it would be advisable to have a committee appointed to examine the volume.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I looked at the copy and saw the pages were missing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the incident is
closed. The Prime Minister says he did not cast any reflection.


Donald Sutherland: I must respectfully
object to any insinuation as to any cutting being done. The-expert evidence is altogether to the contrary.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Immigration-outside service, salaries, $700,000.
Mr. MANION:: I would like to ask the
minister for a statement in regard to the whole immigration policy in general. I understood we were to have such a statement.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Immigration is probably one of the most discussed subjects in Canada, and in a brief way I hope this afternoon to cover some of the important points, at least so far as I am able to see them, and the recommendations that have been made to the government with respect to this very important matter. .

I think, Mr. Chairman, that one can best begin a discussion of this subject by giving a review of opinion in our own country. I have heard a great many different views expressed during the past summer with respect to this question. Some people are of the opinion that we should take steps to bring a huge tide of immigration to Canada; and not only that, but that we should follow some method such as that adopted for the settlement of our returned soldiers,-borrowing large sums of money for the purpose of settling upon our vacant lands people who Will come to us from the various parts of the world. Others oppose that idea, and many Canadian agriculturists feel-and they have so expressed their feeling to me-that it is our first business to make the people already on the land prosperous before bringing more upon the land and placing them in a. similar condition.
I want to take the middle course between the two extremes. I think I may preface my remarks by saying that with the problem that Canada has to face, with the financial obligations that the people of Canada now have to shoulder, it is imperative that we get more people to assist with this burden that is bearing rather heavily upon our shoulders to-day. Sometimes, one cannot help comparing today's conditions with those of eight, ten or fifteen years ago when we had, perhaps not so large a flow of immigration, as is sometimes stated, but a flow annually that would be regarded as reasonable. While I adopt the middle position, I am not unmindful of the fact, as I said before, that it is imperative to add to the population Of Canada; but that addition should be made with care, with a view to the assimilation of the people who will come amongst us and the making of a Canadian citizenship that we shall be proud of. That leads one to this point, and I will not enlarge very greatly upon it. Having all these things in mind, what class of people can we take into Canada and absorb most readily to-day, and who are the most desirable people to come amongst us? After a survey of conditions in Canada, one is led to the conclusion that there is not a great need of immigrants in our cities, particularly in the larger centres. The records of the past year or two have shown that we have had unemployment and that additions to the urban population of very large numbers would create a situation that would not be well for Canada. Not only that, but we must admit that for the past year or two, from the urban centres of Canada a very considerable number of people have left us and gone across the line to the United States. That

Supply-I mmigra tion
movement has been accelerated by the fact that the American government have seen fit to place in their Immigration Act a clause providing that from outside countries, with the exception of Canada, three per cent is the maximum number that will be permitted to land in the United States during any one calendar year. Canada alone is the exception ; from Canada immigrants may flow freely into the United States, and this has created in the United States, particularly in the urban centres, a scarcity of labour that is being supplied from the urban centres of Canada, and to some extent from our rural sections as well.
Let me say, in passing, that I doubt if we shall ever reach the time when we shall not have an efflux of Canadians into the United States. I have looked carefully over the records of the past fifteen years, and I find that it is somewhat surprising that during all those years there has been a fairly steady movement in that direction. The movement has varied a little, some years more some less, some years not quite counteracted by the movement from the United States to Canada; but during all those years that exodus seems to have kept up, and probably it will continue for some time. Therefore, we are restricted in the industrial field, particularly in the urban centres, although that is not quite so apparent to-day as it was three' months ago, and we are limited to the rural field for settlement of people whom we shall bring to Canada.
This brings me to the point where I wish to discuss for a few moments conditions as we find them in rural localities in Canada. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite will say that there are two or three outstanding reasons why agriculture is to-day in its present financial condition. Perhaps, the tariff has a great deal to do with the matter; perhaps a reason may be that transportation costs are high, or interest charges are unreaonable; and I am going to admit, in a reasonable way, because I do not want to be unreasonable, that many of these things are factors in producing present-day conditions, coupled with the sudden depression in prices of products of the farms of Canada and with no corresponding reduction in the price of commodities that the agriculturists must use in their business. But let us be fair. There are other influences that, perhaps have had some effect. Is it not a fact that inflated values as a result of the war-and I speak as one of those who are affected because I have no other business than that of agricuture and I know somewhat of those conditions-led us into difficulties in connection with purchasing land and with reaching out maybe a little further than we should have gone. I am not unmindful of the fact that some will say that we were encouraged to do so; that we were asked to produce in a way that we had never produced before in order that the world's supplies of food might be kept up to the necessities of that period. I am not unmindful of all those .things; but perhaps over-reaching has also contributed somewhat to the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day. All these factors-and I have not time to deal with them now - have left agriculture, from one end of Canada to the other, in a somewhat depressed condition.
But again, I think we can get some encouragement by looking backward I know there are in this House to-day many hon. members who will remember that period of the early nineties. I was farming in Ontario at that time-and perhaps many here were engaged in the same occupation-and agricultural conditions then in my opinion, were worse than they are to-day in Canada. Looking back upon that period, I remember that wheat, cattle, hogs, dairy products were lower in price than they have been during the past two years. I will say this, that the commodities which we had to purchase in order to carry on our business were also 25 or 30 per cent lower, and in that respect, perhaps, the situation is almost evened up. We did not recover rapidly from that condition of affairs during that period. True, we did begin to recover in 1894, 1895 and 1896, and I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) will tell me that the real era of prosperity began in 1896. Perhaps, our recovery in the present case will be found to have begun from the year 1921.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pretty slow.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: I see my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance, thinks that is rather a joke.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I never claimed to be an optimist, but in this respect, in the face of conditions as they are to-day, I think I can say, and say with full assurance that perhaps we have struck the bottom in the matter of depression. There must be a corresponding reduction, which I see approaching rapidly, in the commodities that are to be utilized by the farmers of Canada, and that must come about before we have a complete reaction.
10S4
Supply-Immigration


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is the minister not aware that Mr. Roger Babson recently reported a steady rise in commodity prices next year, but no corresponding rise in agricultural products?	*


Charles A. Stewart: I think I can see evidences that we may be justified in differing' from Mr. Roger Babson.


Arthur Meighen: Do the official records of the government show a declining curve in commodity values?


Charles A. Stewart: Not appreciably at the moment, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me refer my hon. friends again to history. Has the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) ever known, or can he name, a period in history when there was a continued rise in the commodities manufactured for use by the agriculturists of a country like Canada, and when there was no corresponding increase in agricultural products?


Arthur Meighen: I think myself that cycles occur and that time will do its work. But with the government in office I despair of everything else except time.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will forget about the government in office for a moment and deal with the subject in hand we shall get on.


Mr. IRVINE:: On what ground does the minister base his optimism with regard to the contemplated decline in prices? ,


Charles A. Stewart: On the old and well known ground, as I have just stated to the leader of the Opposition, that in countries such as Canada agriculture cannot long continue in a depressed state. I will admit to my hon. friend that there are conditions today to be met with that have not had to be faced in the past, conditions in connection with the various articles that go to make up cost, that have not had to be coped with in the past in the same manner as they will have to be met to-day. But there must come a levelling-up between the amount the farmer receives for his labour and that received by labour in other walks of life. That inevitably must come about. And just as sure as there is in the American states to-day an unprecedented era of prosperity in the urban communities, perhaps previously unknown in the history of that country, there is a corresponding depression in agriculture. I shall deal with that point for a moment or two this 
afternoon and recite some of my experiences in that connection. But let me observe in passing that I am not suggesting, as someone is sure to imply in a moment, that labour should take less for that which it is so frequently represented as selling. Someone is sure to ask, are they to take less?. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that labour will be enabled to purchase more of the necessities of life and that there will be a reduction in the natural commodities that pass between one class of the community and the other. I am not unmindful of conditions as they are, but with them I cannot at present deal for any considerable length of time. I will touch them again perhaps - a little more fully when I come to consider the question as to the class of people whom we hope to encourage to come to Canada.
Conditions to-day, however, are changing very rapidly in Canada; they change month by month. Three months ago we could not have held out encouragement to labourers to come to Canada to secure employment unless they were agricultural labourers; and I think that one of the problems that has to be faced to-day, in contrast with days gone by in connection with immigration, is the fact that we must necessarily be exercised about the question where the labourer is going to locate and what vocation he is going to be engaged in. Heretofore not very much attention has been paid to that aspect of immigration ; rather we have been bringing immigrants into Canada and letting them shift very largely for themselves. Let me deal for a moment or two with where we hope to bring our settlers from and how we propose to settle them. We propose to bring settlers in as large a way as possible from Great Britain, and to encourage as many as will come from there to settle in Canada.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is it true that of the advertising being carried on for settlers, some $3,000 has been spent in Great Britain as against $90,000 elsewhere?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ninety-two
thousand dollars.
Mr.-STEWART (Argenteuil): That was given in a return asked for by my.hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and for the first time the advertising branch of the Department of Immigration began to segregate its accounts. It is not true that $3,000 represents the whole sum spent in Great Britain; it represents simply the amount spent in newspaper advertising. My secretary gave a supplementary return

Supply-I mmigration
which will be found in the Revised Hansard, and my hon. friend was given the return.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry about that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was nothing to my knowledge that was supplementary, and the return stands uncorrected, so far as I have been instructed.


Charles A. Stewart: At any rate, I will give at a later period the complete amounts expended during the past fiscal year in advertising in Great Britain and the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Does the $90,000 odd include anything except newspaper advertising?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; I will deal with that when the estimates are being considered in detail. Now, we hope to encourage all settlers who will come to Canada from Great Britain, Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium, Trance and Finland. This fact must be borne in mind, however, that from a rather close investigation of the areas from which we hope to draw our settlers, there do not appear to be a very large number of people who are in a position to purchase land and establish themselves upon their arrival in Canada. So that the bulk of our immigration, or at least a large proportion of it, will naturally be of the class who will be seeking employment. And that is not confined to Great Britain alone; that condition seems to be prevalent in every country in which we have made investigations and from which we hope to encourage settlers to come here. War conditions appear to have left the people of the Old Land, one would perhaps not say in an impoverished state, but at least in such circumstances that they have not a great deal of capital that is not invested and which they can withdraw from the businesses in which it is tied up. I should say that somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-five per cent of the total number of immigrants we expect will be able to establish themselves and that means one thing: we must take steps to assist these people in the work of colonization. With that end in view I have sought the co-operation of the provincial governments throughout Canada. In some respects I take the province of Ontario as an illustration. The authorities there are engaged in immigration work of their own. They are proceeding much the same as the federal government hope to, and prefer to
carry on their own work in their London office. It is an altogether different problem with the province of Quebec. The government of that province are anxious to repatriate a large number of their citizens who have gone into the New England states. One of the striking features in connection with the migration from Quebec and the Maritime provinces to the United States, most of which comes from the rural parts, is that those people do not engage in agriculture across the line but find employment mainly in the textile industries of the New England states. The purpose of our propaganda is to induce these people to return to Canada, and with that in view we have employed Mr. Arthur Lemont to take charge of this important work.


Mr. LADNER:: Has the minister approximate figures showing the exodus of our people to the United States within the last year? And is that exodus ceasing, or to what extent is it still draining this country of its best type of citizens?


Charles A. Stewart: No. In looking over the figures for some years past one is a little surprised to find that on the whole there is little variation; the number may be a little higher one year, a little lower the next year, and vice versa. I have the figures for the past few months. One of the difficulties in dealing with the figures of migration to the United States is that, if, six months after their entry, our people have not returned to Canada, they are then regarded as permanent residents of the United States and are so entered in their returns. Consequently there is a vast difference between the number of Canadians migrating to the United States and the actual number who become permanent residents. I shall go into that more fully when dealing with the United States situation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What inducement is being offered to Canadian citizens in the United States to return to Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: In conjunction with the provincial governments we are trying to get those people to come back and take up agricultural land in the province of Quebec. In the northern portions of that province the provincial government are opening up new country along the line of the transcontinental railway. I take it that we are all interested in the success of that undertaking, and it is there that we hope to establish settlement. The provincial government are offering settlers free grants of land with the addition [DOT] of some improvements
10S6
Supply-Immigration

thereon, because the land is all wooded and some development work is needed in order to give the settler a start. Of course, perhaps, the one thing that he will hope to make a livelihood out of for the first few years will be the pulpwood which he will take off his land.


Mr. LEWIS:: Is this an offer to all Canadians who have gone to the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the acreage under this scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: One hundred acres to each settler.


Edward Joseph Garland: All wooded land?


Arthur Meighen: What did Mr. Lemont
do before he went over to the United States to take charge of the minister's repatriation programme?


Charles A. Stewart: He was a newspaper man.


Arthur Meighen: On what newspaper?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot tell you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Le Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose he is in a better position now than he formerly occupied? Anyway he is doing more good.


Mr. JACOBS:: Out of order.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know the gentleman personally. He was recommended as a man who could carry on this work with success.


Arthur Meighen: Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: No. That is still to be accomplished.


Arthur Meighen: The government appoints him first and then tries to get the accomplishment through the commission.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Let us get on with immigration. Don't quibble.


Charles A. Stewart: There is some difficulty in getting appointments for immigration purposes passed by the Civil Service Commission. We asked the Civil Service Commission some time last October to fill two positions in the Old Country, one at Carlisle and the other at Southampton. On the 8th of last month applications were closed, but the appointments are not yet made. In view of these difficulties I have this gentleman engaged

on this work for the time being in the hope that he may ultimately be appointed by the commission;-he may not be,-in the meantime we are having some active work carried on.
Sir HENRY t>RAYTON: With what result?


Mr. HANSON:: What is the policy of the government of New Brunswick in reference to this immigration?-if they have any policy, which I doubt.


Charles A. Stewart: For the benefit of my hon. friend I will deal with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in a moment or two; for the present I should like to finish with Quebec. Immigration to Quebec is not being confined simply to Canadians living in the New England states. There are enterprises in the northern portions of Quebec that will require the influx of a considerable amount of labour, and I doubt if such labour will be found in Canada. I am free to say that, we are looking for it in the Old Land and want as much of it as we can absorb. This also applies to the northern portions of Ontario. We are carrying on propaganda in an endeavour to secure settlers of the type and character that will assimilate with our people, and are providing places for them to settle, on. That is what we are endeavouring to do in this scheme. I have not any brand new striking policy to offer because between two extremes I have decided to adopt the middle course, and in pursuing that course I am trying to get value for the money we expend on bringing people to Canada by keeping them here when we' get them. I take ;t that no hon. gentleman will quarrel with the attitude of my department in that regard.
With respect to the Maritime provinces, their governments were invited to send delegates to discuss this matter with us. To-day we have in England a representative who has intimate knowledge of local conditions in New Brunswick and is working in the interests of that province. The same thing applies to Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is that gentleman?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. W. R. Bowder. The same thing applies to Nova Scotia. The officer in charge of this work in Boston is a native of Nova Scotia and, as I undei'stand it, has been working in the interests of the Maritime provinces in an endeavour to bring from the States settlers for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
With respect to western Canada, we have not been successful in getting such complete co-

10S7
Supply-Immigration
operation of the provincial governments there as we have in the East. They took the ground-and I have no quarrel with it, because I took it myself when I was in charge of affairs in Alberta-that immigration is the problem of the federal government and that no expenditure under that head should be required on the part of provincial governments. I felt I was on fair ground in taking that stand when premier of Alberta, and I have no quarrel, I say, with my western friends in that respect. As in 1908-as, indeed, in the period prior to 1908, in fact, ever since the Canadian Pacific railway was built across the plains-the western provinces have been the great fertile fields for increased population so far as agriculture in Canada is concerned. I am not unmindful of the fact that it is possible in eastern Canada, especially in the northern portion of it, to establish a great many people on the land, but, they would have to be selected with a view to their adaptability to the conditions existing there. For the next decade at least the western provinces offer the most fertile field for immigration, and I want to deal with the question for a moment or two from that point of view.
Because of the conditions I have mentioned, the people on the land to-day are feeling the pinch rather severely, and I do not wonder that they sometimes question the wisdom of expenditure on the part of the government for [DOT] the purpose of bringing new settlers into western Canada, where so many people at present find it difficult to carry on. Well, if we are to sit down and fold our hands; if we are to stop immigration entirely; if we are to say that our present population is to carry the obligations connected with our railways- which, we all admit, are over-built-if we are to leave the vacant lands of western Canada as they are to-day, I think we shall be following an unwise policy. We must take steps to settle up those vacant areas. We must take steps to bring in sufficient labour to enable the farmer to carry on in western Canada. I believe that the productivity of the area that is already broken in western Canada could, by the application of sufficient labour, be increased by at least thirty or forty per cent. But that is not the scheme I have to present to the newcomer. It will be suggested to him that he can make a success of agriculture in the West or in other parts of Canada if he avoids some of the pitfalls that we have encountered in the past. If we are honest with ourselves we will admit that one of the most serious of those pitfalls has been our endeavour to own too much land. When we went westward, 160 acres looked like a
very large farm; we were not in western Canada very long when a half section did not seem to be too large; then we set about to acquire a section; and when we had done that we wanted more. The advice I propose to give to the new settler is this: not to acquire more land than he can cultivate-I do not suggest that he might cultivate 160 acres during his first year. It is a fact that in the West to-day good agricultural land along the lines of the Canadian National railway, untilled, can be purchased at from $15 to $25 an acre, or at an average of, say, $18 to $20 an acre. If a man buys a quarter-section his overhead will not be as heavy as it will if he goes on the principle of acquiring large areas.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is it not true that a few years ago the prospective settler could get that land, not for $15 to $25 an acre, but free, and thus clear of any overhead at all?


Charles A. Stewart: That is another serious problem that we have to face to-day, in addition to the problems connected with increased transportation costs.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What proportion of free lands suitable for settlement still remains in the three prairie provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: The most popular figure given is 20,000,000 acres lying along the Canadian National railway line. Put it at 15,000,000 acres, within 15 miles of railway facilities.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I mean homestead lands?


Mr. LOVIE:: Does the minister think from his own experience that a man can make a living and raise a family on 160 acres in western Canada? That is, to have pasture land and everything else on it, in a thickly settled country where there are no vacant lands?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is better with 160 acres to start with; his overhead and interest charges are less. When he is capable of purchasing more he can do so. My experience in western Canada leads me to believe that this very
1 p.m. thing has perhaps contributed more than anything else to the difficulty experienced by the western farmer in time of stress, having regard to the conditions of hail, frost and so on that he has to contend with from time to time. If we are to succeed it seems to me that we must confine ourselves to. smaller areas and cultivate more, perhaps, with the help that we have. I am not suggesting that our wives and children should work in the fields or elsewhere, but the point is that we should not in years of stress accumulate
Supply-Immigration

an overhead that in years of prosperity we are not able to wipe off. I do not mean to say that that is an answer to all the difficulties. I am speaking of the man who comes to Canada as a settler, without any accumulated obligations of the past.
The question will be asked, why do you invite people to come here, in the face of what is taking place to-day? Well, I am simply tiying to discuss the conditions that have come about as a result, first, of overpurchase of land, and, second, of circumstances over which most of us have no control. But, I repeat that, to start with, 160 acres will not require the investment in implements and live stock that will be necessary if a larger area is taken up.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the minister, himself a western man, understands as well an any agriculturist in this House that the equipment for 160 acres will farm 320 acres without any additional outlay.


Charles A. Stewart: Having had sixteen years' experience in western Canada, 1 believe that you do not need a full equipment to carry on from the start. The men who made successes in the early days did not try to purchase a full equipment of farm implements right from the beginning; there was rather more of the spirit of co-operation, one with the other. That is one of the difficulties to-day in western Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is nbt answering the question.


Charles A. Stewart: I am trying to demonstrate how we can invite people to come to Canada with some show of their making a success. I am convinced that if a man purchases more land at the outset than he can work, there is danger that his overhead will swamp him. And then he has to consider the possible consequences if he purchases live stock as we were induced to purchase live stock to an unprecedented degree during the years of the war-and I take full responsibility for having advocated that programme. Nevertheless we found that in the period of drought we were not troubled again. But having in mind the experience of the past it seems to me that it is wise to ask: Is there no proposition, in western Canada or elsewhere, calculated to put people on the land with a decent chance of success that will appeal to hon. gentlemen?
Now let me come to the next question. One of the most serious difficulties we have to encounter in western Canada is that' of interest rates. We have always been penalized, to a greater or less degree, as against

the F,ast, in this respect; and one of the things that I am endeavouring to do is, if possible, to secure the purchase of land at a 6-per-cent rate. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sold their holdings at that rate of interest, but they sold them on shorter terms of payment. What we propose offering to the settler to-day is land on a thirty-two-year annual payment scheme with interest at 6 per cent. We did not have to come to the government of Canada to secure money for this purpose; and let me say, in passing, that in western Canada we must get our money on short loans from the chartered banks of Canada at about the same rate of interest as that previaling in the East. It is not that we require unlimited credit; that is not the point, in many instances we have had too much credit, in many instances loans have been made too freely, and we are suffering in consequence to-day. What we want is credit to a reasonable point at the same rate of interest as prevails in the East. In my opinion that is absolutely necessary if we are to make a success of land settlement in western Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the minister change the period of these loans? That seems to be a marked feature of the credit system of the West, that the banks give loans for short periods; whereas in the United States they have introduced a system of, say, two-year loans secured on the farm-on the crop and on the cattle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the Bank Act or the suggested amendments to it; I desire to get away from it; I will have something to say with respect to the Bank Act when that proposed legislation is up for consideration. What I am doing now is simply depicting what I think are advantages that can be offered to the newcomer to-day that we did not enjoy. That is what I want to point out to the members of this House this afternoon.


Mr. GOULD:: May I suggest to the minister that another remedy would be the consideration of a reduction of the interest charges on payments by men who are unable to meet their obligation. For instance, on the sale of government lands when the interest has been raised to 7 per cent, that may very well be reduced to 6 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not wish to get into a discussion of the conditions that

Supply-Immigration
exist there at the moment. I am trying to depict the conditions under which, I think, a man can succeed if he gets a reasonable chance.
Now, I have said to you that you cannot expect to get people with a large amount of capital or that such people will come in any number. And I do not think we need worry about it; what we want is the establishment of the men with small capital, and that is why, let me say in this connection,. I have been attracted to the Canada Colonization scheme of land selling. They have been able to list these lands for a period of thirty-two years with 6 per cent interest. Sometimes I think we have not played quite fair with the vendor, or the owner, of unused lands in western Canada because in many of our provinces we have put a super-tax upon him in respect to the ownership of these very lands. Let me say, however, that I am not quarreling with the idea; I was a party to doing that believing it would hasten the settlement of our country. Because the one thing that we did need, in order to carrj our railway burden, was new settlement in western Canada, and that the settler be put upon these lands with a reasonable chance of achieving success. Now, I think I am safe in making this assertion: That with respect to all the lands that are there for purchase in the hands of private owners, very few of those owners will not be willing to sell those lands at a reasonable rate to a newcomer, or anyone else that will purchase them and put them under cultivation. That, briefly, is the hope that I entertain-that a man will be able to obtain land at a reasonable rate with a fair prospect of securing success. He will also have the advantage of whatever assistance will come in the shape of amendments to any loaning scheme or any scheme for the betterment of conditions throughout Canada generally. I do not think such plans should be confined to western Canada particularly, but at the moment we are dealing especially with that part of the country. In addition the new settler will get the same treatment that every other settler that is already in the country will receive in that particular respect.
I would not suggest that these men go a long distance from the railway, but that they be located as nearly as possible along the railway lines in western Canada and that they be given, as I propose to give them, the full advantage of the experience of the men who are field supervisors for the Soldier Settlement Board for at least the next two years. In dealing with this question let me say this:
I do not intend, nor propose, supervision longer than is absolutely necessary. I will deal with the matter of the Soldier Settlement Board when the estimates for that department are up. Suffice it for the moment to say that I think for this year, and next year, we will have to maintain that force of men, because I believe they have been the greatest contributing factor to the success of the scheme so far. Since dealing with the matter last year,-and I will give you the figures later on,-the proportion of success has been considerably greater. In spite of the fact that throughout Canada we have had, I fear, a mole or less unsatisfactory year in agriculture, the need for salvaging of the soldiers who were placed on the land has perhaps reached the lowest point notwithstanding the discouragements experienced. That, perhaps, is not' true of the province of Alberta where a very severe drought was experienced last-year throughout the northern portion, where so many of our soldiers were settled. But these field supervisors will be available. They are. at Calgary, travelling in that vicinity; they are at Edmonton, at Regina, at Saskatoon, and at Winnipeg. And we are advertising in the Old Country and elsewhere, through our agencies, the fact that the settler can come and get expert advice from these men with respect to where he shall locate, with respect to the value of the land, and with respect to how he shall take advantage of the conditions that he finds confronting him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When were those advertisements first inserted?


Charles A. Stewart: About the
first of December, I think, on the return of Mr. Smith from the Old Country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: After the 31st, was it not?


Charles A. Stewart: There are a great many details to remember in connection with this subject, I cannot recall the exact date.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the minister tell us whether the governments of the western provinces are co-operating, or propose to co-operate, in this scheme, and were they represented at the conference to which the minister has already referred?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, all of them with the exception of the province of Saskatchewan, and that province was represented by Mr. Gardiner a day or two later.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the minister, before he leaves this point, whether he has any estimate as to the amount of capital
ioyu
Supply-Immigration

that is necessary for a prospective settler to have in order to buy the land, and equip it with machinery and stock, in order to start in the modest way which he has outlined?


Charles A. Stewart: I should say that he should have at least between fifteen hundred and two thousand dollars.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With that amount he would carry on?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not think the minister has answered my question. What I wanted to know was whether he could make a statement as to what quantity of free land-that is land available for homesteading -still existed in the northwest.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not catch the question. There are in the province of Alberta surveyed and ready for settlement about 4,000,000 acres of free land. In Saskatchewan there are about 5,000,000. All of that land would not be adaptable for homesteading, but that is the amount in those two provinces. I cannot give the figures for Manitoba.


Edward Joseph Garland: How far from the railway?


Charles A. Stewart: I should say from 18 to 30 miles.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would that land be adapted to growing wheat profitably?


Charles A. Stewart: I would say the bulk of this land would not be adapted to wheat growing, but rather to mixed farming.


Mr. KELLNER:: The minister made a reference to the services of the field men of the Soldier Settlement Board. Would the services of these officials be at the disposal of the Western Colonization people?


Charles A. Stewart: I have endeavoured to keep the services separate. The Canada Colonization people are dealing purely and simply with people who have money to purchase land. They have agents of, their own in the United States, who are canvassing for that purpose, and intend later, if the scheme is successful, to do so in the Old Land, but at the moment they are confining their activities to the United States. Our agents of the Soldier Settlement Board are simply advertising the fact that reliable trained advice can be had from the supervisors or the field men of the Soldier Settlement Board, and that advice, of course, cannot be utilized for the purpose of purchasing land.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain in greater detail this arrangement he has made about the supervisory services of the Soldier Settlement Board? First, to what extent are the services at the disposal of the WTestern Canada Colonization Company? Are they at their disposal to the same extent that they have rendered them in connection with soldier settlement? Secondly, what are the terms of the arrangement?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not understand my right hon. friend. He has asked me: Are these services at their disposal to the same extent as they were in connection with the soldier settlement?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: The Canada Colonization Company did not touch the soldier settlement.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to say he had made an arrangement whereby the functions of the supervisors of the Soldier Settlement Board could be utilized by the Western Canada Colonization Company.


Charles A. Stewart: If I said that I did not intend to.


Arthur Meighen: Well, by their settlers, by those who come and settle under them, and that he had authorized his agents to advertise for settlers to come in under the auspices of that company, and to have their services for certain purposes. Is that correct? If so, for what purpose? And secondly, to what extent do the company's settlers pay for these services?


Charles A. Stewart: They are two distinct services. Probably I had better explain how they work out. I have thought that it would be impossible for the government to assume the responsibility through paid officials of the government-because the supervisors of the Soldier Settlement Board are paid officials of the government-to negotiate sales, to take a newcomer and act as the agent between the vendor and the purchaser. Under the soldier settlement scheme, of course, the purchase was made outright, the money paid in full and the land became the property of the government of Canada. Under this scheme there will be an agreement of sale, running over a period of 32 years, and in many cases the Canada Colonization Company, a companv doing business as agents between the vendor and purchaser, will be acting as agent for the vendor for a considerable number of years. That is one

Supply-Immigration
of the services they propose rendering the vendor. The absentee vendor, for example, may list his land with the understanding that the payments will be transmitted through their otlice annually for a period, at least until the time comes when it can be computed and a mortgage taken, which they have promised under their scheme, but in the meantime they act as agents, the same as other agents who act' between the vendor and the purchaser of land. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we have felt there are two distinct services to be rendered. One is the service of listing the land through an agent for sale, for a period of 32 years, at the rate of 6 per cent, and in addition they are finding as many purchasers as possible for the land, but selling to all who may approach them for the purpose of purchasing land. That is the service they will perform. The services the soldier settlement supervisor will render will be that he, in a larger way, will be available to the settler coming from the Old Land, because a settler will come to him, He is the paid official of the government. A vast amount of information about the whole country is at their disposal in the offices, and the settler may go' there. He may also obtain advice from that supervisor as to the minimum and maximum amount he should pay for land in any given locality. But the real service in my opinion starts when the settler is placed upon the land, no matter what agency places him there. He is a newcomer and can have from these men the advice that is so important in the initial stages of the settlement of a newcomer upon the land. I anticipate that practically all the settlers coming from the Old Country will utilize the services of the Soldier Settlement Board.


Arthur Meighen: As I understand the
scheme, the company acts as the agent of sale and acts as a collector afterwards. The company gets a commission after that on a non-profit basis, but the purchaser, farmer, or the immigrant coming in has the privilege of going to the supervisor first for his advice as to purchase. The minister was careful to say he would give his advice in this form, "In this district I fix a minimum of so much an acre and a maximum of so much an acre." Then the second part of the advice is as to farming afterwards. With all deference, I suggest this to the minister's mind. He is just giving, his officers sufficient authority to get the government of the country into trouble, and not sufficient authority to be the least service to the purchaser. He puts a minimum and a maximum in a district. 70
Now there will be one farm worth twice as much as the adjoining one in the same district. Unless the department is prepared, as we did in the soldier settlement scheme, to exercise control over every purchase, it had better keep its hand out of the matter of valuations altogether.


Charles A. Stewart: The report I got from the agents of the government, in the United States was that the return of at least 15 per cent of prospective settlers who did not settle in the West in the last ten years was due to the fact that they had received conflicting information. [DOT] Further we do not propose to restrict that information in a general way, although it is fair for my right hon. friend to take that inference I think. We intend to give that advice in a real way, particularly to Old Country settlers. If a man chooses a certain parcel of land, it may not be listed by the Canada Colonization Company; it may be listed by a private individual, and in almost nine cases out of ten, if the individual approaches him in that way, he will be asked eight per cent interest and, perhaps, a higher rate per acre than the land would be listed for with the Canada Colonization Company or some other corporation of that sort. But if you get your soldier supervisor as agent between vendor and purchaser, then in my opinion, you are going to have a great deal of trouble. If it were possible to purchase outright as has been the case in the past, there would be difficulty. The greatest service the supervisor has rendered- and I am not unmindful of that-is that his business was to purchase the land as cheaply as he possibly could, and purchasing it outright in that way, he invariaby got rock-bottom prices. But that does not prevail in this case.


Mr. MORRISON:: Supposing a settler purchased a piece of land and it was discovered later that he had been absolutely defrauded; is there any redress for him? Soldier supervisors have a very large territory to go over. When the Union government appointed those supervisors in the first place, one of them told me that he no sooner got his appointment than men came to him and offered to bribe him to sell their lands to soldiers for double what the land was worth. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) touched the right point when he said that one farm lying alongside another will be worth twice as much. I have known them worth five times as much. Newcomers should be protected, and if a glaring fraud is perpetrated, there should be some supervisor who could annul the whole transaction, so that those men might not pick
-REVISED EDITION
Supply-Immigration

up and go out of the country, cursing the country and bringing the whole thing into disrepute.


Charles A. Stewart: That is just the service that I hope they will render. I am not unmindful of the fact that individuals will come in who will make mistakes in purchasing. The very thing mentioned by my hon. friend, that the supervisor may be offered a consideration for the purpose of assisting the vendor, would be bound to be prevalent, and to a much greater degree than if he were purchasing outright, spot cash, for the government, and, becoming the actual owner of the land for the purpose of selling it to another party. I do not think it wise that we should ask the supervisors to go into that particular service; but as regards advice-and I do not want to cover the ground again-supervisors have had some years of experience; they know the country; they have valued land in the vicinity; they ought to have a fair idea of the value of every quarter section within the agricultural district through which they travel. It is not unfair to expect that and that they could give a pretty fair value for any quarter section of land upon which their opinion might be asked.


Arthur Meighen: I agree with that; but the matter is so important, and I am so confident of my position that I want to impress it again. If the minister gives them any authority, let it be complete. Do not let the minister's officials come in and give any advice unless full responsibility is taken and the most thorough investigation given individually to the land, not merely to the man. If the minister does not do that, he is going to land in this position, and I will give him warning in time. He will find afterwards that there will be throughout Canada settlers who will claim that being promised the supervision and assistance of the officers of the Dominion government, they came in and they were defrauded notwithstanding. They could easily be, under the loose system the minister has in mind; they will be back on this government and this country, and they will have a claim that will be very difficult to answer.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know how far my right hon. friend would go, unless he went the length of making the supervisor the actual agent between vendor and purchaser.


Arthur Meighen: I go to the length in
every case we go in the soldier settlement work. There the government is responsible absolutely for the fairness of every purchase. The government supervises each and all in

which it lends any money. Unless you are prepared to go that length in cases where you do not lend any money do not go any length at all.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess that personally I did try to have this responsibility taken by the provinces, but they refused.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The western provinces
refused to go into this co-operation with the federal government; am I right?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Did they give reasons?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That was because the
federal government had not given them their natural resources.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand the government is working in co-operation with the Canada Colonization Company. Is the government subsidizing that company, and if so, how much per month?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
government proposes, at least, if parliament gives its sanction, to give them $10,000 a month.


Mr. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: Will
the government have any supervision over the salaries of officers of that company?
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil): No, not any more than as regards the Salvation Army to whom we have been giving grants for a number of years.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Who comprise the
Canada Colonization Company? What is the association between them and the government?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend will wait, I would rather give the information when the question comes up in the estimates.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
the information before me in my notes. I can give the name of the manager of the organization with whom I have done business; that is Mr. Everett.


Donald Sutherland: Is there any connection between the present company and the old, defunct North Atlantic Trading Company?


Charles A. Stewart: I have never heard of any.


Samuel William Jacobs: W7ho is the present president of the Canada Colonization Association?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
none at present.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is without a head?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the minister tell us whether it is true, as reported in the press, that the retiring president has recommended that the whole of this activity be handed over to the Salvation Army?


Charles A. Stewart: I had not
seen that. In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Beaubien) as to why the provinces did not assist, I may say that they are quite in sympathy with the settlement of these lands; but for the reason that they did not have the natural resources, they did not feel they were called upon to make any expenditure in this connection. What I hope will be of the greatest service to the settler through the Soldier Settlement Board is the advice that will be given to the settler during the first two or three years that he is upon the land. I have announced to the committee that the advice, so far as it will go, will be not to venture into too heavy investments in land, but that he will make his start in a modest way and, as he progresses, that he will purchase, if needs be, further lands in order that he may carry on. In connection with the American field, at a meeting of the agents held some months ago in Chicago, I found that while agricultural conditions in western Canada were in rather bad shape, the inflation during the war had stricken the American farmer to a worse degree than it had affected our own agriculturists throughout Canada, and that inflation in farm values across the border had gone to such an extent that the farmers could no longer carry on. Indeed, I was approached by very many American farmers with splendid equipment who were desirous of moving out of the central and western states and coming to western Canada, but who found themselves in such straits that they had not even the means to pay their railway transportation. That is the . difficulty one encounters everywhere. But I am hopeful despite that fact that a great many of these men will come to western Canada. With that thought in view we offered a scheme of leased lands to encourage them to move out of the United States and settle here.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister seriously contend that the reason our farmers go there instead of the farmers of the United States come here is that ours are better off and are able to travel?
70i
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: So far as 1 have been able to ascertain I do not know that there are so many Canadian farmers who have gone to the United States to farm. I made that statement before.


Arthur Meighen: They are going by thousands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are going for the high tariff over there.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly the high tariff is an inducement for them to go there, but the people that are going are locating in the urban centres; they are not going to farm, I can assure my hon. friends of that fact. And more than that, the statistics will show that a great many of those who have gone to the United States are only temporarily there; out of four or five thousand there are only one thousand who have entered as permanent residents of the United States. They are not going, at all events at the moment, with the intention of remaining over there. But I do not fancy that I am stating a new fact; I think that, has always been the condition with regard to immigration to the United States.


Mr. GOOD:: What does the minister mean by permanent residents?


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the figures regarding the exodus from Canada to the United States for a period, say, of six months?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot lay my hands on them just at the moment.


Mr. PORKE:: I can give the figures to the end of June, 1922.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the minister can give the approximate figures; I do not want an exact statement.	_
Sir HENR\ DRAYTON: The press gives an average of 10,000 a month; perhaps that is right.


Charles A. Stewart: No, that is not correct. I have the correct figures here. I he movements from Canada to the United States, according to the United States annhal reports, were as follows:
In 1917-18,
1918-	19.
1919-	20.
1920-	21.
1921-	22.
71.000
96.000 143,000
72.000
16.000


Arthur Meighen: 1922?
Up to the 31st March,


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I think that is correct.

1094	COMMONS
Supply-I mm igration


Leon Johnson Ladner: What have been the figures since March, 1922, to date?


Charles A. Stewart: I have them somewhere but I cannot lay my hands on them now. I will give them at a later period. They have been prepared up to last month, and they show a fair average.


Arthur Meighen: They show a large increase over the year before.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is true. But looking back over a period of years they fluctuate considerably. I know that from the city of Toronto there has been a very serious efflux to the United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Unquestionably a great many tradesmen have left Canada for the United States; and I am not overlooking the fact that a fairly large number of people went out of western Canada even off the land to the United States.


Mr. MERCIER:: Can the minister give the figures by provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: No, we have not got them by provinces. What I want to point out, however, is that from the United States and Great Britain we shall get about the same percentage of people who can establish themselves on the land. I do not expect that we shall have a large population for the year 1922-23, because immigration has reached one of its low points in Canadian history. I may give some of the figures with respect to immigration since 1881, when we had 47,000 coming into Canada, down to 1900 when it was 44,000. The next year it was 23,000 and in 1905 and 1906 we had 128,000 and 130,000. In 1910 we had 208,000; in 1911, 311,000; in 1912, 354,000 and 1913, 402,000. Then it began to drop until in 1916 we had 48,000; in 1917, 75,000; and in 1919, 57,000. In 1921-22, it was 89,000. I mention these figures to show the fluctuation there has been over that long period of years. What I have been trying to show this afternoon is that we shall undoubtedly get from the United States a fairly large number of desirable settlers who will go on the lands of western Canada, and we shall also get from Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries pepole who will ultimately become settlers in the West. We have established on the Continent of Europe agencies for two purposes; because from the Continent, owing to war conditions, there are areas from which perhaps we would not get people whom we could assimilate or absorb into the population just yet. Nevertheless there is a very large population on the Continent from
 t
which we can draw desirable settlers for northern and western Canada. Let me say, too, that the governments are becoming interested in this question. They have over-population in their countries. I know it may be said that that is one of the reasons why Great Britain wants to get rid of some of her people who are not of a very desirable type, but I shall deal with that feature when I come to the subject of assisted passages. I think it is safe to say that we are on sane ground when we claim the right to designate who may come into Canada and so afford reasonable protection to our citizens. At the continental ports we are not seeking to hold back desirable immigrants but rather to encourage them. From Bohemia we hope to obtain a very desirable class of settlers; also from Poland, Hungary and other continental countries. One peculiar outstanding fact I should mention in passing, namely, that from Hungary there promises to come a larger proportion of people in a position to establish themselves here than perhaps from any of the other countries from which we hope to draw a considerable number of immigrants.


Samuel William Jacobs: Under our law no Hungarian is permitted to come into this country. He is regarded as an alien enemy.


Charles A. Stewart: Hungarians have been coming in for some considerable time by permission of the minister.


Samuel William Jacobs: By permission of the minister?	.


Charles A. Stewart: The order in council has not been cancelled as against Hungary and other enemy countries.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that apply to Germany also?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Notwithstanding that we have been letting in a few Germans for whom application has been made by their friends. I am hopeful that in the near future the order in council against nationals from those countries may be brought to an end.


Samuel William Jacobs: If those nationals are permitted to come in by order of the minister, why should not the order in council be cancelled forthwith?


Charles A. Stewart: I see no particular reason why it should not be cancelled. But I take it that no desirable individual is being handicapped as a result. Immigration seems to be rather a touchy subject in this House. I did not know there

Supply-Immigration
were so many tender spots that one might tread upon in dealing with the question.


Arthur Meighen: Is immigration from other countries a matter of pull too?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I would not say that.


Mr. BOYS:: The minister, I understand, predicts increased immigration of a desirable class of farmers from the United States during this year, and I also understand that he predicts a decrease in the movement of our farmers to the United States. What, if any, new policy or change in policy is likely to produce the result he has predicted?


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is safe to say that in crises of all sorts you reach the peak sooner or later, that there comes a day for liquidation. I think that day has come. I may refer to my own locality, which I know fairly well. Perhaps 15 per cent of the people there have been forced out of business, nothing could save them, they had to go; there are 15 to 20 per cent in rather serious difficulties; a fair percentage of the balance is not by any means on Easy street, but there is no doubt that they are going to remain and continue in agriculture. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the same condition of affairs applies in a business way.


William Alves Boys: Then I understand that the minister's prediction is based on the fact that the peak both ways has been reached, and is not due to any new policy or change in policy? In a word, it is merely an accident, so to speak. We on this side want to do everything we can to assist the minister in bringing about the most desirable conditions, but if his prediction is based on what is only an accident, surely it is time that some policy was evolved whereby the improvement should be the result of that policy and not a mere accident.


Mr STEWART (Argenteuil):: I think in the past too much credit has been taken by governments for policies that would change conditions. That they have some effect I will not deny, but not to the extent of completely changing conditions of depression or inflation. I am not announcing a policy for the government or for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I am dealing with the question of immigration solely and am describing some of the chances of success which I think I have, or in regard to which I am optimistic to suggest to the agents of the government in the Old Country and elsewhere that they have, for inducing settlers
to come to Canada. Possibly the Minister of Finance will have something to say about the policy of the government.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: The minister has taken us as far' as the prairies. Will he tell us if there is any prospect of co-operation with the province of British Columbia in respect to immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: I shall have a word or two to say about that if my hon. friend will permit me to get through with my remarks on the Old Land and other sources of immigration.


William Alves Boys: I, too, have a few questions to ask, and if the minister would prefer to finish his address and deal with them when his estimates are up, I shall be very pleased to wait.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not object to any questions now except that they lead me away from what I am proposing to say. We have had a visit from the representative of the Swedish government which is undertaking to supervise emigration in a systematic way. He has gone as far as Winnipeg at the expense of the Canadian government. I suggested that he go as far as Vancouver in order to get a first hand idea of the opportunities awaiting settlers throughout Canada. He has come back enthusiastically in favour of recommending his government to send out settlers. Indeed, he is to bring over the first contingent of two or three hundred. The same thing applies to Holland. We were visited by the representative of that country and he went as far as Vancouver. He has gone back to recommend to his government that settlers be sent out to the number of 1500 as an experiment this year. These men have not very much cash to invest, and it is a matter of finding employment for them at the outset. But in a real way we have been trying to bring to the attention of the governments of the countries from which we hope to attract settlers the opportunities we have to offer homeseekers.
In respect to Scotland, a country that has done more for the settlement of Canada than perhaps any other country of its size in the world, we have been endeavouring to interest people in the northern part of that country to settle here. If I had time I could read to the committee letters from our agent, Mr. Murphy, who has gone through the northern portions of Scotland, where he says there are hundreds of men anxious to come to Canada.


Robert Forke: What was Murphy doing in Scotland?
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: Well, he appears to be getting along very well with our Scottish friends there. At least, he is having splendid success in interesting those people in Canada. We hope to induce a large number of people to come from Scotland, who will be fully as able to establish themselves as those who come from England. We have not been so successful as far as Scandinavia is concerned; only in Denmark have we had an agent up to the present. In Sweden the possibilities of the settlement of their people in other countries than their own is commencing to be realized, and we hope to go into that country with our agents and propagandize for the purpose of encouraging emigration to Canada. Then, we expect to get people from Iceland and other countries where the climate is similar to that of Canada-people who will be readily assimilated here.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What about Belgium?


Charles A. Stewart: We have an agent at Antwerp, but there is no immediate prospect of inducing many Belgian people to come to Canada. So far as British Columbia is concerned, we have had the premier of that province here. He has a very active officer in the person of Mr. Pattullo, who sent an agent to India to induce officers retired from the Indian army to come to Canada. An officer of the Soldier Settlement Board was sent there by the federal government with the same object in view. I cannot say what success they are having, but we hope that a large number will be induced to take up residence in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, because we feel that these, people would adapt themselves more readily to the conditions in that province than in the others.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the government of British Columbia made a definite offer to join with the federal government in an aggressive policy of immigration in conjunction with the British government under the Empire settlement scheme? Has not British Columbia also concluded or partly concluded arrangements with the British government contingent upon the consent of the Dominion government?


Charles A. Stewart: I know that negotiations were being carried on, but I cannot say whether or not they have reached a conclusion. Ontario has carried its negotiation to a conclusion respecting immigration into that province from the Old Land. I know Mr. Pattullo was carrying on negotiations of the same sort.

Mr. LADNER. The point of my question is that the British government and the provincial governments are apparently agreed upon some sort of action. Is the Dominion government willing to co-operate in that scheme or does its policy exclude the possibility of such co-operation?	.


Charles A. Stewart: No, the
British government will deal with private corporations, with municipalities, with provincial governments, or with federal governments. Indeed, in the case of Australia there are dealings with the states as well as with the Commonwealth government. Such arrangements are, of course, always subject to the approval of the federal authorities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister can say now whether or not the figures I gave the other day were correct. I pointed out that under that scheme, Canada, having taken no interest in it, got 5 p.m. only 130 immigrants as against upwards of 11,000 in the case of Australia and New Zealand. I think the minister said he was going to send the deputy minister to find out something about it; perhaps he knows now.


Charles A. Stewart: As I recall it, what my hon. friend asked the other day was whether or not we were too late in making application for the joint action. I had no recollection of any figures being mentioned, because we have no intention of entering into a similar agreement to that made between the British government and the government of Australia, namely, for the settlement of land as well as for assisted passages. Ours extended only to the point of assisted passages.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the deputy sent over?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When?


Charles A. Stewart: He should be in England now.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there a definite arrangement between the government of British Columbia and this government respecting immigration, and if so would the minister be good enough to give us some intimation of what it involves?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no definite arrangement between the two governments at the moment.

Supply-Immigration


Leon Johnson Ladner: But is there any working
arrangement under which immigration will be going to British Columbia just as it will be going to the prairie provinces? The reason I ask this is that according to the press the Attorney General of British Columbia has intimated that there will be a considerable demand for labour in that province this year. He says:
While not anticipating such a labour shortage as that-
Referring to a statement made by a large employer of labour.
-there is every indication that the demand for labour will be at least equal to if not considerably more than the available supply, and that there will be no justification for any man being idle.
The article goes on to show considerable activity in British Columbia. I understand the provincial government is desirous of having an early immigration policy there, not only for agricultural settlers but also for men engaged in such other business as mining, lumbering and fishing. The matter is of considerable interest to British Columbia, therefore, and we would like to have some information from the minister on the subject.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
that demand is concerned, we have no recent communication. As in the case of Ontario, British Columbia maintained an office in the Old Country and carried on a considerable amount of propaganda work on their own part, and they may be carrying it on now without my knowledge. We have been co-operating very fully with British Columbia, and we are prepared to carry on in the same way. I speak only of the demands for labour from the areas from which we have received them; I have no knowledge of any communication from British Columbia stating that they required labour of. that character.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not wish to be too
persistent, but will the minister be good enough to disclose the nature of the co-operation? Mr. Pattullo, Minister of Lands for that province, in an address delivered to the Board of Trade before I left Vancouver, intimated that he then had negotiations under way with the Dominion government under which a definite scheme twould be worked out to bring immigrants to the province, and that the Dominion would be a party to that scheme. If such a scheme has been arranged for, it is of importance to the province to know what it is, just as the minister has outlined a scheme of co-operation-or non-cooperation, as it appears-with the prairie provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, everything I have said with respect to the prairie provinces would apply to British Columbia, with the exception that British Columbia, through Mr. Pattullo, is taking a very much more active interest in immigration than the governments of the prairie provinces. The reason is a good one: British Columbia owns its natural resources and is setting aside land for the purposes of settlement, particularly along the Grand Trunk Pacific. I know that they are extremely anxious to promote settlement and have asked us to co-operate in bringing these localities to the attention of prospective settlers, they on their part agreeing to take care of them upon arrival. Beyond that we have no definite scheme of co-operation, except in a general way; we shall, of course, give to British Columbia or any of the other provinces any support or assistance that we can.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is that support or
assistance? That is the point.


Charles A. Stewart: In bringing to the attention of prospective settlers the advantages of British Columbia, in the circulation of any advertising matter that they may provide, and so on-in a general way; because we cannot pick any particular province in that respect. Our business is to try to induce people to come to Canada, and to that end, in a fair way, to present the advantages of all the provinces to prospective settlers.


Robert James Manion: So far as that point is
concerned, is it not a fact that the Department of Immigration-under this government as under other governments-generally recommends the prairie provinces to settlers? I ask that because it is my understanding that they do. Like British Columbia, of which my hon. friend speaks, northern Ontario, from which I come, is a very fine farming section, although it has bush lands just as British Columbia has. Yet it has always been my impression that the Department of Immigration recommends the prairie provinces to the detriment of the other sections referred to. I should like a little enlightenment on that point from the minister if he can give it?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend's objection, if he puts it that way, is well taken; I think there is no doubt about it. In former days the lands were free on the prairies, but they were not free elsewhere. There was a charge made, if I remember correctly for lands in the province of Ontario as well as in British Columbia-not very much it is true, nevertheless a small charge
Supply-Immigration

was made for land. These provinces owned their natural resources. They were exploiting them and trying to settle the lands in their own interest, whereas in other cases the lands belonged to the federal government and that government was trying to settle them primarily in the interest of the Dominion.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister's scheme involve granting financial assistance to the settlers? Take a concrete case. Supposing John Smith from England wanted to come out here and select a piece of property in Alberta. Does the minister's scheme involve a measure of financial assistance repayable over a period of years, and does that rest upon the province, carrying the same illustration to the province of British Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I would not like to be drawn into a discussion of what Mr. Pattullo has in mind for British Columbia. So far as regards the federal government, I would say "no" to eveiy one of his queries. We have not a scheme of placing people on the land and assisting them with money. I will deal with the subject of assisted passages later on.


Donald Sutherland: In reference to the minister's last remark, is it not a fact that the control of immigration belongs to the federal government and not to the provinces? Consequently, the fact that a province might control its own lands should not debar that province from the benefit of the operations of the federal authorities in regard to immigration. Just along that line, may I ask-because I notice that the minister has dealt very fully with the Maritime provinces, the province of Quebec, the prairie provinces and British Columbia-did I understand him aright, at the outset of his remarks, to state that in so far as the province of Ontario is concerned they were going to do nothing?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh no,
what I said at the outset was that the government of the province of Ontario were carrying on a propaganda in the Old Land on their own account; they were bringing in, for example, domestic servants, they were making advances for them, they were trying to induce settlers to eome to that province; but I hope, that I did not in any way mislead my hon. friend into thinking that the federal government had no responsibility. I say we are doing just the same for Ontario that we are doing for every other province; trying to induce people to come in. We are willing to distribute literature for Ontario and willing to hold up the advantages of that province as

well as those of the other provinces of Canada. My hon. friend is perfectly right; the responsibilty for inducing people to come to the country primarily devolves upon the federal authorities. In the past, the responsibilty of the colonization end of it has rested very frequently upon anybody, but primarily upon the provinces themselves.


Donald Sutherland: They were forced
to assume the responsibility. The minister has stated in his remarks this afternoon that the prairie provinces offered the most fertile field for immigration. He paid but scant attention to the requirements of the rural districts of old Ontario where I will venture to state-in view of the doleful tale we have heard from the representatives of western Canada-there is no field so fertile to-day, and no demand so pressing.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it not true, in spite of the emphasis laid on the three prairie provinces and the fact that the Dominion government owns the land, that if we look over the statistics for the last twenty years we find that more people have settled in Ontario than in the other provinces referred to?


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend let me say that I have brought to the attention of intending settlers the portions of northern Ontario that are being opened up to-day. I cannot say how much of this has been done in the past, my hon. friend, perhaps, will know better than I. However, it is our intention to have a policy of propaganda that will bring to the attention of the settler the chances that are available throughout the whole of Canada. That is one of the things I think it is the duty of the department to do, not to concentrate absolutely on one particular part of Canada, because thei'e are advantages in every province. There are advantages, perhaps, in one province that will appeal to the individual, and that will hold him in Canada, that he will not find in the other provinces. We cannot say that any particular province is better than the other, but we can say that there are advantages to be obtained in all of them.
I do not know that I should detain the House any longer with the matter of immigration or where it shall come from. But let me emphasize this one thing before I have done: On several occasions, in speaking upon this question, I have emphasized the necessity of reasonable and careful selection; and I hope that in dealing with the matter of assisted passages it will not be inferred, as it has been said to me on some other occasions, that when we embark in an undertaking of this kind we will nc.t, perhaps, get as desir-

Supply-Immigration
able a class of settler. I do not think it should be inferred from the mere fact that some people make application for assistance to come to the country that they are not desirable settlers. I think that the evidence we have in the Old Land fully goes to prove that very many desirable people are anxious to move from their present homes, anxious to come to some new country in the British Empire to make a fresh start, but perhaps, have not sufficient means to enable them to do so. However, to that particular class our scheme does not apply. It rather is more restricted in character than that. Here let me say that one of the greatest schemes in connection with immigration that has appealed to me most is that of child emigration to Canada. In my younger days I knew somewhat of the success of the Bamardo scheme. I know that in some respects this work has been criticized, but there are organizations in the Old Land who have been doing a splendid work in this respect and the record of the Barnardo Boys Home, having regard to enlistment during the war and the success of the boys who did enlist, is a splendid record and one that will bear comparison with the record of any of the young men who enlisted in the Canadian army. From Ontario and eastern Canada-but it will apply, perhaps, to my hon. friend's province more than to any of the others and it has been the case for several years so far as I can discover from the records of the department-applications have come in excess of those that the various organizations engaged in this work are able to fill. For example, a year ago there were about 15,000 applications for boys and girls from people who were willing to take them into their homes and adopt them, and about 1,500 were placed. That gives you an idea of how close we are to the point at which we aim in connection with this work.
Now let me, for a moment, deal with the matter from a close personal standpoint. In the province of Alberta we have had for a number of years what is known as the Delinquent Children's department. That is a very poor name for it. It should never have been called by that name. It was rather a department organized for the purpose of caring for children who were unfortunate, through no fault of theirs, and very frequently through no fault of the parents, and we find, strange to say, that in the new provinces in the West, which are said to be settled by bachelors, there are always more applications for children than we are able to satisfy. Indeed, the only children in the hands of the government to-day, or a year ago, so far as I know, were those who were slightly mentally
deficient. The robust, physically fit child was adopted into a foster home as soon as he was able to go there. There is in Ontario and eastern Canada a great field for this work, and there are in the Old Country children of deceased soldiers by the thousands, children of respectable parents by the thousands, who will make splendid settlers and citizens of Canada if we can bring them here. This work has been very largely philanthropic, so far as I can ascertain, assisted by contributions of people interested in the work. Very little assistance has been given to the organizations by the government of the Old Country or the government of any country, and the recent increase in transportation rates has made it difficult for these organizations to carry on. I therefore propose to offer a grant for those who can be carefuly selected and absorbed in decent homes in Ontario, and in this work we are enjoying the full co-operation of the officials of the Ontario government who have been dealing with this phase of the question in placing these children in foster homes. The government is asking parliament to give us a reasonable sum for this work, up to $200,000, which we hope will be supplemented by the British government through their Overseas Settlement Board. I want to emphasize first the selection of the child; secondly, the selection of the home and the desirability of getting these young people into our Canadian homes. Strange to say there has been throughout Canada for the past few years a very serious lack of domestic help in the household. The Ontario government and the Saskatchewan government have been doing something during the past two or three years in connection with bringing out those girls for domestic service. Again we find the same difficulty in regard to assistance. So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned they have been collecting from various individuals and have been putting up some money themselves, sending over and bringing girls out. I made careful inquiry of Mr. Gardiner when he was here discussing the question of immigration as to the success of their scheme, and I was assured that they were meeting with splendid success and that there was very little loss in connection with the proposition. Miss Biden, an official of our department, paid partly by the Department of Immigration and partly by the Saskatchewan government, has been an inspectional officer and has made the selections. We propose to carry out this work to a greater degree, trying to supplement the demand for domestic servants by asking for a vote of $200,000 for this purpose, which will be further supplemented by the Overseas Settlement Board.
Supply-Immigration


Donald Sutherland: Is that an additional $200,000 to be asked for in the case of children?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. That however is a grant that will not be returned. In the case of domestic servants we hope that 90 per cent of the money will be returned to the federal government. So far as the child is concerned, it is absolutely a grant* in toto for the passage.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister not consider the advancement of assistance to that extent to competent farm labourers who are vouched for by the provincial authorities?


Charles A. Stewart: Referring to the farm labourer, we have not ventured into that field. Perhaps my hon. friend will agree with me that I am somewhat of a careful individual with respect to the expenditure of public money. At least I know that this vote will not meet the ideals of a great many of my hon. friends in this House. They will say I should have gone a great deal further. So far as I am concerned, 1 propose to go slowly. I hope we shall get settlement. I feel that we shall get settlement and the evidence of that is that the steamship companies are having splendid success in their booking so far with people who will come as labourers to Canada.
Dealing with the other class to whom my hon. friend referred, we have no scheme for the bringing out of farm labourers. It is rather a difficult proposition to deal with, owing to .the fact that you have no assurance, or perhaps not as much assurance of holding the farm labourer or the mill labourer as is desirable, in order to secure the return of the money. But what we are doing is this: in regard to the individual who has come to Canada and has not been able so far to obtain the necessary funds to bring his family or his children, or the individual who is desirous of bringing a friend whom he knows, either from an urban centre or from a rural district and who will settle upon the land, we have set aside $200,000 for assistance, as an experiment. We provide that he shall pay 25 per cent of the cost of the passage of his family, or the family whom he may nominate, and give a guarantee for the return of the money. In order that it may work smoothly and easily, we are dealing with the local banks in this respect, taking security from two of his neighbours, because my experience since coming here is that on hundreds of different occasions we have been appealed to by men already in the

country for assistance in order to bring out their families and establish them here. We thought it would be proper to provide for the furnishing of 25 per cent, either by the individual who nominated the family, or by someone else. We provide for the return of the money in a certain period. If it is the wife alone, or if it is a family consisting of the husband and wife, a repayment inside of one year of the full amount, or if there are children within two years, without interest, according to the size of the family is required.


Donald Sutherland: Is this in addition to the $400,000 already referred to?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, making $600,000 in all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there a class of assisted immigrants other than those to which the minister has referred? A little while ago he referred to assisted immigrants. Does the class he has referred to include all of them?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is simply assisted passages from the Old Land, with respect to which we have the co-operation of the Overseas Settlement Board. There is no programme of assisted passages from any country except Great Britain.


Donald Sutherland: Does the Old Land mean Great Britain and Ireland, or what does it mean?


Charles A. Stewart: It covers the area to which assistance is given by the Overseas Settlement Board of the British government. That applies to Great Britain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In regard to the people who are being brought out from various parts of Europe, is the government guarding against these various people settling in colonies to the detriment of western Canada, as has happened in the past? Is an effort being made to assimilate them with the people of the country?


Charles A. Stewart: I might say personally that I do not favour colony settlement as we understand it in western Canada. It is a deterrent to assimilation; but we must bear in mind that on the part of many people there will be a desire to settle in communities, and indeed, this desire comes from the Old Land. One of the great attractions of the Australian scheme is that they are going to settle in communities where convenient for them. Our experience in western Canada has been that people assimilate much more readily if there is a reasonable amount of distribution of those people, rather than if

S upply-Immigration
there are close colonies of people of one nationality.
I think I have covered the ground fairly well. I anticipate I shall have innumerable questions with respect to this matter, but what I have in mind is a careful selection of the people who shall come to Canada a follow-up policy that will assist the settler, not in the expenditure of money particularly, but by advice that, we think, will be valuable to him. Not only that, but we propose to bring, as fast as labour conditions will warrant, labour into Canada. We have to-day, in both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railway offices advertisements asking the farmers to make application for the men that they can employ annually very largely upon their farms. Those men will be carefully selected and brought out to fill the requirements. In fact, we have not missed any agencies, because I take it that we are to have first carefully selected settlers, and second, when we get them into the country, some organization that can perform a service to a certain point; but above and beyond all, we must have the hearty co-operation of all the people and all organizations,>
churches and otherwise, in connection with this problem


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the
minister go on and finish the relation of his scheme of land leasing? He touched on that, but I do not think he finished it.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not intend to deal with it at any particular length, except that I would say this, that strange to say, in spite of the fact that the information we got was that a great deal of land that had been cultivated was being abandoned and that it was going back into the hands of owners, non-resident or otherwise who would not cultivate it, in Manitoba alone, the only province in which we were able to secure any considerable number of farms for the purpose of leasing, after correspondence with secretary-treasurers of municipalities, the men who ought to know best, and after a careful canvass of the whole province, all that we were able to get was 75 farms. Some of those were not, on inspection, found to be in condition to offer to any tenant, without at least one year's summer fallow. That is not a desirable proposition to offer to a newcomer to the country unless you are prepared to pay him for that operation. Our investigation in that respect did not go very far. In spite of the fact that we are told so frequently that so many of those farms will be settled but will not be occupied and worked next year, I think that is a hopeful sign and evidence in itself that things are not just as bad
as we sometimes think they are. I am optimistic enough to think that we have at least reached the peak of the depression, and that our farmers from now on will make progress, although I am not suggesting, of course, that they are going-to be inordinately prosperous.
The removal of the British embargo has had this effect. Hon. members from western Canada know what difficulty was experienced in disposing of live stock at 2 1-2 cents per pound. True, perhaps, a good deal of it, was not in a condition to market, but drought conditions sometimes forced the farmer to sell whether he was desirous of doing so or not. To-day, I am informed by Mr. Pat Burns, who is a reliable authority, that they are prepared to pay for stall-fed cattle, even as far as Innisfail, in Alberta, 7| cents per pound. This argues, in my opinion, that we can depend upon that price for export to the Old Country, and paying transportation charges from Calgary to Liverpool or Glasgow or whatever other ports these cattle are required at. This means a considerable change from the condition that formerly prevailed with respect to our live stock.
I agree with what many of my hon. friends have said in the past, that some change will have to take place in connection with the price of wheat; but there can be no serious complaint as regards dairy products. Wheat alone probably does not show any sign of advance, and any prosperity will have to come rather by way of reduction in the price of commodities the farmer must buy, and by way of reduction of freight rates upon the commodities upon which we have to pay transportation charges.
I have tried in a general way to cover this question. In some respects, it has been a great pleasure to study and discuss this question. There are as many different ideas as to what should be done with respect to immigration, I sometimes think, as there are people in Canada, and my view is, just as I said at the outset, that we must not adopt the extreme opinion of either party, on the one hand that there is no solution; that we should stop this thing outright; or on the other, that we should embark upon a programme of large expenditure of public money to purchase privately-owned land upon which to place settlers and perhaps, have a very undesirable result when such a scheme is worked out. My recommendation is that we should adopt a middle course. That is the recommendation I have made to the government of the day, and my recommendations have been accepted by the government. I hope they will bring about the desired re-
Supply-Immigration

suits. I do not believe that it would be desirable to have a huge influx of immigrants; but I hope this scheme will bring about an increase this year over last year and that, in the end, we shall get back to the state of affairs of 1913 and 1914, because we can, under reasonable conditions, absorb iij Canada quite acceptably three or four hundred thousand people a year.
Let me say in conclusion, that it is my desire, so long as I have charge of this department, to administer it so that the benefits of immigration and incoming settlers will be available to all the provinces of Canada. I dwelt upon the western provinces merely because our railway mileage there has in its vicinity a large acreage of desirable untilled land that, I believe for the time being, offers, perhaps, the best opportunity or one of the best opportunities to be had throughout Canada.


Donald Sutherland: I think the minister led the committee to expect from him a statement with regard to the personnel and status of the Canada Colonization Land Corporation, as this company is apparently to act as a medium between the speculator or land holder and the settler.


Charles A. Stewart: The Canada Colonization Company, as I understand the matter, has had rather a stormy career in endeavouring to carry out a land settlement scheme that was projected by Mr. M. A. Brown, of Medicine Hat, who went throughout Canada and induced a large number of men of influence and financial means to back him in this scheme of settling, in the first instance, the privately-owned lands of western Canada. I well remember when they came to interview the government of the province of Alberta, they were accompanied by General McRae, who was then manager of the company. They had a scheme for the compulsory listing of lands for a period of two years! This would require legislation by the provincial governments and was rejected; and upon that scheme they spent about a year. I know it is a most difficult thing for an organization of this kind to obtain a satisfactory arrangement under which to carry on its work. But we do need some sort of organization such as this to take the place of the individual who has made a business of land selling for profit. That such a need exists there is not the slightest doubt in my mind, particularly as conditions exist to-day. We have not free lands to offer people within reasonable distance of the railways; all the lands that are desirable are held by private owners. It is
[Mr. C. A. StewartJ
difficult when you reject a scheme of purchasing .these lands outright and re-selling them to find some other plan which the government can embark upon with any protection to its officials, as outlined by the leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I quite realize that, and I have repeatedly gone over the matter trying to devise a scheme that would keep the government out of difficulty. Now, this organization adopted a scheme of charging a certain percentage of the sales for the service they rendered the private individual.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the percentage?


Charles A. Stewart: Ten per
cent. I cannot see any objection to a scheme of that kind. These men do not propose to make any profit out of this undertaking; nor do I see how they could make a profit. On the basis of paying to the agent what he legitimately gets for bringing people into the country it will cost them at least a dollar per acre. They have in the United States to-day, I am credibly informed, sixty agents who are operating on a commission basis, who receive for their service something like ten per cent per acre. Hon. gentlemen can figure that out. On a basis of $18 per acre for land, they will get $1.80 per acre for the handling of the land. On the other hand they have the responsibility of going to the vendors, getting the listings of these lands and acting as the agent of the vendor for a period of six or seven years at least,-I am now speaking of the non-resident vendor-thus rendering a service not only to the vendor but to the people of Canada; because to bring in a settler who is located properly, with a decent chance of paying his interest and of having his - payments extended when they are due, is certainly rendering a service to the people of Canada that is of some value. Now, a certain proportion of the balance of that money will go to the local individual who assists the agent in that respect. True, if they do not interest the prospective settler from the United States or elsewhere and the settler comes in and purchases without an effort on their part, that dollar will be saved. But that does not happen in a very great number of cases. I am informed that there are at the moment nearly 900,000 acres of western land listed which they can sell on the terms I have outlined, namely, over 32 years and at a rate of 6 per cent. And they propose to spend all the money that they get on that 10 per cent basis in an endeavour to bring people into the country. The arrangement

Supply-Immigration
I have made with them is that they shall settle on the land as a minimum 200 heads of families this year. That is the minimum which I think we should require. I am trying this purely and simply as an experiment, hoping to establish people permanently in that way with a decent chance of getting on.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can they settle anywhere?


Charles A. Stewart: Allow me to finish, please. If we do not adopt some plan of that kind, what will happen? You will simply put the prospective, settler again at the mercy of the private landowner or his agent, and I need not ask any hon. gentleman from western Canada what that means. We all know that the settler will be asked 8 per cent, the prevailing rate in western Canada. And as I have experienced on many occasions, , the moment you go to purchase from the private owner, if you appear anxious to have the property he owns you invariably find the price increased .particularly if you are a newcomer. The same experience is reported by the immigration agents in the United States. They' are asking for an organization to which they can send men with the assurance that they will get a fair deal and that they will not come back dissatisfied because of conflicting reports they hear from various points they visit in western Canada. I hope that we shall save some money ultimately in connection with this attempt on our part to carry out the colonization end of the scheme in a definite way for the settlement of people in western Canada. The manager of the company is Mr. Everett. He is the man in whom I stake my confidence for the success of the scheme. As regards Mr. M. A. Brown, he was the originator of this scheme and is again about to raise money. He has met with difficulties and I am not prepared to criticize him. I know that he has been criticized very severely in many quarters, and many of the individuals who backed him at the start say he changed the programme, that another scheme was attempted, and that they were not consulted and are not prepared to put up money. On the other hand, there are still behind him a number of ardent supporters who are putting up their money in order that the scheme may continue. So much for him. But the man on whom I depend to make a success of the undertaking is Mr. Howard Everett, who has had many years experience in land settlement in western Canada. He is an American and was at one time manager of the Luse Land Company who settled a great many people throughout central Saskatchewan and central Alberta. This company did a
tremendous business in the early days, as the people of Saskatchewan may remember. This gentleman thoroughly understands the business in which he is engaged, and he thinks he can make a success of it. I hope he can. I hope he will make a huge success of it, because it means that he is bringing in and settling people on the land and giving them an opportunity which they would not otherwise get if it were not for this private corporation which is not taking profits out of the enterprise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the minister entirely concludes, I want to correct something I said this afternoon in connection with the question of advertising. I said that the amount spent outside of Great Britain was $92,000; it is only $90,000. But I want to draw the minister's attention to this fact. I have Hansard before me and I find at page 540 the statement that the amount spent in advertising carried on in Great Britain was $3,089.82, and in other countries $90,595.81. The minister says this return was amended. I turn to the next day's Hansard but I find that the correction has absolutely nothing to do with that question. I have been unable to find it amended anywhere else and these figures are not correct. The minister should tell us where the correction is to be found and how it was made. The House has a right to rely upon the answers given by ministers in the ordinary way, and I want to be entirely fair to my hon. friend. The day that answer was given, and he realized the frightful discrepancy in the figures, he came over to me and said that there must be some error. If there is an error we must have it corrected quickly. I have heard nothing since from the minister. I can well imagine his astonishment at the figures.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend's statement is hardly in accordance with what happened. After a note reached me from my secretary saying that a mistake had been made with respect to the advertising in Great Britain, and that instead of giving the full amount it merely referred to the newspaper advertising, which was $3,000, I went over to my hon. friend and told him that I would get a correction of the statement for him the following day. The correction was prepared by Mr. Stead's department and left in the hands of my secretary. The only reason I can conceive for the delay is that he was taken ill and possibly did not forward the statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, evidently the secretary is sick this time. The
Supply-Immigration

hon. minister did not tell me anything about that- before. If the statement is wrong, cannot we get the facts now as to how much money was spent? How many more shuffles are we to have?


Charles A. Stewart: I understood the figures were corrected in Hansard. I will undertake to get the figures to my hon. friend and also to place them on the Table without further delay.


Mr. FORTIER:: Are the various provinces which are co-operating with the government ready to grant free land to settlers? Is it not-a fact that the province of Quebec has extensive areas of land upon which improvements have been made in the way of the erection of houses and barns ready for intending settlers? And is it not also a fact that the Department of Colonization, of Quebec is ready to sell these lands to settlers under very favourable conditions?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
think I mentioned that early in the afternoon. We are co-operating very closely with the government of Quebec through the Deputy Minister of Colonization.


Donald Sutherland: Am I correct in inferring from the minister's remarks that this land corporation are to receive 10 per cent on the purchase price of the lands they dispose of and also about $ 10,000 per month from the government, and that they on their part, according to the arrangements made, are to bring out at least 200 families? In other words, are they to receive $600 per family as a bonus?


Charles A. Stewart: I merely say that that is the minimum. It is hoped they will exceed that very substantially.


Donald Sutherland: They get $120,000 if they bring out 200 families?


Charles A. Stewart: No. They get $100,000. It is not $10,000 per month for twelve months, but for ten months.


William Alves Boys: Supposing the company fail to live up to the conditions laid down, what penalty is provided?


Charles A. Stewart: The only penalty one can provide in such a case is to stop further payment. That is one of the reasons why we have a provision for payment by the month. Largely the settlement will be made before the taonth of August.


William Alves Boys: I presume there is an agreement signed between the department and the company?	.	. *


Charles A. Stewart: That is the proposed agreement. It is not signed.


William Alves Boys: I would take it for granted
that there would be a written agreement for such an important matter?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: And I also would assume that the agreement would cover a term of years?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Alves Boys: If that is so there is not the same necessity for a penalty. But I would suggest to the minister, if it is the intention of the department to enter into an agreement with the company for a period of years, that it should contain a forfeiture clause in case the company fail to make good; in other words, the agreement should then come to an end.


Charles A. Stewart: Month by month they are to report to the government the actual settlement accomplished, and if there is no reasonable prospect of their reaching the minimum we are to cease to do business with them. That is the proposed agreement which is not signed.


William Alves Boys: I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I am of opinion that a company putting up a large sum of money to engage in this undertaking would want an agreement from the department for a certain term of years.


Charles A. Stewart: They have not asked for that. The agreement is for one year.


William Alves Boys: If the agreement has not been completed there is plenty of time yet for them to ask for that.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: In that event I would certainly recomipend to the minister the insertion of such a clause, otherwise we will be committed to obligations without a satisfactory way of reaching the company if they fail to make good.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Is it in contemplation to relax the general regulations regarding labour other than farm labour?


Charles A. Stewart: Wherever
there appears to be necessity for labour we are prepared to pass it into Canada.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Skilled or unskilled?


Charles A. Stewart: Although
there is a prospect, I am told, in the building

Supply-Immigration
trades in the eastern cities particularly, of a shortage of skilled labour, it has not appeared yet.


Mr. SHAW:: In view of the fact that
$40,000 has already been paid to this company, according to the return laid on the Table the other day, I presume that some results have been achieved in bringing families to Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know that any families have been brought forward to date. Indeed, it would be rather a mistake to do so at this season. Arrangements are being made for parties to come out. I can only speak authoritatively of two such parties, namely, a number of Polish farmers who are coming with a view to purchasing land for themselves and interested compatriots, and a number of Danish farmers. From Iowa agents are coming forward with parties as soon as weather conditions will permit of inspection of land.


William Charles Good: The minister has stated that there is a large quantity of land fairly near the railroads owned by absentee parties. Has he considered the propriety of instituting some system of taxing that land into use so it may be rendered cheaper for those who want it?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend lived out west he would realize that unimproved land is being severely taxed. The taxes in many cases are 25 per cent higher on unimproved land than on improved land. So the absentee owner is being taxed.


William Charles Good: Is there a prospect then of the land returning to the Dominion shortly so that free grants may be made to settlers?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
answer that.


Arthur John Lewis: Presuming that the returns brought down are correct with regard to the $3,000 spent on newspaper advertising in Great Britain, does it not seem a very large amount of money for the desperate efforts that are being made to get British settlers over here at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: There is very little reduction in the number of people coming from the Old Land over last year or the preceding year. Taking the figures as a whole, they would not indicate any very serious falling off. Indeed, the' serious falling off is from the United States; in that case the figures dropped to about 19,000 last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite right there? My recollection is to the contrary.


Charles A. Stewart: If I have quoted the figures wrongly, I shall be glad to be corrected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister will give us the figures now. My recollection is-and I think we had it up before- that the year before last, British immigration and foreign immigration were in the ratio of 5 to 1, and that last year that dropped down to something less than 2 to 1.


Robert James Manion: I have the figures under my hand. They are divided into English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh, but the totals show that in 1920 there were about 60,000, in 1921 about the same number, and in 1922 abont 34,000; so that they were practically cut in two.


Charles A. Stewart: What period in 1922 does that cover?


Robert James Manion: The figures are furnished by the Bureau of Statistics. The years are given, 1913, 1914 and so on up to 1922, without any indication of what period is covered.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the figure for 1922 would cover the nine months to December 31.


Robert Forke: I think it is about time 1 made a little explanation.' I hold in my hand a memorandum from the Western Canada Colonization Association on which my name appears as one of its directors. I am fairly familiar with all' the circumstances connected with the organization of that association. Two or three years ago-I am not sure of the date-when the organization was first formed I took an active part in it. I attended three or four meetings, but I never received any remuneration for my services, and I never asked for any, so that I have no pecuniary interest of any kind in the organization. I am familiar with the scheme that the association outlined, and with its operations. The only criticism I have to offer would be that the percentage going back to meet the cost of operation of the scheme might be considered a little too large. The weakness I saw in it from the beginning was this: I did not think much privately-owned land would be bought by the association. The average private owner of land does not care very much to sell it on the basis of repayment in thirty-two annual instalments.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
Supply-Immigration

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 53, respecting Canadian Press Limited.-Mr. Ryckman.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Robert Forke: When the House took recess I was making some little explanation in connection with my relations with the Western Canada Colonization Association. I do not suppose the House is very much interested in the matter. However, when I noticed my name on the letter head of the association I thought, perhaps, some other member might have a sheet of the same kind and make an allusion to it in the expectation that they were throwing a bombshell by announcing that I was one of the directors of that association. That is my reason for making this explanation. I may say however that I have no apologies to offer for any connection I have had with this association. Looking into the scheme which it is promoting I believe it has some merit and deserves a fair trial. It is better, perhaps, than the old system of the land colonization companies that got large tracts of land and sold them at the highest price they could possibly get. In this case we know the percentage of profit that is going to the colonization association. I understand that the association has been promised approximately $1,200,000 of subscriptions towards its scheme, and I think that about $150,000 has already been paid in in cash-that is outside of any assistance they have received from the government. I never had time to attend any of their meetings, except one or two when the association was first formed. The only objection that I had to the scheme at that time was, that there were several officers connected with the association that were drawing larger salaries than, I think, their services entitled them to. However, since that time those gentlemen have severed their connection with the association.
In the province of Manitoba I have a comparatively busy time, being associated in a semi-public way with quite a number of organizations, and I never found time to attend any of the meetings of this association. Consequently I made up my mind that when I was not familiar with the inner workings of the. association I did not want to share any responsibility. During last session, after being elected a member of the House,
[Mr. Forked
I sent in my resignation to the secretary of the association and understood it had been accepted. In looking at the paper I have before me I notice the letters "M.P." are omitted from my name so I suppose that, the letter head on it is the old one. I am not making this explanation as an apology. I have nothing against the association. I believe its work merits a fair trial. Upon the face of it the scheme has merit. But I would like to say this: If any member of the House, if any of the hon. members behind me, have any criticisms to make let them do so because if there is anything wrong with this scheme we want to know it. Let the criticism offered, if any is made, be fair criticism, and when the item comes to be voted we will know exactly what to do.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I look upon the subject before the committee, that of immigration, as one of the most important of the session. To a large extent my sympathies were with the minister this afternoon. I am not here to criticize, I am rather here to assist, and I hope that that will be the attitude of hon. members, in this part of the chamber anyway. If they have any criticism to offer by all means let us have it if it is helpful and calculated to assist in the solution of this problem. That kind of criticism, I think, is what we will get. The minister has a difficult problem to solve and he is perfectly aware of the situation. He knows all the circumstances that attend immigration, the difficulties of getting the immigrant and properly settling him on the land once we induce him to come to the country.
I heard a good deal this afternoon about the claims of the different provinces in connection with this matter. That brings to my mind just how many difficulties surround the carrying on of the government of this Dominion. Each province sets up its claim for some attention. It is perfectly proper that it should do so; but I think the explanation why the prairie provinces got more attention in the years gone by with respect to immigration is perfectly evident if we once look at the matter impartially. We had out west great stretches of free land, the best agricultural land, perhaps, that you could find anywhere, land easily broken up. This offered great attractions to incoming settlers, the consequent influx of settlement helping to pay the obligations of Canada and also furnishing a large market for eastern manufactures; and although available lands in other provinces merited attention it was quite natural, altogether apart from the fact of the Dominion government owning the land in the West, that special attention should be paid to peopling the lands that

Supply-Immigration
were so eminently fitted for early occupation.
I would like to say a word here in connection with the land in the northern part of the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, and perhaps in Saskatchewan also. A large amount of that land is bush land, requiring a great deal of work to clear. I do not know how hon. members may feel on the subject, but I think that to settle that land would require a different type of settler; we require a man who will go in there and live what you may call the simple life. I may be wrong in my belief, but I think the only way to get those lands settled will be by inducing people to go in there and clear an acre or two, raise some vegetables and grain, keep a few cattle, and perhaps, work out in the summer and resort to lumbering in the winter. I may be wrong because I am not very well acquainted with northern Ontario. I do know, however, the character of the land in northern Manitoba; and I am perfectly sure that to get the right class of settlers you will have to go to Europe and induce some of those people who are hardy and eminently fitted for clearing up land of this description to go in there and settle. In the case of the lands that we are dealing more immediately with at the present time, it is, perhaps, a different problem altogether.
I now want to say a few words about the condition of agriculture. I would not have mentioned agriculture at all in this debate had the Minister of the Interior not made frequent reference to it this afternoon. The intimation has been made that perhaps the members in this part of the chamber dwell a little too much upon the ills of agriculture at the present time. I am convinced, however, that a little examination of the subject would ' enable hon. members to see that the condition of agriculture is a very vital question, and one that affects the welfare of the whole Dominion. No matter what our interests may be, we must feed ourselves, and we must withal have something with which to clothe ourselves. Agriculture is the greatest of all industries and one of the most essential to humanity, and even to-day, in this wonderful country of ours, we recognize the fact that if agriculture is not prosperous all suffer alike. I mention that because I want hon. members to realize that while we dwell upon the drawbacks or ills from which agriculture suffers at the present time, we are quite aware that other [DOT] industries are suffering and other people have difficulties that seem perhaps as large to them as the difficulties of the agriculturist seem to him. We realize however that agriculture is a basic industry and must be made profit-71
able, and when it is prosperous other industries begin to prosper.	.
Then, the question immediately arises: Why are you asking immigrants to come here when you find agriculture in the condition in which it stands to-day? We can answer this question. I hear from the Old Land sometimes that agriculture is in a deplorable condition over there, and I do not think we need be at all afraid to ask the people to come from the British Isles and throw in their lot with us in Canada. I think the very best brains of the country are needed to solve the problems of agriculture. It seems to me we are in a very difficult position. I quoted the words of Lord Shaw, who was a visitor here, when he referred to the conditions in Canada, and said that it was a crime that 9,000,000 people should be in possession of half the continent and unable to develop the resources. It is no use talking all the time about the great latent wealth of our country in natural resources.
It is about time we quit talking in this strain and started to do something to develop those resources. We have latent wealth, but a section of land uncultivated is no use to us except to grow grass and prairie flowers, and the mines and minerals under the soil are no use unless they are mined. Consequently, if we are going to get the benefit of the natural wealth of our country we must have men and money. These are two essentials to the development of the country. We know our economic conditions. We have a great land. We have provided facilities for a very much larger population than we have to-day, and if we had that larger population the overhead expenses-that is the expenses for the government of the country, the railways and other matters-would not be increased, but the number of people who bore ' these expenses would be greatly increased, and the burden would be made much lighter for all.
As I said before, agriculture is depressed everywhere, and the conditions here are no worse than they are anywhere, perhaps, in the world to-day as regards that industry. We hear a great deal about the prosperity of the United States. There is no doubt a great industrial boom there, but I do not think the husbandman in that country is so very prosperous at the present time, notwithstanding what we might call the industrial prosperity of the United States.
Looking back, recalling my own experience, I can realize that if the agricultural population is going to be prosperous, the agriculturists will have to help themselves to a

nos
Supply-Immigration

very large extent. We are dwelling upon our economic evils. We believe a great many
things can be improved and circumstances made better for those engaged in this calling. Nevertheless, I believe that the remedy is in the hands of the people themselves. I think hon. members will excuse me for dwelling more particularly on the prairie provinces, as that is the land with which I am best acquainted. It seems to me to-day that different methods will have to. be adopted, if the farmer is going to succeed. We will require to have small farms, more intensive cultivation, and what might be called mixed farming. The day of wheat growing has gone by, and I am perfectly satisfied that even, under present conditions, life can be made quite pleasant on a prairie farm. I know that some people will be prepared to differ with me. I know the circumstances in the West, just as well as the Minister of the Interior, knows them. The one depressing fact in the prairie provinces is that farmers are loaded down with debt. Were it not so, there would be nothing disheartening in the situation, but that is in reality the position. I believe that we can only help ourselves by having more people to develop that country and to till the prairie soil.
I wish to say a few words about the class of immigrants that we ought to get in this country. We hear a great deal about selected immigrants, I am not one of those who want what you might call indiscriminate immigration. We have a pretty mixed population even at the present time. I will read a short extract describing the sort of people we have in western Canada. We have representatives of every race, creed and tongue under the sun. This extract reads:	.
Here we have representatives of every race, creed and tongue under the sun. Chinese, Hindu, Japanese, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Russian, Italian, Pole, Swede, Scandinavian, et al. Fifty-three nationalities, speaking 89 languages and dialects and subscribing to 73 religions and creeds. One man of eveiy 12 living in Saskatchewan is a Ruthenian; one in every 5 living in British Columbia is a Chinaman; 46 per cent, of the population of Saskatchewan is non-English. Winnipeg has the second and Regina the third largest foreign-born population of any cities in the Dominion of Canada.
So that we have a pretty polyglot representation in the western provinces, and perhaps to mix them too much might be rather dangerous. But I am not afraid of the hardy peasant who is willing to go on the land. I do not care very much where he comes from. Of course, ' the better class of immigrants for Canada will be always from the British Isles and from northern Europe.
With reference to selected immigrants, I think it is nothin,- more than an intolerable [Mr. Forked
crime to bring, say the London citizen, who never saw the prairie land and knows nothing about prairie life, and place him in an Alberta shanty. We should only bring here people who are fit to live in our country and understand something about the conditions of rural life. We talk a great deal about our country. I am just as proud of Canada as any one, but we have here a very rigorous climate. We have quite a number of months of severe winter, and it must be borne in mind that the people who are to come here and go on the soil and develop the farms of the country must be of vigorous and virile character. To bring to Canada people who are unsuited is both a crime against them and a wrong done to the country to which they come.
Another matter that should be taken into consideration as regards bringing immigrants into this country is the channels through which they pass. I happened to be associated with immigration about twenty years ago, when there was a large flow of immigrants into this country, and I know something about the system that was adopted in Great Britain and in some parts of Europe in securing those immigrants. I should like to give this information to the minister. If he wants to get the right immigrants, he will have to get thg right people on the other side to select them. This work cannot be done from this side of the water; it must be done by the people who are in control of the situation over there. The Minister of the Interior of that time, then the Hon. Clifford Sifton, had a most wonderful system of organization, perhaps the best system of getting immigrants that we have ever had in this country. I know he has been blamed for letting down the bars and admitting into Canada some immigrants who should never have been here. I question very much the truth of that assertion. I think it will be found that a good many of the undesirable immigrants that came to Canada, came at a later date rather than during his regime. I will repeat that one of the methods to get proper immigrants to this country is to employ on the other side the proper agents who understand the situation, who can sift the immigrants and see that only the right kind sail for Canada. I have no doubt there are in the Department of the Interior officials who understand something about the system and who will be willing to help as much as they can in tjiis matter of selecting immigrants.
I speak with all due caution, as I do not want to say anything that will reflect upon the minister. I am going to tell the committee only what I have heard. I have heard

Supply-Immigration
sometimes that the Department of the Interior has been a dumping ground for inefficients from other departments. I am only repeating this from what I have heard.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member should not believe all he hears.


Robert Forke: I am rather simple in some ways and, perhaps, I should not believe everything I hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that these officials are appointed by the Civil Service Commission?	.


Arthur Meighen: That does not apply apparently to editors of Liberal papers.


Samuel William Jacobs: That seems to stick in the crop of the leader of the Opposition.


Robert Forke: I am beginning to wonder just where I come in. When I was in the Old Country and connected with the immigration service, there was in vogue a system that I did not like, namely, that of subsidizing steamship companies. I do not know whether that is done at the present time to any extent or not. We found in different towns and villages agents of steamship companies who had no regard at all for the truth. According to them, this was an Eldorado, a land of sunshine and happiness, and anyone who came to Canada was blessed. With the steamship companies, the question was one of numbers, and quality had no place in their calculations. I do not know what the system is to-day; but I would certainly be opposed to granting steamship companies a subsidy for every immigrant they brought over. I would find some other method of assisting passages.
Where should immigrants be sought? I believe to-day you can find in the British Isles many immigrants of the very best kind, young agricultural labourers, whom I could, without hesitation, advise to come to Canada, knowing conditions as I know them as they exist here to-day. We have had some pretty good immigrants come to Canada as agricultural labourers. I would refer the committee to the premier of Alberta, Premier Greenfield, the premier of British Columbia, Premier Oliver, and the premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Dunning. They all came over as immigrants, a pretty good sort, and it was a pretty good thing also for themselves that they came over.


Samuel William Jacobs: Likewise the hon. gentleman himself.


Robert Forke: I am very modest, as hon. members know; but I have found it a pretty good thing to come to Canada.
I should like to say just a few words as regards taking care of the immigrant after he comes here. I can well recollect the feeling that I had many years ago when I bade farewell to my native land and turned my face toward this land of hope. There is a good deal of sinking of the heart and of wondering just what the future holds for one. You come across the wide ocean amongst strangers, first impressions have a great deal to do with what you are going to think of the land to which you are coming to make your home, and I should like to see these immigrants, when they set foot upon these shores, receive a very hearty welcome. I have never forgotten the first experiences that I had at Halifax. I do not think it is at all derogatory . to me to say that I crossed the ocean forty years ago as a steerage passenger. I can well remember our being herded at Halifax just like so many sheep or cattle, and I can as. sure hon. members that the experience was not very pleasant. I have, visited Quebec and Montreal since then, and I am happy to say that conditions as they exist to-day are differ-, ent from those that prevailed forty years ago.
I would, however, repeat that there is nothing like giving immigrants a hearty welcome. I know the hearts of the Canadian people are kind anyway, and immigrants are most likely to receive a welcome.
The immigrant should be looked after upon his landing in this country in order to see that he is not taken advantage of, because there are in Canada, as elsewhere, dishonest persons who will take advantage of innocent people. I have looked into the soldier settlement scheme, and while some other speaker to-night will, perhaps, take up that subject and enlarge upon it to a greater extent than I am going to do, I believe in the soldier settlement scheme we have the nucleus of a system that might be widened out to great advantage in dealing with other settlers who ,come to make their home amongst us.
Let me say a few words as regards the drift to the south. I have under my hand some statistics, but I think most of them have been mentioned this afternoon. I do not think any government is to blame for the drift of people from Canada to the south. I do not care what government or what conditions we have in Canada, there always will be, to some extent, a drift of our people to the great republic to the south of us. It will have the attraction that numbers have; that the unknown has, and young and ambitious people, no matter what Canada may be, no doubt will, at times, drift over the line and leave us for the time being. We have, undoubtedly a rigorous
Suppl y-/ mmigra tion

climate, and older people may find it to their advantage to move to a warmer climate. I only hope older people will see their way to go over the mountains and, perhaps, find what they want in British Columbia in our own country. Almost a tragedy of the western prairies has been the fact that people have gone out to the West, have developed a farm, have made a home and become fairly comfortable, and then as old age has come on, they have'felt they would like some milder climate, so they have sold their farm for a good price and moved away instead of their wealth remaining in this country to beautify and develop the original home in which they have made their money. This is something we cannot help; it will perhaps always remain so, and it to some extent explains the drift that goes over the line to the south of us.
There is another percentage of our population that goes south that we can very well do without. Perhaps there is at the present time an abnormal' crossing of the line. I think I said before that there is what might be called an industrial boom in the United States to-day. I do not know if anyone can explain just how this boom is coming about. Agriculture is not what one might call in a first class condition there. If the wages are high on the other side of the line our artisans and labourers will inevitably drift there and you cannot keep them back. Most of the young men that go, although they are Canadians, experience no difficulty in making the change; their belongings can be packed into a club bag or satchel, and they can very easily cross the line, perhaps never to come back. These are the conditions that we must face. I know that some of my friends will not agree with me, but in my opinion, in seeking immigrants we must not draw the line at agriculture. If we can get abourers and artisans I believe we can find room for them here, because I think it will be found in the not distant future that there will be a shortage of labour of that kind in the Dominion if the United States continues to prosper industrially as it seems to be doing to-day. Well, it may be said, if such people come into Canada they too will drift across the border. However, that may be, I have no doubt the tide will turn some day, and not very far in the future either.
It must be perfectly evident from what I have said that I am much in favour of a vigorous immigration policy, although I do not know that many of my friends will agree with me in this respect. This is a matter of opinion, but I would be in favour of the appointment of a minister of immigration and 
colonization who should have charge entirely of that work. I believe the present acting minister (Mr. Stewart) is overloaded with work. While undoubtedly he is capable, I think he has more to do than he can properly attend to. I am not finding fault with him, nor criticising in any way what he has done, but I think the position is important enough and requires enough ability and energy to necessitate the appointment of a minister who shall be solely charged with the duties of this office. I am prepared to foster a vigorous immigration policy, because I do not believe that our circumstances are ever going to be improved if matters remain as they are to-day. How are we going to get along if we do not take some vigorous steps in the direction of increasing our population? We say that we have hard times and are burdened with high taxes and more railways than- we need. Well, are we going to sit idly by and see our people drift south while our own population dwindles and our burdens grow heaver? Are times going to improve under such a policy of inactivity? I believe that the times can and will be improved if we double our population. If we do that, instead of making things worse it will make them better for us; and I do not believe that the people of Canada would have anything to regret in the result. Now, I think perhaps I have spoken long enough. I am willing to assist the minister in this work, in anyway in order to see it carried forward successfully. Referring again to the colonization scheme, I have looked into proposals of the Western Canada Colonization Association and I think the scheme has merit. If there is any weakness in it, however, by all means let, us hear about it and criticise it and, if we think it is wrong, withhold the vote.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with my hon. friend in all that he has said, except one statement he made, namely, that my department is the home for the derelicts of the other departments. I should like to know where the hon. gentleman got that information. I have only one officer in the department, Mr. Lynton, who was formerly in the Department of Agriculture, who has come from any other department of government to any of the four departments of which I have charge.


Robert Forke: I am rather sorry the minister took it so seriously; I simply hear the statement and have no proof of it.


Robert James Manion: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member has
mentioned several organizations that want to stop immigration. Can he tell me of any people's organization that is asking for increased immigration?


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking for any
organization, but I think I am voicing the opinion of the large majority of our people when I say that we do want immigration; and when my hon. friend's leader endorses that opinion, perhaps his remarks will have more weight with the hon. member than anything I may say. It seems to me to be deplorable that we should allow such an immense country as this to go to waste; and that anyone should ask such a question as my hon. friend puts to me is certainly unreasonable, to put it as mildly as I can. We have in northern Ontario, an area extending from North Bay on the east to the Manitoba boundary on the west, embracing from three hundred to three hundred and fifty thousand square miles, nearly as great as France and Germany added together, where they have considerably over 100,000,000 people, and yet in this area we have only 150,000 people. These figures are so simple to realize that they show to my mind the absolute necessity of bringing in more people.
Supply-Immigra tion

And may I say that I regret that this government and previous governments-for I am not criticizing the present government particularly in this matter-and the provincial government of Ontario have neglected northern Ontario? It has been neglected as have northern Quebec and northern British Columbia, because they are all bush lands. I put a question to the minister this afternoon, and he very honestly answered it as other ministers in previous governments would have done, that northern Ontario, northern British Columbia and northern Quebec did not get the advertising from the Dominion government that the prairie provinces got. I understand the reasons-that the prairie lands are held by the Dominion and are more easy to cultivate. But there are throughout the northern European countries people who prefer to go into bush lands, just as I am informed the French Canadian pioneer has the same preference. Consequently I believe it should be the effort of this government, even if it has not been of past governments, to bring into northern Ontario as many of this class of settler as possible.
I mention northern Ontario particularly, and for this reason. This country unfortunately is divided into five great sections: the Maritime provinces in the East, then Ontario and Quebec, with different ambitions and different interests; then that great section of northern Ontario; then the prairie provinces, also with different ambitions and different interests; and finally British Columbia. But northern Ontario, the section from which I come, unfortunately divides into the East and the West this great country, and until that vast area is more fully populated it will continue to form a chasm separating the East from the West, and help to keep alive, and perhaps intensify, differences which I regret to say already exist to too marked a degree in this country.
We have in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and northern British Columbia millions of acres of land and, as the minister has pointed out. in the prairies we have from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 acres of land within reasonable distance of railways. There are in Europe tens of millions of people anxious to get out of that militaristic battleground and start life anew in this country; and I believe now is the ideal time for the government to do everything possible to populate these vast areas with the. best type of agricultural workers-and, as we know, these always form the best type of citizens.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but the increasing of our population with the proper fMr. Manion.]
type of immigration will help to cure the two great ills with which we are now afflicted-the railway problem and the tax problem. These two problems can be solved in only one way. We have overbuilt our railways for such a small, population by twenty or thirty years, and, of course, we spent an enormous amount of money on the war. By increasing our population we shall be creating greater traffic for our railways and lessen the burden of our national debt and taxes.
Every fair-minded man admits that conditions in western Canada have been bad during the last two or three years. I think everyone who is not blindly prejudiced will admit that the farmers of the prairie provinces have had difficult conditions to contend with in that period. But I am only speaking from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen when I say that I do not think the real reasons are always given in explaining the cause of those conditions-at least not all the reasons are given. In the first place the minister mentioned this afternoon-and I think it is one of the main reasons-that one of the reasons for the bad conditions out West is that the prices of agricultural products produced in the West have been deflated to a much greater extent than the prices of other products of the country. The farmer has to sell his goods at a low price but everything which he has to buy is still very much above the pre-war level. Before the war the farmers of the prairie provinces were doing fairly well in fact a very large proportion of them were doing very well, on prices very much akin to the prices of agricultural products to-day but the prices of the things they bought were very much more reasonable than those they have to pay to-day. Then the minister also mentioned what I have had pointed out to me many times by those who have lived in the West that there has been a great deal of land speculation by those who got high prices for their grain during the war years and who forgot as many of our industrialists forgot that' these prices would not prevail permanently. They speculated in land as many of us in the cities did. I know many cities west of the Great Lakes where live men who were rich are now poor. They speculated on the possibility of prices continuing high. Farmers speculated in land on the possibility of the price of grain continuing high, and to-day they find they cannot sell their products at sufficient prices to pay interest on those speculations.
But there are two other conditions that are rarely .mentioned in this House. In fact I have never heard them mentioned, although no doubt they have been without my noticing

Supply-Immigration
it. One of these factors is world conditions. Previous to the war a large proportion of our western grain was sold in Europe. Unfortunately owing to the chaotic conditions brought about by war the people of Europe are no longer able to buy our products in the same proportion as they did in pre-war days. That has been a very important factor in placing the farmers of the prairie provinces in a difficult position, and until these world conditions improve those farmers will probably remain in at least not as good a position as they were before the war. I notice by the press that Russia is again beginning to ship wheat to some of the European countries. Well, if Russia and Roumania come into the market to the extent they did before the war, it will be one more reason why the farmers of western Canada will have to take more of the advice offered them by the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) in his speech a few minutes ago, as to mixed farming for example.


Mr. COOTE:: If conditions are as the hon. member states, how is it going to help us in Canada to bring in more farmers to produce more agricultural products to get rid of?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to offer advice to hon. members from the West. I leave that to my hon. friend, the leader of the Progressives. He offered some suggestions which I think might well bear investigation by most of my hon. friends who surround him. But at any rate I submit that I have offered reasons why I do not believe these millions of acres of our lands should be permitted to go to waste. I think there is room for millions of people from Europe to make a living out here even if they do not sell their products in the European markets.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are we going to do with those products if we do not sell them in European markets?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will have a little patience I may offer some suggestions and indicate what my opinions are in that respect. I was going to offer another suggestion, Mr. Chairman, in regard to a further cause of present conditions in the West. It is rarely mentioned by my hon. friends to my left. One of the main causes I think for the difficulties not only of the prairie farmers but of many farmers in other parts of the Dominion, and certainly of the farmers in my section, is that there is a practical embargo put up by the United States against the entrance of our agricultural products. I may mention in passing that the exodus to the
United States is not to a free trade country, it is to a country which to-day probably has the highest protective tariff in the world.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the hon. gentleman not admit that the United States to-day is the largest free 'trade area in the world.


Robert James Manion: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not admit that the United States is a free trade area at all. It is an absolutely protected area. The United States has the highest protection to-day of any country in the world. I understand what my hon. friend is pointing out.


Milton Neil Campbell: It has free trade within its boundaries.


Robert James Manion: But Canada has a larger area than the United States, so we have a fairly large free trade area here, if it gets down to that. But at any rate the tariff barriers on goods entering the United States * are very high, and therefore I do not think anyone who wishes to be fair will argue that the United States is a free trade country. It is as Germany was before the war, a very highly protected country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, like my hon. friend, the leader of the Progressives, I have not risen with any desire to offer unfair criticisms, and I have done all the criticizing I intend to do. I wish simply to offer a few suggestions that may be of some assistance to the minister in dealing with this question.
In regard to the exodus from this country, it has been said-the minister says the figures are too great-that it amounts to something like 10,000 per month. I assume it is difficult to get accurate figures; at any rate we all admit that the exodus is very considerable. It may be of interest to the House to know that there is a very heavy exodus from the United States at the present time. Some figures I got from the Bureau of Statistics the other day show that from 1910 to 1920 the number of immigrants going into the United States was 9,000,000, while the number of emigrants going from the United States was 6,500,000, so that out of the 9,000,000 going in in that ten years, only 2,500,000 remained.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can my hon. friend say where the emigrants from the United States went?


Robert James Manion: I have the figures, but I have not the time to look them up.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do the countries to which they go maintain less tariff
Supply-Immigration

protection than the country whence they came?


Robert James Manion: There is only one free
trade country in the world-Great Britain; and I am sure they did not go there.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Some of them went to the war, perhaps.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and there was some exodus from Canada also on account of the war. I am certain that all those who left the United States went to protectionist countries. Certainly very few of them went back to Great Britain. I notice that there are more immigrants going into the United States from Great Britain to-day than are going into all the British dominions combined from Great Britain; so that the United States is getting quite a number from that country. I assume that most hon. members have had an oppor-. tunity of seeing the figures; it is stated that something like 75,000 are to be allowed into the United States this year from Great Britain under their rule of admission, and that that figure will be overtaken so rapidly that during the remaining eight or nine months of this year probably no more will be permitted to enter who come from Great Britain. So that the free trade of Great Britain is apparently not helping very much to hold her people within her own borders.


George Gibson Coote: Can the hon. member tell me whether the United States has sought any of this immigration from Great Britain? Is she carrying on immigration propaganda in Great Britain?


Robert James Manion: I do not believe she is. I think the United States is discouraging immigration at the present time.
Now, I was suggesting some points in connection with the exodus from this country. One suggestion I wish to offer is that we should endeavour to remedy the conditions in the prairie provinces which are unjust. Judging by the questions put by some of my hon. friends, one might get the impression that I am unfriendly to the prairie provinces. I may point out to them that the whole future of my section of the country depends on the prairie provinces, so that I have every reason to be friendly to them. I have nothing but the best wishes for them and am ready to do everything I can to assist them.


Edward Joseph Garland: All right; will the hon. gentleman offer to help us to secure a lower tariff.


Robert James Manion: I will deal with that question in a few moments, if my hon. friend will

just be patient. I marked down on my notes the word "tariff," because I knew it would come in some time.
I was going on to say that there are many injustices from which the prairie farmers are suffering, such as high railway and shipping rates. A committee of this House is dealing with shipping rates, and another is dealing with agricultural problems and the grain trade. My home city probably handles more grain at the present - time than any other city in the world. I noticed recently that Montreal was given credit for handling more grain than any other port in America; I think the figures given for Montreal were something like 125,000,000 bushels last year. But Port Arthur and Fort William, which are really one port, handled last year considerably over 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. So that this is really the greatest grain port on the North American continent-with all due respect to our good friends from Montreal.


Mr. BUREAU:: Which is the better, Fort William or Port Arthur?


Robert James Manion: Modesty prevents my saying which. Despite the fact that Fort William is so largely dependent upon the grain trade, I believe that there are injustices in connection with that trade from which the prairie farmers are suffering. The injustices to any individual farmer may not be very great, but in the handling of the wheat generally for the whole of the prairie provinces, taking it by and large, it means a good
9 p.m. deal. I shall be pleased to see any of' these injustices wiped out. If the committee which is dealing with the banking affairs of this country can show how banking rates for the prairie farmers can be lowered, I shall be only too happy to back up any legislation looking to that end. The hon. minister this afternoon said that the farmers of the West were paying high rates of interest; I do not know whether it was he or somebody else who mentioned the payment of 9 to 10 per cent on occasions. Somebody expressed the view that 6 per cent should be a fair rate. Well, I know that the lowest rate allowed by the banks in Fort William on gilt edge securities is 7 per cent, and if the farmers of the West received their money at 7 per cent they would probably be fairly well satisfied. However, whatever we do respecting our banking institutions we cannot afford to put them in a precarious position. The whole House will stand back of the farmers, though, in any legislation which may be brought down designed to benefit them. I mention these things only to show-and I know I am speaking for the whole of this comer of the

Supply-Immigration
House-that we would do anything in our power to improve the conditions of the western farmer. .	'
There is another way in which conditions can be improved, and that is by building up the home market.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: All hon. members know that the farmers of the United States sell over 90 per cent of their products in their own markets. My hon. friends to my left may laugh at the idea of building up a home market. I quite understand that it would take some time to build up a home market in Canada big enough to absorb all the grain produced in the West, but perhaps the fanners in the vicinity of Montreal, Sherbrooke, Hamilton and Toronto would not be so ready to laugh at the suggestion that we should build up a home market. I am ready to say that tariff reductions may be made that will improve conditions for the farmers, and I will answer my hon. friend (Mr. Garland, Bow River) now: I am quite agreeable to tariff reductions being made so long as he can prove that they will improve the conditions * for the farmer in the West without ruining the rest of the country. There is no doubt that free trade, which is advocated by many, would benefit the prairie provinces for a time, but it would ruin the eastern sections of the country. I cannot see that it would be advantageous to our country as a whole to ruin the East in order to benefit the West.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What about ruining the West for the sake of the East?


Robert James Manion: Well, before the war,
tariffs were not ruining the West; the West was getting along fairly well, and as soon as the conditions respecting prices, particularly of eastern products, get back where they should be, the farmers of the West will prosper; there will be no ruining of the East to help out the West or vice versa. I believe that a moderate tariff policy is what we should have in this country.
To my mind this country requires three classes of immigrants. The most important class, probably, is the farming class, consisting of men who go on the land, whether in the prairie provinces, in northern Ontario or elsewhere. I believe it would be a very good idea for this government to take into account the fact that that chasm between the East and West, extending practically from where we sit to-night to the Manitoba boundary, should be given more attention, and even if these lands are uncleared lands I believe the minister would be well advised, in the interest of
Canada as a whole and in the interest of the better understanding in this country, if he would co-operate with whatever government is in power in the province of Ontario next year and do everything he can to fill up those northern lands.
In addition to agriculturists there are two other classes that I think we need in this country. First we: need domestic servants. I believe that this country could stand to-day- to the good of Canada and the good of the people brought out for that purpose-quite a large inflow of domestic servants. There is one other class. Despite any resolutions passed by labour unions, I believe we require a certain group of labourers, particularly those who wield the pick and shovel. The Canadian will not do the work that used to be done by fhe Italian labourer, neither will the American or British immigrant. He does not wish to do that rough work. He prefers to do something a little more genteel, if I may use that expression without disrespect to the men concerned. We require in this country a certain group of immigrants who will do that work.
I have endeavoured to offer a few sugestions to the minister with the object of rendering him whatever assistance I dan. I hope he may be very successful in bringing more people to this country than he has brought in the past, and that he may have success to a greater extent than he has hitherto had in preventing people from leaving this country and going to other lands.


Paul Mercier: Mr. Chairman, Canada is, to-day, pre-eminently a land of peace and mutual respect; it is the beacon-light towards which the European nations anxious to emigrate, now turn their troubled souls to begin life anew, an ideal life which would be as the image of their former happiness. Our country enjoys complete unity, with its two dominating races whose national aspirations are similar; it is the land of religious and constitutional freedom. Although it has nine provinces, Canada has but one flag: the Union Jack. The maple leaf and the beaver are the only emblems of our country. Its soil is fertile, its forests extensive, numerous are its natural resources, its industries most promising notwithstanding these difficult after war times. However, we fully realize that an agricultural, commercial and industrial crisis is still being felt here as in other foreign countries. Trade has not yet fully recovered: it lacks stability; workmen are even forced to remain idle two or three days per week. The farmer calls loudly for markets. In short all seem to bear witness to the fact that, at
Supply-I mmigra tion

the present time, throughout Canada, our population is able to cope with the requirements of trade and industry and so contribute to their success.
The government, in which I have absolute faith and particularly the Minister of the Interior, who is competent in such matters, seem to have drawn up a wise policy on immigration though couched in rather cautious language. Let us hope that the carrying out of these ideas will have all the good effects intended, for the welfare of our people and the success of the work which they desire to place to their credit. Let us be prudent. Let us choose our immigrants with a view not only to securing the best, but also to securing the kind most needed. If we wish for the future and forever to maintain our country great and prosperous, we should strive to preserve it such as it is to-day, respectful of its forefathers' traditions and watchful of our customs and manners. With that aim in view, Mr. Chairman, we need at least immigrants who understand our economic situation and our ways, they must have sufficient intelligence and judgment to adopt, conform and especially assimilate themselves to these conditions. I do not hesitate for a moment to state on the floor of the House that Canada is in no need, at present, of labour immigration. Our national-I want to say, so as to be better understood our Canadian artisans- have a first claim to any manual and industrial employment available. We must not, by all means, bring them in contact on our own soil with the competition of foreign labour. It would be unjust at the present moment, especially in these after war hard times, when they have to toil and make the most of every opportunity so as to enable them to procure the bare necessities for themselves and their families. If agriculture needs help let us find it only in a sound and fit immigration. Let it be strictly limited to agriculture. This step would be of a practical nature, benefiting all the people in the Dominion.
The figures cited by the hon. Minister of the Interior bearing witness to the emigration of our people towards the United States, is food for thought; it is the present generation, the hope, the living and tangible future of our country which is flowing out. A repatriation policy is necessary. We must reach them either through lectures or agents, in fact by all possible -means; we must convince them that it is necessary they return to the land of their forefathers, the soil they deserted on the spur of the moment, enthused at the prospect of joining the American Republic and obtaining higher wages. If they left, naturally
[Mr. MercierJ
it is through the soliciting of others who had preceded them to that foreign land. The example was fatal. Branches were detached from the great Canadian tree; impoverished in sap the small branch found its way to the neighbouring republic, only to linger and die within a few years.
Let the Dominion government closely associate itself to the various provincial associations and adopt a common policy so that this repatriation work may bear fruit. May it bring back to our country excellent families of farmers and labourers who should never have emigrated in a passing moment of disillusion.
All the provinces suffer from the emigration of our people to the United States. The present situation resembles somewhat that of 1896. Most of the hon. members of this House will remember: uneasiness was general, trade was languishing, the smoke-stacks of mills were towering but lifeless, agriculture practically without markets and prices unstable like passing clouds. In the West, settlers shifted to the United States, even a western newspaper of the time said: "That the roads leading from Manitoba to the United States were worn and broken up by the wheels of trucks of settlers deserting the West."
Their discouragement was therefore evident; they took to the road leading to their native parish or directed their steps towards the mills over the border. The Laurier government applied a remedy to the situation and, through its efficient policy, brought back prosperity to the country. Again, in 1923, we must courageously get to work. Let us develop our natural resources and induce our workmen to further promote that object. Thus we shall again see days of abundance appear in Canada. We shall then perceive that it is not a great flood of immigration which will have rebuilt us, but our own efforts alone.


William Charles Good: I listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), but I must confess, with a good deal of disappointment. We are all anxiouf for immigration if we can get it, but I have some figures here I would like to submit to the House and I think they are entirely relevant to the discussion. I have a_ little pamphlet written by Miss Whitton, who is now, I understand, secretary to the hon. minister without portfolio (Mr. Low). The title of this pamphlet is "Some aspects of the Immigration Problem," and I gather from it that during the years 1900 to 1919 this country spent nearly $20,000,000 on immigration. What results

Supply-1 immigration
have we secured from that very large expenditure? Take the last census period of ten years, from 1911 to 1921, we have, according to this document-and I think the figures will stand examination-lost about two and a half million people. I would like to submit to the minister and to this House that if we are going to spend $20,000,000 in twenty years, or, say S10,000,000 dn ten years-and the minister is going to ask a very much larger appropriation for the coming year-and if we are not going to be able to retain any of the immigrants we get, what is the use of spending the money?
I am anxious, and I think we are all anxious, that we should have immigrants of the proper type in this country. We have vast natural resources to develop. We have a railway system which is capable of handling the business of two or three times the present population, but I do think we ought to give some consideration to the facts which have come to our attention during the last ten or twenty years. We have spent this large amount of money. We have received, I think, during the last forty years, nearly 5,000,000 immigrants, and during the last ten years about three and a half million, but we have not kept them. We are losing our immigrants and our natural increase almost as fast as they come. Anybody who looks at the increase of population in this country during the last twenty years, or even beyond that, and figures out the natural increase and the amount of immigration that we have received, can come to only one conclusion, namely that Canada has been and is at the present time, as was mentioned the other day in this House, an immigration sieve. I dare say a great many hon. members have read that very interesting and significant article in Maclean's Magazine a few weeks ago, "Is Canada an Immigration Sieve"? We can answer that question only in the affirmative.
There is the situation that confronts us, and I want to ask the minister and this House whether there is any better prospect of getting returns from the money that it is now proposed to expend? We have not been able to retain the immigrants. We have been throwing away the money during the last 10 or 20 years. And what difference is there now? What better prospect is there at the present time of being able to retain any of the immigrants we may secure than there has been during the last 10 or 20 years? If we had any assurance that we could retain these immigrants, there would be some advantage or propriety in authorizing the expenditure, but if it is simply maintaining a large
organization for securing immigrants who rapidly emigrate to the United States, I do not think it is good business.
There is another question also which we ought to consider before any considerable expenditures are authorized for immigration purposes. The minister in his address referred to a certain type of settler which, he stated, was wanted. It is quite possible we may secure from Europe-and I think we can secure from China and Japan, at all, events-people who are prepared to accept the conditions in this country and probably stay here. Are we prepared to receive those people? Do we want people of that type in large numbers to come into this country? We had a debate last year on oriental immigration. There are many Europeans-and I am quite satisfied the members from British Columbia will admit that there are lots of orientals-who will be glad to secure an entrance into this country, and when here will stay here, and probably make good. Are we prepared to throw our doors wide open to these people? I think, without elaborating the idea any further, we must give some attention to the immigrant's quality and general outlook, when we are dealing with prospective immigrants. I remember last summer hearing Bishop Lloyd of Saskatchewan speak of some of the problems of assimilation which the people of Saskatchewan had to face, and I must admit it was an address which impressed upon me very much the need of going carefully in regard to getting into this country in large numbers people who do not speak our language, who are not familiar with our institutions and who can be assimilated only very gradually.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. member tell me what he means by assimilation? I should like to get his definition of it in regard to the immigrants that come into this country.


William Charles Good: What I mean by assimilation, and what I understood Bishop Lloyd to mean, was that they should become Canadian citizens, that they should be rendered capable of taking part in our public life-in our municipal, provincial and federal life-to become good citizens. That would involve, to a very large extent, learning to speak English, the establishment of schools and so on.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Or the French
language?


William Charles Good: The French language, certainly. I think the hon. member understands what I, mean. I think, without going into the niceties of definition, that we all understand what
ms
Supply-Immigration

is meant by assimilation. I only wish to bring out the thought, which was expressed very pointedly by Bishop Lloyd last summer when I heard him, that the problem of assimilation in some of our districts is a serious one. I noted when the minister was speaking an admission that there were a number of Quebec enterprises needing labour. I took it that it was cheap labour. Now that is a very significant admission.
' Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil): I never said anything of the kind. I did not make any suggestion whether it was cheap labour or dear labour. I said there was an opening for labour.


William Charles Good: I did not wish to insinuate that the minister said it was cheap labour. That was an inference which I drew from his remark that certain Quebec enterprises needed labour. I understood that he meant by that ordinary unskilled labour.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, correct.


William Charles Good: I simply want to draw the attention of the House to this: that a good many of our social problems-problems that I have seen in one city in Ontario that I know pretty well

have arisen out of the demand of our manufacturing industries for cheap labour irrespective of everything else. I want the committee just to keep that in mind. It is not always the best kind of labour to get in. While we may desire cheap labour for performing rough work, and while our manufacturing and other large industries may desire that kind of labour, we ought to go just a little cautiously before we give in too much to that demand.
With respect to the remark which the minister made as to western farmers starting out by acquiring too much land, I want to suggest this, that there are two purposes for which a farmer may desire more land. He may desire to speculate; he may wish to pocket the unearned increment, and I dare say that throughout our western provinces particularly, that desire has led to purchasing large tracts of land, far larger than can be worked to advantage. But there is another reason. A farmer may wish to get what might be called the economic unit for the particular type of farming in which he is engaged, and it does not follow by any means that 160 acres is the economic unit. From what I know of western farming-and, perhaps, that is not very-much-I judge that a very much larger area than that is the economic unit in western Canada.
fMr. Good.]
I think some of us must have been very much impressed by the information which we secured this afternoon in regard to the activities of the Western Canada Colonization Association. I made a note here that it was stated that they were dealing solely with those wishing to sell or purchase land, and that they have agents throughout the United States. I presume those farmers who were mentioned as desiring to leave the high-priced lands in the United States and come to Canada are, perhaps, the unconscious victims, shall I say, of the Western Canada Colonization Association? I do not wish to deal uncharitably with this organization; but it is well known, I think, that there are a number of people in Canada and, perhaps, outside of Canada, who own large tracts of land in our western provinces, who have bought that land for speculative purposes, who are holding on to it, who, in my judgment, are parasites in this country, and who should be taxed out of their unholy or immoral earnings-earnings which they hope to get at the present time or which they have already received. I venture to suggest that it is quite possible; I do not say that it is probable


Mr. HARRIS:: Would the hon. member call a retired farmer a parasite?


William Charles Good: I certainly do not call a retired farmer a parasite as long as he lives on his savings. I call a man a. parasite who speculates in land and who lives on other people's earnings.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the hon. member say that retired farmers who are living on the incomes they derive from the farms they have previously occupied, are not, in a manner, speculators?


William Charles Good: By no means. No, I would not admit that for one moment.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the hon. member permit of this suggestion, that competition is the essence of what farms are going to rent for?


William Charles Good: The hon. member has not understood my point at all, apparently, but I think there are a good many members present who have understood it. Just in that connection, I want to point out this. I have a note here that the Canada Colonization Association acts as agent for absentee vendors. These absentee vendors are the people in western Canada who have-what shall I say?-been the curse of this country, and they are the people we ought to get after. They should be ousted from the position which they occupy. I do not consider this

Supply-Immigration
country is under any obligation to show them mercy, and I should like to see those earnings that I spoke of, what is called the unearned increment, appropriated by the state. That would soon cause many of our western lands to revert to the Dominion or to the provinces, as the case might be; in that way we would have free homesteads again, and some of the people whom we want to get into this country would have some of that cheap land. About the time the war stopped and there was a prospect of our sold'ers coming back,
1	remember getting a circular from some land organization operating^ I think, in Winnipeg, informing me and all others who received the circular that we should get in on the ground floor. The returned men were coming back, the circular said; they would soon be wanting land, and now there was a chance to purchase the land, and to hold it so that when the demand was great from those returned men, we would make a good profit on our money. That was the sort of bait held out to investors in this country, and I want to say frankly here that I cannot conceive of anything more iniquitous than propaganda or temptations of that sort which were publicly circulated in this country. This has been the curse of western Canada as it has been of other new territories.
In conclusion I want to make just one or two comments on the speech of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). I was rather amused at what he said about the United States being a highly protected country. I cannot quite imagine that the hon. gentleman was serious in his description of the United States, because if there is on the face of the earth any country which shows the benefits of free trade, it is the United States.


Robert James Manion: Will the hon. member
explain to the committee in what way the United States is a free trade country?


William Charles Good: I was about to proceed to
elaborate or elucidate my point for the benefit of the hon. member. When we consider the effect of a fiscal policy upon any nation, we must consider the proportion between the internal trade and the external trade. If a country has 90 per cent external trade and 10 per cent internal trade, as some of the very small countries have, tariffs are a serious matter for that country. I think that is quite' apparent without going into the matter any further. But if a country has 90 per cent internal trade and 10 per cent external trade, a tariff is a trifling matter. If a country has only
2	per cent external trade, you can have 100 per cent duties all around, and they will have
very little effect on that country. That is the key to the situation in the United States; the external trade is small as compared with the internal trade.


Robert James Manion: What my hon. friend is
arguing is that the tariff policy in the United States is not of great importance to the United States. I have not been arguing about that at all. Surely my hon. friend will not deny that the tariff on goods coming into the United States is a highly-protective tariff.


William Charles Good: Of course, I am quite prepared to admit that; but I am not prepared to admit that the United States' tariff is as important a factor in the industrial life of the United States as the Canadian tariff is in the industrial life of Canada.


Robert James Manion: Of course, I admit that.
That is beside the point. The hon. member said that it amused him to have me state that the United States is a highly protective country. I should like him to give some proof- he has not given it yet unless my head is thicker than I think it is-that the United States is a free trade country.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the discussion is altogether out of order.


William Charles Good: Let me continue if I am in order. I took the argument of the hon. member to be that Canadians were leaving this country in order to reap the advantages to be found in a country which was highly protective.


Robert James Manion: I was pointing out that they were, not going to a free trade country.


William Charles Good: Well, so far as the effect of the tariff is concerned, I think they are going from a country which suffers from high protection to a country which has nominally high protection but is in reality practically a free trade country, because of the very large area and the great variety of its internal resources, and because of the fact that its internal trade is large in comparison with its external trade.
The hon. member spoke also about building up the home market. I will admit that it is particularly desirable for us to build up Canada as a manufacturing country. I should like to see as great a diversification of industry in Canada as possible; and if our farmers cannot find a foreign market, as seems likely to be the case in the near if not in the distant future, for agricultural pro-, ducts, then we ought to have a big home market. I am prepared to admit all that; but I am not prepared to admit that the tariff, to which the hon. gentleman
Supply-Immigration

attributes the industrial development of Canada, has been a good thing for this country from the manufacturing or the industrial point of view. I- venture this assertion, that had there never been any tariff barrier between the United States and Canada in the last fifty or sixty years, instead of Canada having between eight and nine million people there would be a population in this country to-day of 25,000,000. And I am of opinion that without such a barrier our manufacturing industries would be ever so much larger and more important than they are at present. I believe that if we could only wipe out this tariff barrier on the North American continent we would do something which would be in the very best interest of ourselves and also of the United States. I realize that I am possibly digressing rather much in this connection; but I do not think I am going any further afield than did the hon. member whose remarks I am- considering.
Before concluding I might refer to the policy-I do not know indeed whether we can call it a policy, but at all events to the remarks-which the minister gave us this afternoon. I would be prepared to support any reasonable appropriation for an immigration organization if I could see any prospect of holding the people when we got them. The only way I can see of an immigration policy being successful judging from past experience is for us to invite the Japanese and Chinese to come in. We can hold them, and I think we can increase the population of Canada if we invite the orientals including also the Hindus.


Joseph Henry Harris: Could you hold them on the farms?


William Charles Good: Yes; and I think from the experience of British Columbia they would readily take to farming.


Joseph Henry Harris: Our constituency would not have them; you are welcome to them.


William Charles Good: I am not advocating their admission; I am simply saying that if it is only numbers that we want that is the way we can increase our population, and I do not think we should have to spend 83,000,000 a year in order to get such people. That is all I have to say at the moment on this subject.
Mr. MARI.ER: It has been a great pleasure .to listen to the discussion so far as it has gone. It reveals courage in many ways. The minister came forward with a frank and free expression as to what his policy was; the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke)

was equally courageous and I must also congratulate my fellow member from Fort William (Mr. Manion) on the manner in which he approached the situation. I am sorry that the last speaker (Mr Good) seems to think that the only kind of people whom we can keep in this couiffi'5'; are Japanese and Chin-nese. Such an attitude does seem to me to lack courage. If there was ever a time when we needed courage and vigour in connection with an immigration policy in this country, that time is the present, because if we do not put into force a bigger immigration policy and obtain more people our lifeblood will simply be drained away and we shall cease entirely to exist as a people. I offer that opinion for what it is worth, but I have no hesitation in making that statement on the floor of this House. I must admit that I am a little disappointed in the estimates; they do not go far enough. This year the estimates in this department are 81,300,000 more than they were last year, and that increase is divided under two heads, one of $600,000 in connection with the Empire Settlement Act, and the other of $700,000 for general purposes. The Empire Settlement Act I will take up at a later date. But these figures mean that the minister brings forward an increase of $700,000 for all other purposes, such as advertising, organization and matters of that description. Now; an immigration policy cannot be built up in one day. It is quite correct, as the minister states, that even if we had a perfect organization to-day we could not expect in one year or in any such short period to obtain a lot of immigrants at first hand. The organization will have to be in existence if in the future we hope to get any very large number of immigrants. For that reason I should have liked to see the minister bring down to the House a larger appropriation for this purpose, and I believe the House would have supported him in view of the urgent necessity there is for immigrants in this country. That may seem to certain hon. members to-night a peculiar statement to make; it may seem strange for me to advocate the spending of more public money in view of the finances of the country. But we should bear in mind that if this country is good it must go ahead. And it is good. It has been fought for once, and I see no reason why we should not fight for its economic existence now. And the only way I can see of fighting for that existence is to get more people to come in and produce in greater quantities from our natural resources which we have in such great abundance.

Supply-Immigration


George Gibson Coote: Does the hon. gentleman want our immigration efforts to be confined to one particular occupational class, namely, farmers?


Mr. MARLER:: I will come to that in a few moments, but if my hon, friend wants an immediate reply, I think' It is preferable to get the farmers in. But I would not exclude others. Now, I was going on to state the necessity for immigration. I do not wish to quote figures unduly, but from the statistics with regard to our population in the past few year's, it is very clear that there has not been that increase which we should have a right to expect. I will speak later as regards conditions to the south which we heard so much about.
But there is another matter which I think we should view, and view with grave concern- the financial condition of this country. I see no way of bettering that condition, of making our railways pay, unless we get more people into this country and so increase production.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the hon. gentleman under the impression that we need more immigrants, to increase the tonnage for our National railways?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, I am most decidedly of that opinion.


Edward Joseph Garland: Regardless of conditions for settlement in this country?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not quite understand my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. gentleman says he is in favour of immigration in order to increase the tonnage for our National railway system, and I presume for the other railway systems too. Would he advocate that regai'dless of the existing conditions?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know what my hon. friend means by existing conditions; but I do not think existing conditions are as bad as he paints them.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish the hon. gentleman lived in my constituency. Then he would know that conditions are worse than I paint them.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am very sorry indeed to hear my hon. friend is having such a very hard time in his constituency. If he will have a little patience with what I have to say I think he will agree with me that if we can have more production the conditions in his constituency will get considerably better.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the manner in which we are taxed and the extent is getting perfectly
appalling to all of us. If we realize that in 1914 our taxation was slightly over $21 per head of population, as against over $42 per head in 1922, in addition to which in the last few years we have advanced to the railways over .$250,000,000-


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does that include the municipal, provincial and Dominion taxation' per capita?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, it is simply Dominion taxation. The figures are taken from the Dominion statistics. During the fiscal year 1921-22 we collected taxes to the extent of $49.43 per head of population, and yet we went behind to the tune of $92,000,000, and in 1922 we added another $80,000,000 to our national debt. In 1923 the Main Estimates call for an expenditure of over $466,000,000. It therefore means that as we are going on at the present time our taxation cannot be reduced. I do not intend to discuss finance at any great length, that is not my purpose at all, but I do think that these figures are sufficiently impressive to make us pause and think whether or not we can keep on pyramiding our national debt in this manner. I repeat that these are figures which should make any sane man who cares for the position of this country pause for a considerable time and wonder how long we can continue piling up these deficits year after year before we break.
But we are doing more than that. We are not only piling up deficits during our lifetime and it is no fault of our ministers of finance, past and present, that we are piling up these deficits, for these gentlemen have done their work well, they have done everything they possibly could for their country during their respective tenures of office-I say we are not only piling up deficits during our lifetime and are taxed out of all the de-hghts of life to the point of misery, but in addition we are handing down to the generations that shall come after us a tremendous
"t*' T f6 saddling them with a staggering debt which we do not know whether they will be able to bear or not.


William Irvine: What is the hon. gentleman's proposal m this regard as a means of reducing taxation?


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him a chance.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am going to tell the hon. member that I think if we got sufficient immigration it might in time reduce our taxation. I shall elaborate that idea very shortly and then I shall be only too glad to answer my hon. friend's question. Taking our taxation at the present time, I was very much im-
Supply-Immigration


William Charles Good: Was that external or internal trade?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not external trade; simply exports plus imports.
If we turn back to the history of our own country we shall also find that during active periods of immigration trade was at its best. Take our immigration figures from 1903 to 1914.

In that 'period there entered this country nearly 3,000,000 people, to be exact 2,789,484. During that time our trade increased from $450,000,000 to $1,074,000,000. It seems to me that the objection some have to getting immigrants is not well founded, because these figures indicate that during a period of immigration trade increases very materially. That was the effect of immigration in the United States. There are really two aspects of the value of an immigrant who lands in this country; there is his ordinary value as an addition to the country and there is his value as a potential producer. In other words, every immigrant who lands on our shores at once creates trade. That was very clearly shown during the _ great immigration period of our country of which I have spoken, and the same thing happened in the United States. In that connection I was interested in an article by Mr. H. A. Hill, who at one time was secretary of the National Board of Trade of the United States. Referring to the increase of immigration there, he said:
The total immigration of 1873, as we have seen, was 422,545. The net immigration for the first half of the current year at the two principal ports of the country, so far as the returns have been accessible, proves to have been only 13,905.
He goes on to say that the immigration at that particular time would be only 100,000 for the year; then he continues:
Such a falling off in the great army of producers and consumers which has been wont to land upon our shores, while it forcibly illustrates the severity of the industrial depression through which we are passing, represents also a most serious loss to the aggregate national wealth. If, as Dr. Young estimates, the capitalized value of an immigrant on the average is $800, this loss reaches apparently the enormous sum of $240,000,000. Actually, however, large numbers of people will ultimately come hither, who are at present deterred by the unfavourable accounts.
When an immigrant lands on our shores, then, he is of particular value to the country, and that value increases. He becomes established; he starts to produce. I am not saying that we bring immigrants here simply to place a load of taxation on them; I do not look at the matter from that point of view. What I say is this: the more we get out of the soil the more we increase the natural wealth of the country and enable those who are here and those who come here to assume their fair share of taxation.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The hon. gentleman is arguing that every immigrant that we bring into the country increases our wealth. Would that apply to other countries, and why are other countries anxious* to get rid of their people?

Supply-Immigration


Herbert Meredith Marler: Are those other countries anxious to get rid of their people?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The hon. member must know that several European countries are very anxious to get rid of some of their people. England, for that matter, has an appropriation for that very purpose.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is true that England does want to send out some of her people because England is an
10 p.m. over-populated country, and the same applies to many other countries across the seas. But we are not over-populated here. We have millions of acres of land; we have natural resources that we cannot use, and every man who has a pair of hands, a good heart and sound brain can enrich this country by getting the natural resources out of the soil. To leave those natural resources as they are makes them worthless to us or anyone else. It is manpower we want; we must get our wealth out of the soil-because the wealth does come out of the soil in one way or another.


George Gibson Coote: Will that man who goes on
the soil be enriching this country any if he gets less than the cost of production for what he produces?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That question cannot be answered in two words, and if the hon. member will permit me I shall be glad to answer it later in the course of my remarks.
I was going to show the value of the immigrant to our country. Take our internal trade. I think it was stated in this House last year that the Dominion Statistician had reported that the value of Canada's production in 1921 was estimated at over $5,000,000,000 and that the total production plus the imports but minus the exports represented the value of our internal trade. In 1921 our imports were valued at about $30,000,000 more than our exports, so that according to this calculation our internal trade was valued at $5,200,000,000, or $600 per head of population. I claim that every man who comes into this country will increase that internal trade, and the result wall be an acceleration of the work of our factories and a demand for all our farm products. In that way the unemployment which at present exists will be largely done away with.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. gentleman means, I suppose, every man we can keep in this country.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am coming to that question also, if my hon. friend will permit me. I do not want to quote the newspapers regarding the necessity of immigration, but there are just one or two comments to which I wish to direct attention. I shall not quote entirely from the eastern press, because I have been told that the eastern press is prejudiced to a certain extent. But let me quote one remark made to the meeting of the National Trust Company. That company has a great many interests in the West, and I believe it is one of the best posted companies in the Dominion. The president of the National Trust Company says:
I wish to-day to again emphasize this question. Immigration, it seems to me, stands in the forefront of the important problems facing our country at the present time. I feel confident there is no other single factor which would contribute so much to the solution of all our problems, and in the end to the material comfort and contentment of every class in Canada. There exists to-day upon our farms and in several of our industries a demand for labour which cannot be filled. The cry against unmigration, when examined, is found lacking in substance. Immigration properly controlled and well directed will injure none, but must benefit all. What we need in this Dominion is volume of business. This is strikingly illustrated in our railway situation. We have a large equipment in every business activity-too large for the needs of our present population. More people would create greater demands upon our equipment and thus afford a larger market for labour, for agriculture, for manufacturers and for all.
There may be some hon. members who will not agree with what the president of the National Trust Company says-I hear one hon. gentleman say "hear, hear"-but it does seem to me that, generally speaking, his remarks are characterized by a good deal of sense. The member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) speak. ing at Winnipeg on the 10th of November, said:
Canada has a hard way ahead of it. The surest guarantee of our future prosperity lies in the wise development of our agricultural resources.
The western members will probably agree with that.


Arthur John Lewis: "Wise development".


Oliver Robert Gould: Wise development, that is right.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How are you going to have development of our agricultural lands unless you get men able to develop them.'


Oliver Robert Gould: Make it profitable for them to do so.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Premier John Bracken apparently does not take that view. This is what he said, speaking in the Manitoba legislature on the 31st of last January:
What was needed was the restoration of the purchasing power of the farmer's dollar.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Immigration


Herbert Meredith Marler: He goes on to say this about immigration:
In this connection he wanted to say there were two schools of thought in Canada regarding immigration. One thought that any kind of people should be brought to the country, and the other considered no more should be brought until agricultural conditions were improved.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I wait for the cheering now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He continues:
Many thought these two things were antagonistic. He did not regard them as that. He believed they were complementary and went hand in hand. The government would do all it could to improve agricultural conditions and, at the same time try to bring into the country a reasonable amount of good settlers.
Now, that I think from the Premier of the province of Manitoba is perfectly clear. And in the London Times which is a veyy well informed paper and has correspondents all through Canada-


George Gibson Coote: Did the Premier of Manitoba say that he would limit these immigrants to one class only?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know whether he said that or not. Does my hon. friend say he did say that?


George Gibson Coote: No, I was just hoping that he did not say it; I did not know what he said.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know. I cannot read what the mind of Premier John Bracken said, I can only, unfortunately, read what he is reported in the newspaper to have said.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Did the Premier at that time mention that the people of Manitoba owed taxes over $14,000,000?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I do not think he did. I was going on to read what the London Times said about the necessity of immigration to Canada. It said on the 4th September,
' 1922:
What Canada needs more than anything else is population. She needs a strong immigration policy, together with the widest possible advertisement of what she 'has to offer. Her empty spaces are calling for settlers. She has less than three people to the-square mile, whereas her neighbour across the border has thirty-five, and the Japanese across the Pacific have more than three hundred.
The Japanese my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) spoke about.
Now, what I would like to make quite clear to the committee to-night is that in the first place I believe the only way we can produce is by means of having more man power in this country; that unless we do produce more we

cannot lighten the load of taxation which this country is suffering under at the present time.
The question will naturally arise in the minds of all those I am addressing to-night, what kind of immigrant should be brought into this country? In other words, am I in favour of deluging the country with anybody who may come in? Should we go after that class of immigrant, or should we have another kind of immigration policy in Canada? The policy that I am in favour of comprises two classes of immigrants. The first I call, for want of a better name, "A preferred class of immigrant". Those are the immigrants which, in my opinion, we should go after. Those are the immigrants we should spend our money to bring to this country and when we get them-and I will speak of that later on- keep them here. Another class of immigrant is the immigrant who presents himself at our doors, and if people voluntarily present themselves at our doors and ask to come into the country I do not think they should be refused admittance. In other words I claim this: There is ample work for everybody in this country who is willing and anxious to work. Perhaps there is not ample work for those who are not willing and anxious to work, but I would not close the door in the face of any immigrant who was sound in body and mind and came to the doors of this country and asked to be admitted.


George Gibson Coote: Does the hon. member include the orientals in that?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I am not speaking of oriental immigration at all; that is entirely out of my mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
gentleman suggest that something like 6,000 people who are being kept by the city of Winnipeg are not able and willing to work? The same thing is true of other cities in this country.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not want to hurt my
hon. friend's feelings in any way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no danger of hurting my feelings. I asked a simple question of the hon. gentleman, whether he means to imply that the large number of unemployed men in the cities of Canada are unwilling to work.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not mean to be at all impertinent in replying to my hon. friend. Whether they are willing to work or not what I say is this: I believe the great majority of

Sa-pply-Immigration
those men could get work if they went out and looked for it.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: What
would they get employment at during the last two years if they went out to look for it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Farm labour.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was going to deal with
the question of unemployment in Canada later on.


Angus McDonald: I have asked the hon. member a fair question and I would like to get a fair answer. I do not believe in putting a matter off until later in the evening in order to avoid answering a question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon member who is speaking may answer the question if he so desires. If he does not desire to answer he is not compelled to do so.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will answer my hon.
friend's question with pleasure. From all that -I can read-I may not have the distinct knowledge that my hon. friend has of certain conditions-it does seem to me that the question of unemployment in this country is not as serious as has been pointed out. My knowledge is derived entirely from the press of the country. The knowledge I have acquired in that way may be quite wrong; I would be very glad to be corrected if that is the case. But here is a clipping from the Toronto Saturday Night, of 28th October, 1922, which I intended to read in any event:
In many centres in Canada, if not in all, there Is a distinct shortage of labour in certain activities. This is specially apparent in the building trades. All through the spring and summer there have not been sufficient masons, carpenters, bricklayers and plasterers to meet the demand, and in consequence building operations have been held up. Structures which in the old days would have been fully completed in that period between April and November are still, roughly speaking, half done.
That is one report which I read. Another report which I read was taken from the Financial Post of the 16th February, 1923. Dealing with the New Brunswick labour situation, the lumber cut, the article says:
The lumber cut in New Brunswick for this winter is expected to exceed that of any winter for the past five years. There have been two drawbacks to a large clJf too much snow in the woods and a dearth of men. In many of the sections so much snow has fallen that cutting concerns have been unable to use horses, in fact conditions have become so acute that several companies have ceased operations.
Regarding the scarcity of men in Now Brunswick, the cause is migration to other provinces and to New England.
There is a further clipping that I read some little time ago-now we go farther west- from the Financial Post of the 16th February, 1919.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Does the article state
where the men from New Brunswick went to? I think if it does he will find they have gone over to the states of Maine and Massachusetts.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No not all of them. I
would be glad to continue reading the quotation if the hon. member so desires. Some of them did go there.
Regarding the scarcity of men in New Brunswick, the cause is the migration to other provinces and to New England.
That is as far as I read. Now to continue-
The American government has allowed two thousand lumber-jacks to be imported into New England from New Brunswick, owing to the scarcity of men in New England. Originally the two thousand men were turned back at the border by the United States immigration agents but on the appeal from lumber companies in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont operations, the United States labor department lifted the bars.
In addition to the two thousand that went to the New England woods, ten thousand men have gone to the woods of Quebec and Ontario.
I was going to speak of British Columbia:
In spite of warnings issued last fall that the present winter would witness unemployment in British Columbia on a scale greater than ever experienced, there is today very little idle labour in the province. At some points the demand for workers has been so great that men have been brought in from Alberta and Saskatchewan. This was notably the case in connection with the tie cutting operations along the line of the Canadian National railway east of Prince Albert. Logging operations in the interior have been held up by heavy snow-fall, but that is a purely temporary condition, and on the coast the logging concerns are operating at full strength.
I spoke about the situation in New Brunswick and I referred to the situation in Toronto and in British Columbia. I have given this information for what it is worth and I have taken information from the only source from which the average man obtains his information. Take the city of Montreal, the actual situation there is not as serious as has been alleged. Of course there is some unemployment there, but I have had no difficulty in my little experience in placing men who came to me asking for jobs. I have answered the question the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) to the best of my ability. That is the general situation as I see it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to press this matter unduly, but I say that resolutions passed in the city of Winnipeg have been placed before this House, calling attention to the thousands of people in that city who have been out of work and are to-day out of work.
Supply-Immigra tio n

I have information from the mayor of the city that the situation is very serious. Reference has been made to British Columbia. I know the conditions there very intimately, and men who were employed there two years ago have gone to the woods on the other side in thousands. Is that not so?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know whether my [DOT] hon. friend will admit the correctness or incorrectness of these reports. Most of them are written in Toronto-a very reputable city as I have heard-and I have almost taken them as being absolutely correct. I do not deny what the hon. member says about the Winnipeg situation. I do not wish the hon. member to misunderstand me. I have no antipathy towards labour-quite the contrary

but I have asserted that I do think, that, in many cases, certain classes of labourers at the present time do not like difficult labour and they will not accept employment where the work is hard. If they would do so I think most of the labourers would be employed. That is the viewpoint I take. I have no disrespect for labour-quite the contrary.
I was going on to speak in regard to the class of immigrants we need in this country.
I stated that in my opinion there were two classes so-called. The first was the class that we spoke of as the agriculturist; the man who would be placed on the land. I also said -and I would like to repeat-so that the trend of my thoughts will be continuous-that we should not close the doors to other immigrants coming to this country, but if they are strong and healthy and willing to work they should be allowed to come in. In addition to that, I would like to say, even if it is digressing at the present time, that I think that those who have relatives abroad in various parts of Europe should be allowed to bring those relatives into this country, and that certain restrictions,, existing at the present time should be removed.
However, I would like to go back and explain why, in my opinion, the agriculturist is required at the present time. It appears to me that in any country we require to have a properly balanced population. If you have a larger urban population than rural population, it is ill-balanced. The rural population is tributary to the urban population. At the present time in this country our population is not properly balanced, and the rural population has in many cases gone down in percentage during the past twenty years. Take the figures for the whole of Canada, and we find that in 1901 the rural population was 62i per cent, and in 1911 it was 54.58 per cent. In 1921 it was 50.47 per cent. In other words,

the rural and urban populations are pretty nearly equal. Some hon. member will say that the reason they are so nearly balanced is because it does not pay to farm. That may or may not be the case, but I think there are other reasons why the rural population is not increasing as it should. But whether it is increasing or not the reason that I suggested a moment ago that it is decreasing on account of the farm not paying is no reason in the wide world why we should not have courage enough to bring out to this country agriculturists and place them on the land, because they are certainly needed there in order to increase production. I am not in favour of urging a great influx into our cities, but I do urge that we should bring forward as many agriculturists as we possibly -can and place them on the land.
We always imagined, from our past immigration figures, that the great majority of the immigrants who came here went on the land. That is not the case. They did not, at least, go to the western provinces where we thought they were going:	In the last 20 years for
example, 51 per cent of the immigrants went to the Maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario, and less than 50 per cent went to the West. Although I have urged the government at the present time to bring out agriculturists, there is no use bringing these people out and landing them in Winnipeg or some western city and not actually placing them on the farm and looking after them. We should bring them here, not as strangers, but as future citizens of Canada, and make them understand that this is to be their home. There is at the present time an excellent organization called the Soldier Settlement Board which can look after immigrants who come here. They are able not only to bring immigrants to the proper sections of the country on which they can be placed but they can explain to them what should be grown and what should not be grown. They can keep a watchful eye over the immigrant when he comes here, during his early years in Canada, and, generally speaking, the Soldier Settlement is a most excellent organization in every way, and the man at the head of it is a thoroughly reliable and able man. The Soldier Settlement Board has done remarkably well in this country in every way. Some people are very apt to say that the land which was bought for the soldiers has been a loss. There has not been a loss on that land. There has been a certain loss, I admit, on the stock and implements, but as regards land purchased for the soldiers up to 31st January last there was a surplus-I am speaking of

Supply-Immigration
the lands taken back-of over $402,000 what was paid for the lands then.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this include what the soldier himself paid as his initial payment and his subsequent payments, or just what the government put in?


Herbert Meredith Marler: If the hon. member had asked me that question last year I could have answered it, but I cannot answer it now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am inclined to think it does not.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am inclined to think it does include what the soldier put in. The hon. member does not think so?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not competent to say whether it does or not. I would like to repeat, without wearying the House, my statement that the government should put agriculturists on the land. In addition to that, I would even go so far as to be in favour of a scheme of colonizing certain parts of this country, where the farms may be too large, by bringing people in, dividing up the farms, and letting the newcomers cultivate parts of these farms, even if the government had to set aside a certain amount of money for this purpose. I know perfectly well the minister does not approve that method, but if colon, ists were brought in and these farms divided up, it would not only help the colonist coming in, but it would also help very many of the farmers in the northwest, who at the present time, as I am informed, are overburdened with too much land and a great deal of debt. We have also certain free lands still in the various provinces and the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) spoke about those lands to-day. He spoke of a certain class of immigrants we could bring out here. I do not think we can get all the agricultural immigrants we require from Great Britain. We will have to go to the continent of Europe for them. The question is not whether these immigrants are of a lower standard of living or not. That is a sad way to look at things. The question is whether Hungarians and people of that description are willing to go on and work and clear land of that description, when others are not willing to do it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the hon. member, therefore, willing that we bring in immigrants of a lower standard of living?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I did not say that at all. I particularly attempted to avoid, in as clear a way as I could, saying that there was any desire to bring in immigrants of a lower
standard of living. I said that as regards these immigrants who could be got from Europe-I used the Hungarians as an example -the question was not whether they were satisfied with a lower standard of living, it was whether they were willing to go on land of this description, clear it and work it. There are such people scattered throughout Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, so I am informed, who have been doing remarkably well, and there are in those countries, I presume, people of that class, who can be made to populate such lands, who, I believe, will be contented there, and who will, in course of time, become splendid citizens. That is what I referred to in speaking of bringing in immigrants ; I used the word " Hungarian " simply as an example of the class who, I believe, would be satisfactory.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why should the manufacturers of eastern Canada not be willing to face the same kind of competition?


Herbert Meredith Marler: What kind of competition?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When the hon. member refers to bringing in those people to live under circumstances under which the present citizens cannot make it go, or make their farming pay, he is certainly advocating a system of extreme competition. He is advocating something that, if brought to its logical conclusion, means that the present settlers will have to get out or else adopt the other standard of living.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does that whole question not some down to the fact whether farming in Canada can or cannot be made to pay?
I claim that farming can eventually be made to pay; but there are certain fundamental facts which are at the present time preventing farming from paying. I do not think there 1 is on the floor of this House any man who has greater sympathy for the West than I have, and I am coming to that point in just one moment.
Before doing so, I want to speak regarding the amount which has been placed in the Estimates to be used under the Empire settlement scheme. The minister has included in the estimates an amount of $600,000 for the purpose of paying assisted passages of men and domestic servants and various other classes of settlers. Let me make myself quite clear as regards British immigration. I would be only too glad to see as many British immigrants come to this country as we can get; but we should realize at the present time that there is a particular class of immigrant which
Supply-Immigration

we require, that is the agriculturist, and the agriculturist should be the man preferably to be helped under this particular scheme. When there are plenty of people who will come to our doors without being paid assisted passages, those assisted passages should not be meted out to the clerical class and classes of that description under the British Empire settlement scheme. In other words, if labour is required in any particular locality, by all means help to bring out that labour. If labour can be supplied by the Canadian people themselves, we should not assist labour to come out to Canada by means of paying assisted passages. But we should pay assisted passages where the immigration officer knows there is a good farmer or a good farming family desirous of coming out to Canada for the purpose of farming. I repeat again; I am not opposed to British immigration, rather the contrary.
I wish to say just a word as regards the orders in council which are at present in force, and I hope the government will, in the course of a short time, take into consideration the question of cancelling those orders in council. No doubt they were passed at a time when it was necessary to make them, but now their usefulness has very largely passed. I cannot myself see the necessity of the non-continuous journey order in council. I cannot see the great necessity either of the alien enemy order in council.
Mr. MeBRIDE: If the order in council in connection with the non-continuous journey had not been passed, would not the western part of this country have been flooded with Hindus?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us face the situation like men. If we do not want Hindus in this country let us say so; but do not let us pass an order in council that blankets everybody else and says to a man coming from the United States or any other place from which we welcome immigrants: "No, you cannot come in here, simply because you have not come by a continuous journey." If we do not want Hindus or any other class of people, let us say so; but do not let us pass a blanket order in council and keep it in force.
I was going to say a few words about the alien enemy order in council. Various hon. members may have feelings on that subject. Some of us may think we should not allow into this country those who have been connected with countries which were at war with Great Britain or her allies during the great war. I know there are mixed feelings on that subject, and perhaps I am treading on very dangerous ground in speaking about the

matter at all. But I do not think we should continue to foster and keep up this war feeling any longer in this country. We should recognize that we have a great big country to fill up, a country rich in natural resources, and although I am not in favour of flooding any one particular section of Canada with people from any particular part of Europe, putting them in a community and saying: "You can have your own laws, your own schools and half a dozen other things," I am in favour of a general immigration in a fair, selected and directed way from all the countries of Europe, provided that the immigrants who are brought forward are suitable. For that reason I think this alien enemy order in council should be eliminated.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member discussed the matter of the Soldier Settlement Board. Would he favour the extension of the principles of the Soldier Settlement Board to others than soldier settlers?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am very much obliged to the hon. member for Calgary West, asking that question. Yes, I would. I am quite frank in saying that I believe the Soldier Settlement Board, if extended in other directions, would prove a great colonization agency in this country, and that the money would be very well spent if money were set aside for the purpose Of bringing people in and colonizing them and keeping them on the land. As a proof that I do not think the country would lose a single dollar by a policy of that description, I cite the splendid work that the Soldier Settlement Board have done in regard to settling returned soldiers. When they bought their land, they had not as great experience as they have now; and if they went out now and bought land of this description and put suitable families of settlers on to those lands, the money would be well spent in the interest of this country.
During the course of this debate, the question of the lure of the south was taken up time and time again. I do not think we should be so terribly afraid of the lure of the south. You will get the ebb and flow in every country of the world; you cannot prevent that. You will never be able to prevent Canadians from going to the United States or Americans from coming to Canada. You will always have that ebb and flow so long as these two great countries, with no barriers of any kind between them, exist. But we can prevent that flow into the United States to a very great extent by making this country a better country to live in, by building up this country itself, by making positions here for our young men so that our

Supply-Immigration
young men will be willing and ready to stay at home instead of going to the United States. Frankly, I do not know that one can blame an ambitious man for wanting to go to the United States now with its tremendous possibilities. As a matter of fact, one has to look around with a great deal of care and wonder what one will do with one's children when they grow up, when one sees the possibilities of this country dwindling away I believe that anyone who has faith in this country-and I have unbounded faith in the country and in its people-will agree that it is well worth while spending money on immigration to bring immigrants into Canada. But someone will say, what about the lure of the south? Well, we have also had in this country considerable immigration from the United States of America. In the period from 1900 to 1909, 403,000 such immigrants came into this country; from 1910 to 1919, 875,000 came; and in 1920, 1921 and 1922, 127,000 came in. Someone will say, however, that a great many of our people have gone to the United States. So they have. But I doubt very much whether the figures which have been repeatedly given in this House regarding those going to the United States are absolutely correct. As everyone knows, we do not keep records with regard to emigration from this country to the United States. Those records are kept by the United States officials, and in many cases in the- past they have been found to have counted as permanent settlers in the United States people who have gone there only on a temporary visit. An investigation was made by the department in two instances, in 1910 and 1912, when a large number of cases were inquired into. I am taking this from the Canadian Annual Review which I saw the other day; and out of 849 cases of persons reported as having gone to the United States to settle, it was found by actual examination that 415 had gone only on a temporary visit. The Review goes on to give the statistics of emigration from Canada to the United States and from the United States to Canada. It shows that in the period 19101914 there came from the United States to Canada 605,498 people while there went from Canada to the United States 329,000. In the period 1915-1919 the trend was not quite so favourable: 379,000 went from Canada to the United States as compared with 270,000 from the United States to Canada. But be that as it may, there is no reason in the wide world why the Canadian people should lose courage. There is no reason why we should be downhearted because a certain number of our citizens are going to the United States from .year to year. In this matter courage is all
that is required; and if we have a courageous policy, as we have a courageous people, I am confident that sooner or later we shall make this a good country to live in and shall retain not only our own people but the settlers that come in.
But when we talk to-day of Canadians going to the United States, we must realize that there are reasons for this exodus. The Dillingham law in force there, as stated this afternoon, restricts the immigration of aliens to 3 per cent of the nationals resident in the United States; that is to say, of people from the United Kingdom, only 3 per cent of the number of British people resident in the United States can enter that country, and so forth. That has made a very great shortage in labour in the United States, and now there is a tremendous building boom in Chicago and Los Angeles and I believe in Boston, although I am speaking only from, memory as regards the last-named city. If our artisans therefore find that they can get large wages in the United States they are going to go there -in large numbers. And they are going; there is no denying that, because it is the case. But because that is the situation at the present time, because our people are leaving Canada just now for specific reasons, is that any reason why we should conclude that the lure of the United States is something that will always exist? It does seem to me that in due course of time conditions will revive here and we shall be enabled to retain our population. But it will do us no good to sit down and declare that so long as there is this lure to the United States we are not going to get any people to come here. That is not going to do us a bit of good. If we take any such despondent attitude we shall simply find that more and more of our people will go to the United States, our trade will sink lower and lower, and our population will gradually eliminate itself, creating a condition that may be very unpleasant to contemplate.
Now I want to say a word as regards the attitude of certain gentlemen in the West on the question of immigration. And if I .speak personally and feelingly I think that hon. gentlemen will believe what I say. There is no man in this House who has a greater sympathy with those pioneers who went to the West than I have, for I believe they have done for this country something that no other people have accomplished. They have withstood hardships and tilled the land and reaped enormous crops. The figures of the past year of their tremendous crop, as taken from the Manitoba Free Press, show a total of 903,000,000 bushels of grain valued at the head of the lalses at $590,000,000. I know that some

Supply-Immigration
hon. gentlemen will observe that it did not pay. Well, perhaps it did not; nevertheless the men who have raised that enormous crop of grain, of such a huge value, and brought tha,'' vast area of land under cultivation, surely do not lack in courage. I am perfectly positive that they cannot lack courage, and I believe that the conditions prevailing in the West to-day are due more or less to fundamental causes which I think will be removed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does not the hon. gentleman think that we are entitled to a little more than commendation for our courage?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, certainly. I think you are entitled to a great deal more, and you will get a great deal more too, I am perfectly sure. As I was remarking, there are fundamental reasons to-day that prevent farming from being very profitable in the West, and I approach the matter with a great deal of hesitation, I must admit. The first reason is, of course, that the farmer's dollar is worth only about 70 cents while he has to pay a great deal more for all his commodities. But the prices of commodities are going down at the present time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What about sugar?


Mr MARLER:: And when further deflation does take place it seems to me that the farmer's dollar will be worth a great deal more than it can now purchase. Another reason is that the European buying power is not what we should like it to be. It is not very good now, but I believe it will improve as time goes on; and that will make the situation still better. There is another question that we must consider, and that is the matter of freight rates, which are weighing heavily on the farming industry. I do not see how we are going to bring down freight rates unless we give the railways more. freight. It is not possible for them to reduce rates unless they can get more freight.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did the hon. member read the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, in one of the Toronto papers. What about it?


Edward Joseph Garland: You will find in that report that they made this year a net surplus of over $22,000,000. Does my hon. friend not think that we ought to have a lowering of rates in view of that fact?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The net surplus was not $22,000,000. After paying a reasonable divi-

dend on the money invested it was probably more like $1,000,000, because the Canadian Pacific Railway was running behind largely all through the year, and it was only when the fall crop came that they were able to earn dividend requirements.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I quote the figures for the hon. gentleman's benefit? The net earnings from the railway and lake steamers was $36,301,691, and after deduction of fixed charges the surplus is given as $22,952,785.


An hon. MEMBER:: The dividend must come out of that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes. Does the hon. gentleman not want the shareholders to get anything at all? The surplus of the Canadian Pacific Railway last year, after the payment of a moderate dividend after years of patient striving, was comparatively little. However, that is a digression.
Now, I have taken up with the committee as far as I think is necessary the question of unemployment, and I have only one word to add. I should like to repeat that if we adopt a courageous immigration policy and bring in the right class of settlers it will help us along very much. Some hon. members may say, "Well, if we get more immigrants in here what are we going to do?" I would reply that if we do not take a chance and bring immigrants in our home markets will dwindle, our population will decline, and the lure of the United States will continue, thus perpetuating the conditions which we now deplore so much.


Mr. BAXTER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take very much time at this hour of the night, but I would not desire to economize by omitting a reference that I think ought to be made to the very valuable address which we have just listened to. Possibly I would not associate myself with all of the hon. member's arguments nor with all of his conclusions, but I think it is to the credit of this House that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marler) should have given bo much study to what in my mind is one of the two important questions that confront our people to-day. For in my judgment there are no more than two questions now before the country, nor are there likely to be any others for Borne years to come. One is the railway question, on which I shall not touch to-night; the other is the question of immigration. I think this committee realizes that the question which we have so often debated-the tariff-no matter how strong the views of many hon. members may be, is something that by the

Supply-Immigration
agency of any party cannot be changed by more than a fractional variation from its present condition, and therefore we may as well settle down to consideration of the great questions of railways and of immigration.
I believe the country is prepared to support the hon. Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) if his policy contains that element so much emphasized by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler)-courage. It is only by courage that this problem can be successfully handled.	I do not think the
people of Canada expect that every immigrant will remain here. If we were to take a view so limited we would not spend a dollar, we would not make a single effort to attract desirable immigrants; on the contrary, we would allow our country to wither, to die of inanition. That cannot be the Canadian spirit. Certainly it is not the spirit by which we have surmounted the difficulties of the past, and it is not the spirit which will solve our national problems to-day.
After all, immigration is like a fertilizing stream, which passes through the land depositing something of its value, but always carrying something away. We cannot expect to retain all the immigrants we bring in. It is our business to make conditions here favourable to the retention of every immigrant, and especially of every native-born son. But we cannot war against human nature. No parliament can stop that onward progress of the ambitious boys and girls from the farm to the civic centre, and thence to the greatest opportunities of life. Nor is it desirable that we should try to turn the world back. Progress is the natural order of events, and we should not desire to stop it even if we had the ability to do so. Neither is it possible for us to stop the tide of immigration flowing through to other countries. We know that the United States is greater in population, in wealth and in opportunity, and it is perhaps not a little to our credit that our native-born of ambition, of courage and of ability have left us to occupy leading positions in the country to the south; and there is no reason why we should desire to stop them. But we must replace them by attracting immigrants in increasing numbers, and therefore I think this country should be opened to a selected immigration, an immigration which ought in my judgment to be directed to the parts of the Dominion that want it and ask for it.


Samuel William Jacobs: How can you keep that
immigration there?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have just said that you
cannot stop its natural movement, you cannot cause a fixation of the human character. I have seen something that possibly resembles
an effort at fixation, but I would not want Canada to attempt it.
I do not purpose to discuss the problem of immigration from east to west and from nort to south, but to treat it from what in one sense is purely a sectional aspect. I want to speak of immigration from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces, and I think I am justified in doing so. We have heard from every other part of the Dominion its attitude towards immigration. We in the Maritime provinces have our attitude. We would like to see our desires 'translated into action. While I cannot congratulate the minister upon any particular courage in the "policy which he puts forward, nor upon any great ambition involved in that policy, still I feel that the hon. gentleman is sincere in his desire to do all he can so far as his path is clear to him, and I think whether we agree with him or not in details it ought to be the part of hon. members to give him at least such suggestions as they think are of value. He will then have the opportunity of selecting those which to him possess merit. It was largely for that purpose I am sure that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George delivered his speech. I want to make this suggestion myself, I trust that this debate, which is one of very great value to the country, will be .made up of a succession of suggestions with the view of giving the minister assistance which will enable him to make his department more helpful to the country.
Now', we have to a certain extent a complaint in the Maritime provinces in regard to immigration. I trust we are not of a whining breed and that we do not complain for the sake of complaining. I hope we have not yet come to the conclusion that the axis of Canada is in the Maritime provinces and that the rest of the Dominion must revolve around it and by our permission. We do not take any such stand, but we do intend to say what we think we need and to point out a way by which we think it can be given to us. Hitherto, no matter what government has been in power, as the minister said to-day, the policy has been to treat the Immigration department as a sort of fly on the wheel of the administration-a general sign hung out and a certain amount of money spent in a certain way to attract people. Where? To Canada. That is all right as a glittering generality.
The federal government has always refused to make distinctions between the provinces, and in that respect I think it has failed to do justice to all Canada. The result of that policy has been that people have flocked to the western lands. It is true that we have the burden of the Canadian Pacific to help to
Supply-I mrmgra tion

carry, and we have the burden of the Canadian Northern. I shall not follow all the changes of name in connection with the Canadian Northern down to the present time, but we still have the burden with us, and it is quite right to get settlers into that country. But is it quite fair that there should be no direction of the stream of immigration toward other provinces which need the vitality of immigration quite as much as the West needs it? The House sees exactly what has taken place in the Maritime provinces. We have either lost population, as in the case of the beautiful little province of Prince Edward Island, or made a gain so slight that we are losing representation, as in the case of Nova Scotia, or are barely able to hold our own, as in the case of New Brunswick. That is the fact in relation to this last decade; in the previous decade we lost in our relative position to the provinces as a whole. Now, do we not need some of the immigration? Do we not want it? Are there not fertile valleys, pleasant slopes, lovely plains, in these three provinces? Are there not great natural resources which can be developed by labour? We want population, not talking machines. If other people want the country to stand still; if they do not wTant immigration; if they do not want success they can so express themselves, as they have done many times before. For my part, I will do my own talking. I am not a catechism.
Conditions in the Maritime provinces from the agricultural standpoint differ greatly from those in the West. Our soil in most instances requires to be denuded of some growth. The proposal I will make may appear startling, because it might involve the expenditure of a few hundred thousand dollars. It might even cost a million or a couple of millions. It maybe startling to gentlemen on both sides who yesterday with the greatest complacency approved of the spending of millions upon millions to complete the Hudson Bay railway. If that dream of some peoples' lives is to be realized, we in the Maritime provinces may fairly put in a plea for a chance for our own lives, and what I say is that the immigration policy could very well embrace the expenditure of some money upon a suitable class of immigrants by preparing farms for them in the Maritime provinces. If you do that, we will keep them there, and we will not whine if the crops go bad. I trust that the minister may be able to persuade his colleagues to give him enough money to enable us to
11p.m. settle good farmers upon the land in the Maritime provinces. Let him do that, and we will produce the results.
[Mr. Baxter. 1


Mr. CAHILL:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot agree with much that has been said by hon. members opposite and by the minister himself. Wre are all pretty^ well agreed that so far as the minister is concerned he at least has no immigration policy; the immigration policy that he is proposing has been handed to him by outside schemers who wish to have their plans promoted. I would have thought that the Liberal government after taking office would have seen fit to try to find out the cause of emigration from our country. This country has had problems of immigration and emigration for the past forty years. During all that time we have not maintained our natural increase in Canada, yet, we have spent millions upon millions of dollars in bringing tourists to our shores and allowing them to drift out of the country again. The minister now proposes to do something even worse; he is going to pay passages and thus assist these people to come to Canada. If the government of the day had lived up to their pre-election pledges and promises to put a certain tariff into effect in this country, they would have freed the implements of production from customs tariff. If that had been done the result would have been a great incentive in the matter of bringing people to this coimtry and making our present farming population more prosperous, more happy and more contented. That, after all, is what will bring the most immigrants to Canada and keep them here-a prosperous, happy and contented people. All the immigration propaganda that the minister talks of is not worth one cent to him; is not going to get him anywhere.
He proposes to spend $600,000 in bringing people into Canada by means of assisted immigration, and he intends to participate in the British Empire settlement scheme. Now, that scheme is designed to get rid of the surplus population of Great Britain. It is a very good scheme for the British people, but what are we to do with these people after we get them here? Put them in the cities and open soup kitchens for them? Nothing else can happen. These people are being brought from the cities of England; they are not people who wall be assimilated into the rural life of our country. They are not people who will go on the farms of northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan and Alberta. If the minister will attempt to legislate so as to make conditions in the rural districts livable for the people who are there; if he will do something to bring prosperity to the farming communities, then he will get all the immigrants that Canada wants, with very little effort on his part.

Supply-Immigration
There are four things necessary for this country to-day, and one of them is tariff adjustment. We have lived under this present tariff arrangement of protection for the past forty years and we have got nowhere. Our transportation system is bleeding the people white, and it is the duty of the government to see that the people get a square deal from the transportation companies. Our banking system is so arranged that there are no rural ' credits, no provisions for the development of the rural districts. It is so arranged that the money is gathered into the cities. I am not blaming the banks; they are doing business-according to their lights, according to the best profit they can get, but under the present system the country banks are simply gathering offices for the cities. The result is that the bankers of Canada are in the large cities- Toronto and Montreal; and they are anxious to lend money to the manufacturer, the jobber and the speculator. Your money and the money of the rural districts finds its way to Montreal and is there lent out. I do not know that this condition can be remedied immediately, but it is one of the things that has helped to depopulate rural Canada. There is no person in rural Canada in a position to make loans through the banks. It is true that a private individual can make loans; but the boy in the bank in the rural districts of Canada is not competent to do so.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that in the prairie provinces the loans from the banks exceed the deposits.


Frank S. Cahill: Who gives my hon. friend that information? Does he get it from the farmer on the prairies, or does he get it from the man that wants to make him believe that the present system is the finest in the land?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman's
method of answer might suit the hustings but in the House of Commons-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I submit the hon. gentleman has not answered the question which I put. He may not have the information. If he does not have it no doubt he w-ill say so; if he has the information he will probably let us know.


Frank S. Cahill: I will answer the hon. member in this way: I am not aware that his statement is true.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this waste of money in Canada has gone on too long. This system of paternalism is getting too great a hold on the Canadian people. We are not only going to bring these immigrants into
Canada but we are going to regulate their movements after they get here; we are going to have a system of inspection and of restrictions. We are going to tell these people how they are to farm, when they are to farm and why; we are going out to waste the money of the Canadian people, a thing that we cannot possibly afford to do.
My hon. friend also has a schfeme to spend $100,000 with the Canadian Colonization Company. Just imagine the federal government meddling with real estate problems! Just imagine them wasting the people's money in a real estate deal of that kind! Why if my hon. friend will spend, not $100,000 but $1,000, he will be able to stop as many people from leaving Canada in a week or in a day as his agreement requires to be brought in in a year. The whole scheme is absurd. I propose to vote against the appropriation of $100,000 for this purpose, and against that of $600,000 for assisted immigration to Canada until the conditions are better, and until this is a more satisfactory country for people to come to, and for the people who are now here to live in.


Mr. EVANS:: I had not intended taking part in this debate but in view of the manner in which some hon. members have discussed this most serious question I rise to make known my views from a humanitarian standpoint. The economic system of this country has been such that all those who own the public, utilities which the farmers and agriculturists of Canada need to use-the railways, the banks, the grain dealers, the elevator concerns and the loan companies-are accumulating great wealth, while the man who creates the new wealth of this country every year does not make enough to clothe and feed himself in decency. Some of these men are still hanging on to their farms in the hope of salvaging something out of the labour which they have bo many years devoted to the building up of what they fondly call home. Why any government should inveigle newcomers to take the places of the old and experienced farmers who have failed, without considering the reason for that failure is to my mind political insanity. The present immigration policy is nothing more than the inveigling of the uninformed into taking the places of men who, through hard times, have had to leave their farms every year. The time was when we thought that the western part of this country was rich enough to carry any overhead expense, and we built thousands of miles of railway which have never been needed and which can never economically serve the interests of Canada. Freight rates were in-
1134	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration
creased to pay the dividends of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. This, it was said, was needed to maintain the country's credit and the settler had to pay for it. Our legislators have looked on with unconcern whilst the lake shipping combine, and other combines obtained control of the wealth which the farmer each year made for this country. The effort was made to ease the settler's mind by telling him how much his farm had increased in value; and so he went on adding to the wealth of the country and borrowing at a high rate of interest from the banks, to meet his own obligations. Implement companies have been left to conduct their operations virtually as they pleased. So the dance has gone merrily on.
There are a good many things which the government can do in the way of carrying out a consistent immigration policy, but it seems to me that they are still surveying the situation with unconcern. The present immigration vote, under existing conditions, is certainly bound to meet with lively opposition. It is known to all that are on the land endeavouring to make a living that it is useless to bring in settlers under present conditions to take the place of experienced farmers who are failing to make good. The fact that the Acting Minister of Immigration says the present conditions are largely our own fault does not alter the case. It was not the war, as he says, that caused excessive or undue inflation of the price of land. The conditions with which we are now faced threatened to arise before the war began; the war only postponed them for a time. The conditions, coupled with the rise in freight rates, have been so bad that the farmers' products have fallen even below the prices which prevailed previous to 1914. I think it is certainly reasonable to say that under present conditions it is a useless waste to spend money on immigration. Take the case of a new settler. The proposition is to people 20,000,000 acres of land within ten or fifteen miles of the railways. Now, just see what the overhead expenses of the intending settler will be to start with, and I have only mentioned those things it is imperative for him to have. He needs a binder, which costs under present conditions $330; a drill, which costs $180; a wagon, which costs $160; a plough, which costs $60; a harrow, which costs $30; and a rake and mower, which costs $180. He will also need four horses, costing $400, and he should have two cows which he can buy at present for about $40 each. Then he should have in cash- outside of what he can make as he goes along-to feed his family for one year and a

half until returns come in, at least $600. He will also need another $100 for fuel. Now he requires to buy a quarter section at $20 per acre, and if he can get the necessary money at 6 per cent that will represent an interest charge of about $204. He has to pay the interest the first year, but at the end of the second season he still finds himself in debt $2,324. Now it seems to me that he cannot borrow this amount from the bank because the present rate of interest is too high. One of the reasons why farms are vacant to-day is that the rates of interest are so high that it [DOT] does not pay to borrow money to work a farm.
I just rose to say that I oppose the vote for this expenditure on immigration, and I do it largely from a humanitarian standpoint.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Mr. Chairman, I listened, this afternoon, with great satisfaction to the government's policy on this important question of immigration; it gave me much pleasure to hear the eloquent speech delivered by the Minister of the Interior, who gave us a masterly outline of the situation. I therefore approve of the government's policy. I am in favour of this wise moderate policy, and, I think we are fully justified, under the circumstances, to avoid extremes and more than ever we can say in medio stat virtus. No doubt the country is in need of immigration but a select and desirable one; Canada must not follow the example of other countries and hold a wide opened door to all immigrants of the world. It seems to me, that at this period in our history, it would be bad policy to erect either on our Atlantic coast or the shores of the St. Lawrence, a new Statue of Liberty opening widely its mantle to gather in all the wandering children of the earth.
I listened with pleasure to the Minister of the Interior bringing out new features in regard to this immigration policy. I think the criticism of the government by the opposition for following up the old policy is not well founded, because as I have stated there is in the government's policy new features. In fact there is the co-operation of the government wdth the provinces. This is a new element which will be appreciated by the people of this country. Another new feature is the one of the publicity which will be widespread encouraging immigration not only towards the western provinces as in the past, but towards the nine provinces of the Dominion. These are the new features introduced in the policy of immigration that deserve to be pointed out and with which I entirely agree. This new policy is acknowledged by the Progressive

New Member
party since they reproach the government for changing the old policy by introducing this special new feature by which the Dominion government would co-operate with the provinces and, they seem rather astonished at the fact of this co-operation. We may have, in the past, made mistakes- by opening too wide the gates to immigrants and especially by directing them towards those territories, the western provinces, only which, according to certain people,, seem to be well fitted to immigration.
A member of the opposition commenting upon the remarks made by a previous speaker, stated that the important questions which interested the country, at present, were those of immigration and railways, and, that both had been discussed in a masterly way by the speaker who had preceded him. No doubt these two questions are of the utmost importance; but 'to my mind, there is one which dominates both of them: it is the question of colonization. The latter holds the foremost place, while railways and immigration are but means to attain the great aim. It is by cooperating with the provinces that we may help immigration and especially colonization in this country.
No doubt in the western provinces this co-operation cannot exist between the Dominion government and the provincial government for the simple reason that the natural resources belong to the former. These provinces take no interest in the question because they cannot supply lands to those who wish to settle in this country. In the older provinces, the eastern provinces, it is absolutely necessary that lands favourable to farming be offered to settlers so as to help immigration. There must be lands offered but there must also be settlers to take them over. This work accomplished by the older provinces and that the Dominion government now wish to help, is an excellent thing for this country. Indeed, it was by opening up areas of arable lands that we were able to keep our people in this country; it is through such a colonization policy that we succeeded in preventing the exodus of our children to the United States, and it will again be through applying such a policy, backed by both Dominion and provincial governments that we shall hold the settlers amongst us and assist in the work known as repatriation. If praise is due to the government, at present, it is certainly for having contributed to establish the work of repatriation. I wish to congratulate them on this achievement, and, on having designated to perform such work a man whose ability is indisputable. Indeed, Mr. Arthur Lemont has a wide experience
in economic questions; he was attached during a number of years to the Department of Colonization in our province; as a journalist, during twenty years, he wrote on all the important subjects interesting our country and has even published works on Canadian economic questions. I have reason to hope that this organization and under the direction of the official in charge repatriation will proceed in an efficient manner.
These are the views 'that I wished to emphasize in this debate. I renew my most sincere adhesion to the government's policy. I state that we should encourage the repatriation of our people to the older provinces, and, specially my own province, and that we should also help in the settlement of the western provinces. Those who wish to return and live under the skies of their province are always welcome. At present, settlers are not numerous enough; they must come in greater numbers so as to further develop the eastern provinces. If amongst us, there are people having an adventurous turn of mind, rather than cross the 45th parallel to seek work in the New England mills, they would be better off to go west and settle the. Red river, the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan valleys, taking their place among their own people already settled in those parts, and who, thanks to Providence, are prosperous. I therefore favour this policy of the government in regard to immigration and shall cast my vote with pleasure in support of the credits asked by the government.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Wednesday, March 14, 1923