1923-03-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. CARROLL presented the first report of the select standing committee on Mines and Minerals, as follows:
Your committee beg leave to recommend that their proceedings be printed from day to day for the use of the members of the committee, when deemed advisable, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. William Duff the first report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 85 to amend the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is it a fact that the Icebreaker Mikula, formerly known as the J. D. Hazen, went ashore at Cap a la Rouche, near Quebec, during the present month of March ?
2.	Has any investigation been held by the Wreck
Commissioners, or any one else, as to the cause of the stranding of this ship?	-
3.	Who was the Captain in charge at the time of the stranding, and when was he appointed?
4.	Has the officer in charge at the time of the stranding been suspended?

Questions
5.	What is the estimated cost of the repairs of the ship, now in drydock at Lauzon?
6.	Did the government have during the present season, a supply of coal at Three Rivers for this ship?
7.	Is it not a fact that if a supply of coal had been on hand at Three Rivers at the time of the stranding, there would have been no necessity for the ship to travel to Quebec for coal and return, a distance of 180 miles, and thereby have avoided the possibility of stranding?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The steamer Mikula while proceeding to Quebec on March 13, was overtaken in the narrow channel at Cap a la Roche by a heavy snow squall and grounded.
2.	No investigation has been held but the engineer of the river St. Lawrence ship channel who was on board the vessel at the time has submitted a full report.
3.	Captain John Hearn, appointed master C.G.S, Montcalm 25 March, 1919; on April 15, 1922, Capt. Hearn was appointed master to bring the Mikula out to Canada. Capt. Hearn took charge Mikula again 16 December, 1922.
4.	No.
5.	The ship is not in dry dock and as the extent of the damage is as yet unknown no estimate of the cost of repairs has been made.
6.	A supply of coal for the vessel was available at Three Rivers.
7.	The vessel was returning to Quebec not for the purpose of obtaining a supply of coal but to make an examination of difficulties that had arisen with the port propeller. Inasmuch as the vessel had to return to Quebec for this purpose it was deemed more advantageous to obtain the necessary coal requirements there, the price per ton being $8.50 as against a price of $9.50 per ton by the Dominion Coal Company at Three Rivers and a price of $12 per ton offered by J. H. Giroux. Investigation in the meantime reveals the port propeller as having two broken blades.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many persons were employed in a temporary capacity by the various departments of the government on the 31st December, 1921?
2.	How many persons were employed in a temporary capacity by the various departments of the Government on the 31st December, 1922?


TEMPORARY CLERKS MADE PERMANENT
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many temporary clerks in the Civil Service have been made permanent by the Civil Service Commission since the 1st January, 1922?
2.	What are the names of such clerks and what are
their positions?
3.	At what date were they made permanent?


PURCHASING COMMISSION
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: 1.	Are all the departments of the Government making their purchases through the Purchasing Commission of Canada?
2.	If not, what departments are, and what departments are not?
3.	If all are not purchasing through the Commission, what is the reason?


PUBLIC LANDS-PAYMENTS
Mr. BROWN:: 1.	What amount of School Lands have been sold on which payments are now over due?
2.	What is the maximum length of time of these over due payments?
3.	Can the purchasers be divided into resident and non-resident? If so, what proportion of each are there?
4.	On what lands other than the school lands are the purchasers in default of payment?
5.	Are there any real estate or other corporations in default of payment for lands?
6.	If so, what are their names?
7.	What is the amount of indebtedness in this connection?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Either on this order or on the order "Questions," I desire to enter a protest against such question as No. 12 being passed as an order for return. If the length of the answer and the cost of inserting it in Hansard is the reason for this procedure, I would say that the answer might be only one word.	,


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: That is not passed as an order for return.


Arthur Meighen: It was so called. Perhaps
it was a mistake; I hope it is.
While I am on my feet I desire also to call attention to the fact that a great number of answers to questions this session, particularly of late weeks, have not been answers at all; they have not even been evasions; in many cases they have been simply a mass of irrelevant words. It seems to me there should be a discussion in this House at an early date of what the obligation of the government is in relation to answering questions. I have questions that I can bring to the attention of the House the answer, or supposed answer, to which does not even bear relation to the subject.
Suppl y-Im migration


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I understand that question No. 4 has been passed as an order for return. The answer would not be a very lengthy one, and I think the question ought to be answered in the ordinary way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed in regard to that question that the information has to be gathered from different parts of the country, and that that is the reason why it is passed as an order for return, rather than have the question repeated day after day while we are waiting to get the information.
Mr, T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton): I would like to say a word further with regard to questions passed as orders for returns. I spoke of this matter once before this session. The answer to a question that is passed as an order for return is not incorporated in Hansard and is not available in that way to members of the House. True, a copy may be had by applying to the proper authority, but I would point out this: I had a question that was passed as an order for return and the information was brought down, but since then I have had numerous inquiries for a copy of the return and I have had to have a stenographer make several copies. I do not think that is economy at all. Questions that can be answered without being passed as orders for returns, I think should be answered in the ordinary way, so that the information will be available in Hansard to members of the House, especially such questions as No. 4, relating to the Purchasing Commission of Canada which is very important.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The remedy is by applying to the .proper .officer, as the hon. gentleman did. If a number of copies are required for distribution the hon. member might well apply to the committee on Printing. I am quite sure that an application made by the hon. member would be granted by the committee.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I have no fault to find with the treatment that has been accorded to me personally in this matter, but I think you will realize Mr. Speaker, that members who are sitting on three or four committees and attending committees during the time the House is in session have very little time to spend in galloping around, if I may use that expression from one office to another to hunt up these matters. I think the answers to questions should be prepared as fully and as expeditiously as possible, and should be made available to the members with the least delay,

because we are certainly putting in pretty full time as it is.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Perhaps I might suggest that members in framing their questions should show equal care, because sometimes questions are needlessly extensive and serve no good in the end, I venture to think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I realize that is so in some cases, but generally questions are to the point.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: May I ask when the House may expect the report of the last meeting of the International Labour Conference?


Mr. MURDOCK:: The report of the last meeting was issued in the Labour Gazette of December or January. I am not sure which.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman,
maybe, refers to a report of a conference held at Ottawa. I refer to the International Labour Conference.


James Murdock: I was referring also to the International Labour Conference.


Arthur Meighen: The report has not been laid on the Table, has it? I made inquiry and I was told it had not been.


James Murdock: I will ascertain as to that.


[Stage Direction]
The Hduse again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Immigration-outside service-salaries, $700,000.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Might I
make a brief statement before the discussion begins? A very large portion of the discussion so far has hinged upon the next item, and it has become apparent to me that on this item, which covers a very wide range of grants and votes of moneys a great many questions are coming up which I am not in a position to answer at the moment as I have not the material at hand. I propose to the committee that this item stand if we can make progress with the others. I am not suggesting that we stop the discussion, but simply that this

Supply-lmmigra tion
item, which includes the vote to the Canada Colonization Association, and a number of other items upon which I have not full information, should stand for a few days, as it will have to do in any case until I am in possession of the material necessary to give answers. Some of this information has to be got from the United States and some from Great Britain. If we let the next item stand for a few days I will then be in full possession of all the facts and can give the committee the information it desires. I am not suggesting that we cut off the discussion now. I am merely stating that so far as the Canada Colonization Association is concerned, I may wish to make some statement about it when that item comes up again.


Mr. GOULD:: As the one who adjourned the debate on the evening of 20th March, I shall be glad to co-operate with the minister. I may state that my further remarks would have particular reference to the Canada Colonization Association, but assuming that I shall have the privilege of speaking when the question comes up again I am prepared to accept the minister's suggestion and let the item stand in the meantime.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to the item standing; I think that is the minister's right, but I do not like the Chairman to call it "carried" if it stands.


Charles A. Stewart: It was the second item, No. 53, that I was speaking of. That is not the item under consideration and we have really not reached it yet.


Arthur Meighen: The first item, No. 52, stands?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the next item, No. 53, over which the controversy arises.


Arthur Meighen: Then what is the minister asking about the item under consideration?


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite prepared to give all the information with respect to it. It is the second item, No. 53, that I was referring to.


Arthur Meighen: The committee then is open for discussion of the first item?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Do I understand that item No. 52 stands?


Charles A. Stewart: No. I was simply informing the committee that I did not intend to press for the passing of item
fMr. C. A Stewart.]
No. 53, but proposed to let it stand for two or three days, until Tuesday next at least, in order that I might be in possession of the necessary information to enable me to answer questions. I am not now in possession of that information.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that. I thought the minister asked for item No. 52 to stand.


Mr. SHAW:: If I understand the minister
correctly, he is simply making application that item 53 be allowed to stand; but as regards general remarks on the subject of immigration, I do not imagine for a moment that he intends to limit the discussion at this particular time. If I am mistaken, of course I have no objection to that particular procedure; but I have some few general observations to make which I would (like an opportunity of making, and which, I think, should be made at this time.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil); I have no authority to prevent discussion; that is the prerogative of the Chairman. I simply stated to the committee that I was desirous of having item 53, to which so much of this discussion that we have been having really refers, stand to-day and of bringing it up on Tuesday next, or at some later day, when we might discuss it fully.


Arthur Meighen: Where the confusion arises is in this. We are having the discussion on item 52. The minister says that much of the discussion would better come under item 53, which he proposes should stand. That may be reasonable; but we have had the discussion on item 52, and I think it would be better to finish it. If we get to item 53, and if there is any particular information the minister is waiting for, that item can stand; but the general discussion, now that it has gone so far, had better be closed.


Oliver Robert Gould: Practically all the remarks that have been made on this subject have been in the nature of a general discussion on the principles of immigration. Evidence has been adduced to show that the state of the present immigrants in this country is not what it should be; and while some may endeavour to interpret our efforts to show to the minister and to the government what those conditions are, particularly as regards the West, as being designed or intended to be obstructive, my firm conviction is that on the part of any hon gentleman with whom I am acquainted or have conversed, there is no intention to obstruct. It is certainly my belief that the evidence I propose to adduce
S upply-Im rniyra tion

as well as that of my colleagues is evidence that should be placed before the country. I have endeavoured time and again to point out the conditions that obtain, and we believe these conditions are not generally known throughout Canada. Consequently, we believe it is in the interest of Canada and the Canadian people as a whole that these things should be placed upon Hansard.
As I was stating, when I was on my feet before, to me fell the task of adjourning the debate on the night of March 20. It is rather difficult to co-ordinate my remarks of that night with the few remarks which I shall make to-day; but it seemed to me that we were then jockeyed into a position where, at a late hour of the night, it was left for three successive members of the Progressive group to carry on the debate. That is the reason why I rose and was making extensive remarks when it was suggested that the debate be adjourned and that I continue my remarks to-day.
At that time, I had stated that it was my belief that the evidence that had been placed upon Hansard during the last few days of the debate in regard to this question, would make really good evidence if it were handed to our prospective immigrants. I was not advocating that this should be done; but if, by chance, it was taken to those countries from which we hope to draw immigrants, it *would at least be very enlightening for them to read those speeches, particularly if in one hand they had the pamphlets that were printed by the Western Canada Colonization Company, or those beautiful lithographed booklets which the Immigration department from time to time send into foreign countries to persuade people to come to Canada and settle.
Speaking more or less in a local sense-and I notice that is the habit of the majority of hon. members who have so far spoken on this question-I wish to place a little more evidence on Hansard to-day. One of the latest letters I have received comes from a hardheaded Scotchman in western Canada, a man whom I have known for twenty years, a good conservative Scotchman. In his letter he complains that he had sold a carload of oats which he had sent to Fort William, and he had likewise sold some oats on the street. He received sixteen cents per bushel less for the oats which he sold on the street than he received for the carload he shipped. His shipping point is only 730 miles west of Fort William, and he wmnders why with a freight rate approximately of ten cents per hundred pounds, sixteen cents per bushel should be 
subtracted from the amount he received on the carload sent to Fort William. I point this out only to show that what I have complained of many times, namely, that some of these institutions in the West seem to be almost laws unto themselves.
Of course, remedies have been suggested from time to time for these evils that we complain of. I do not wish to condemn, nor to have this interpreted as a desire on my part to condemn, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), for I have great faith in him; but we are told at the present time to produce a better quality of pork, beef, butter, cheese and all other farm products, so that we may be able to compete with Denmark, Belgium, and all other countries that export these commodities. For the past forty years in western Canada we have been producing the best quality of grain known in the world, namely, No. 1 hard wheat, and when we had produced a commodity of one hundred per cent value, what happened with our wheat? Why, immediately vested interests in this country came to former governments and obtained the right to rob us by mixing this grain. That condition obtains to-day, and that is what we get when we produce a hundred per cent article. That is one thing that is the matter with agriculture in the West at the present time, and one reason, by the way, why I have always pleaded that the producer should have an opportunity of presenting his case before commissions appointed from time to time, so that their grievances may be remedied.
These are only small items, but they affect each and every individual in the West who is engaged in raising grain. I cited this case to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) last year. I regret sincerely that the minister is not in his seat at this time; but I cite the case of a neighbour of mine who sent a carload of wheat to Fort William asking that it be stored. The wheat was presumably stored, and anyone who stores wheat knows that it is cleaned wheat that is stored. This man received a bill amounting to $2.29 for storage, and he uras paid 33 cents for 26 bushels of screenings, cracked wheat, that were taken out of his grain. That is the condition I pointed out to the minister from my place in this House, and his reply was that he would look into the matter. The man who owned the grain has never heard anything about the matter since, nor have I, and that is only another illustration of conditions that obtain in our western country. I would tell prospective immigrants that there are hundreds of schools in western Canada closed because of the inability of people to

Supply-Immigration
pay taxes. That is a well-known fact, and it. is a truth that applies to very large areas not alone in Alberta and Saskatchewan but elsewhere as well. I would also tell them that in nearly all judicial districts in western Canada in sheriffs' safes there are from 1,000 to 4,000 judgments. That too is a well established fact. If we told the prospective immigrant that such a state of things existed, he would ask; What is the matter with agriculture in Canada that such conditions can prevail? There is something else also which hon. members may regard as of little moment, but which I can assure the committee is, on the contrary, of much importance. (3ur Dominion government in the past have sold school lands, entering into contract with the purchaser and selling those lands at a capitalization of five per eent. This has happened, for instance, in the district from which I come where a goodly number of people bought lands under these terms. We all know very well that there were visitations of Providence in the way of drought, hail, rust, grasshoppers and all the other evils which have afflicted the people and which have gone to affect the proceeds of their crops. What do we see? Those people wTho were unable, through these Providential circumstances, to meet their obligations found themselves compelled by the Dominion government to meet an additional two per cent on their obligation, their indebtedness being thus capitalized at seven per cent, as though the visitation of Providence were not a sufficient burden. It does seem to me that the government were not in any way obliged to add that two per cent, and considering the circumstances of the case I think they might well remit this seven per cent which was inflicted upon the people at that time in connection with these lands.
In short, if we are going to send out any propaganda, I would advise that we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then see how many people we could get by so doing. I have here the figures in connection with immigration to and emigration from the United States alone. I might inform the committee that the figures in regard to this country I have obtained from the Canadian Year Book for the year 1922, while for the other figures I am indebted to the records of the United States Department of Labour. The first figures I have are for the year 1911, and it would be well for us to remember that they relate to a country where conditions are supposed to he very much the same as they are in. Canada. And while we thought that we were drawing immigration from the United States it turns out that in
the final result there has been a distinct, a decided, loss to 1he people of Canada as compared w'ith the country to rhe south of us. In 1911, we had a gain of 52,000: in 1912, a gain of 68,000; in 1913 a gain of 55,000; in 1914 a gain of 12,000. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1915 we had one of the largest crops in Canadian history, particularly in the West. I mention this fact only to show that because there happens to be a big crop in the West it does not necessarily follow' that the population will be beneficially affected. In the four instances I have cited it will be seen that we had gains. But in 1915, when this big crop occurred, what happened? We had a loss of 30,000 people; in 1 other words, 30,000 people left Canada more than came into the country from the United States. In 1916, another year that was not bad, we had a total loss of 68.000 of people going to the United States. In 1917, there was a total loss of 48,000 from Canada; but in 1918 the tables were turned and we had
36,000	of a gain. In 1919, however, we had again a loss of 22,000; in 1920, a loss of 47,000; in 1921, a loss of 30,000; and in 1922 a loss of 17,000. To sum up, we lost by actual emigration to the United States alone, in the decade I have mentioned, 39,000 people. Now, there is something wrong; and each and every one of these 39,000 people will testify to just what is the matter with colonization conditions in Canada. And whether it be a matter for rectification on the part of the government-and I believe that the government can do very much to make conditions better and more equitable in this country-, the fact remains that 39,000 of our people have gone to the United States, 39,000 missionaries who will tell the truth, perhaps too luridly. And that is the reason or at least one of the reasons, why we may not expect a large influx of immigration from the United States-a country which, by the way, gives us our best settlers-until such time as conditions are, in their estimation at least, as good in Canada as they are in the country to which they are going back. I made the statement that in all civilized countries, at least where the white peoples have come from, agriculture was bleeding to death. And I have authority for the statement. In Australia, they have borrowed moneys for the purpose of settling people on the land, and as nearly as I can ascertain, capitalizing it at only five per cent, which I may say is my own estimate, the amounts borrowed will produce the sum of $250 for every settler going into Australia. In the plan we contemplate we provide approximately $500, or twice the amount which in Australia the gov-
Supply-Immigration

ernment, or whatever patronizing source it comes from, is prepared to give. Now, I do not see why Canada, with all her potential wealth, should be obliged to pay $2 as against SI in comparison with Australia for the immigrants that come into the country.


Charles A. Stewart: The point is very interesting and I should like my hon. friend to tell me how he arrives at his conclusion with regard to cost.


Oliver Robert Gould: 
Charles A. Stewart: How does the hon. member arrive at his figures with respect to Canadian immigration?


Oliver Robert Gould: I made a computation of the value of the lands and the ten per cent commission which it is proposed to give.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon, I did not understand you were speaking of one particular point.


Oliver Robert Gould: In the United States there has been before congress a bill asking for $300,000,000 to assist agriculture there. Now, in spite of their high tariff wall, the purpose of which we are told is to protect American agriculture, it seems that they still realize that agricidture is not receiving sufficient encouragement and it is now being given patronage from the government. Three hundred million dollars is a huge sum, and I am not advocating such financial assistance to agriculture. All I contend for is that we may have equal opportunities to take the potential wealth from the soil-opportunities which I believe have been largely denied us, or at least if we have not been actually denied them we have been prevented from retaining what we consider our fair share of that wealth when produced.
In the western country we have vast areas which are still unsettled, and I think that any settlement scheme should be carried out under the supervision of the government and not through the Western Canada Colonization Association. The Minister (Mr. Stewart) is well aware of the conditions in the West, and he knows the importance of community life to those who settle there. I have often considered a community plan which would concentrate the people and give them the opportunity of having their schools and other public institutions close in. One of the great drawbacks even in the organized districts in western
tMr. Gould.]
Canada to-day is the lack of school facilities and the difficulty experienced in securing the attendance of children from remote farms. Consolidation has been tried in a few places, but I would like to see it attempted in a broader form whereby townships or divisions of townships might be brought together and roads and other conveniences provided so that the people would receive more of the benefits of community life, the absence of which is one of the great drawbacks to settlement in western Canada. Imagine a man taking his wife and family into a remote district two or three, and very often five or six, miles from his nearest neighbour. Naturally enough the woman's heart is broken. I recommend this important feature to the attention of the minister and I hope' something will be done along these lines to make prairie life more attractive.
I have under my hand an advertisement sent out by the Bank of Montreal in which it is stated:
Canada in the past tfiree years has exported surplus vegetable and animal products to the value of $1,900,000,000.
That naturally would strike the mind of the immigrant as a huge sum, indeed it would impress anyone at first sight, but when divided up among our agriculturists the sum per capita is comparatively insignificant. Taking the farming population of Canada as approximately fifty per cent of the total, and multiplying it by three, the number of years covered, we have as a result 13,500,000 farmers, each of whom would receive out of this huge total of $1,900,000,000, the small sum of $140.75, or taking it on the basis of a family of five, the sum of $703.75. Neither sum is such as to cause the average farmer or his family to go into ecstacies. And yet this represents merely his gross return. I submit that transportation costs and taxation must be deducted say, $100 per capita, or $500 per family. Deduct this from the figures I have already given and we find how little the agriculturist has left to provide clothes, fuel and the other necessaries of life. It is at once apparent that the farmer is faced with an absolute physical impossibility in attempting to make a living under such conditions; and yet these are the conditions that obtain.


Mr. CARROLL:: What do the exports consist of which are included in that aggregate of $1,900,000,000?
Mr, GOULD: The statement in the advertisement runs:
Canada in the past three years has exported surplus vegetable and animal products to the value of *1,900,000,000.

Supply-Immigration


William F. Carroll: Does that include wheat?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It also includes whisky, brandy, liquor, beer and so forth.


Oliver Robert Gould: Possibly. If further evidence were needed regarding the conditions prevailing in the West I could furnish it in plenty. I have here a statement issued by the Canadian Bank of Commerce which is illuminating. It declares Canada to be suffering, like many other countries, from overextension of the functions of government whose financing calls for greater taxation than can be borne, and it instances the total taxes in Manitoba for the year 1921 at $57,190,000, against the total value of cereals produced in the province of $40,500,000. That bears out my assertion that nothing can be left for the farmer when these figures are analyzed.
In passing, may I recommend these figures to the consideration of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) who spoke so slightingly of the farmers of Manitoba "scratching" the soil. That statement rather stuck with me because the majority of my relatives live m that province and on their behalf I resent the suggestion that they7 merely scratch the soil. As a matter of fact they carry our. the instructions issued by the Department of Agriculture, which are to the effect that the first seven inches will produce the best results from an agricultural standpoint.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that perhaps my hon. friend was taking the hon. member for Springfield a little too literally. He might have been using the word "scratch" metaphorically.


Oliver Robert Gould: But when that statement was backed up with the illustration that a hen was supposed to cover two hundred eggs I think I have good reason to take the hon. member very literally.


Mr. HOEY:: It was a pictorial illustration.


Oliver Robert Gould: I cannot bring myself to believe that the Western Canada Colonization Association is at all necessary. A fetc days ago letters were read by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which had passed between the Western Canada Colonization Association and certain hon. members. I think, Mr. Chairman, that further evidence might be submitted in regard to at least one of those letters, and I propose to make this statement, not because I have been instructed to do so, but because it is common knowledge. Upon three occasions the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke)
has asked the association to remove his name from the list of directors, but they have paid no attention to his request.
Hon. members who were in this House during the last parliament will recollect the earnestness and ability exhibited by the then member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) when he spoke in condemnation of the Canada Shipping Company. He stated that some four or five years prior to that time the Canada Shipping Company had been capitalized at $8,000,000, and that they proposed to enter the British Empire Steel Corporation, the promoters of which were then anticipating a merger of $500,000,000 embracing the Canada Shipping Company, the steel and coal industries of Nova Scotia and even the Western Canada Colonization Association. Not only was the Canada Shipping Company over-capitalized at that time, as the then hon. member for East Lambton stated, but he added that the company, not satisfied with this capitalization, was entering the merger at a capitalization of $40,000,000. Now, it seems to me that I have a right to believe that the Western Canada Colonization Association had the same ambitious ideas. Incidentally I may say that they certainly thought they could afford to pay $35,000 salary to their manager. It is well known in the West that a certain person was offered $50,000 to act as manager of that organization. There is no area of land in western Canada that can yield one-fifth of that amount by way of salary or dividend. But gentlemen who have big ideas in the way of extracting huge sums from the people for the purposes of salaries in connection with this organization have not the ability to extract these sums from the soil; they find it much easier, perhaps with a little assistance or patronage from the government, to extract them from the poor prospective settler'. Let these enthusiasts go out and demonstrate to me their ability to extract that profit from the soil. I defy them to do it. Knowing they cannot do it, I stand in the way of their taking it out of persons whom they want to get the wealth out of the land. I stand in the way-


Mr. MARLER:: What does the hon. member stand in the way of? He stands in the way of our ever bringing any immigrants into Canada, through the attitude he is taking now and the kind of advertising he is giving to the country.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. gentleman, in his address on this subject, said, I think, that he personally knew nothing about the conditions in the West, but that he had read some papers
Supply-Immigration

on the subject. Surely he will admit that one who has lived thirty-two years in the West should know what he is talking about.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not disputing my hon. friend's knowledge of the subject. But what my hon. friends on the other side are saying will go all over the world and we shall never get anybody to come here. People who are here might as well pack their bags and go out of the country if that is the attitude we are to take.


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not wish to say anything that will irritate my hon. friend; I want to be very peaceable. But I would like nothing better than to have him come out west and work beside me; I will pay him $3.50 a day and let him demonstrate his ability to make good. I warrant he will sleep his solid seven hours per night, and I question whether his horses will be very well cleaned in the morning.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not questioning my hon. friend's statement at all in regard to farming. I am simply saying-and I repeat it-that if he has any constructive suggestion to make, let him offer it. Everything that has been said from that side has been destructive in its character.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the figures I have given the House are false?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think some of the figures given respecting the migration of Canadians to the United States are very questionable. They have been questioned during the course of two separate investigations made at the instance of the government, and it has been held on two occasions-the hon. member can see it in the Canadian Annual Review for 1921-that many people going to the United States did not stay there although they were counted as having stayed there. I question those figures very much indeed.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. member will have to admit that for all the $30,000,000 that has been expended for the purpose of bringing immigrants to this country, there cannot be shown to-day one per cent of increased population.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What I admit is that this country is a good country, but what my hon. friends have been telling us in this House for the last week is such that it will be impossible to put any policy of immigration in force. That will be the result if
4 p.m. the kind of advertising we are getting from our hon. friends across the way is continued.
Mr. Gould.]


Oliver Robert Gould: Notwithstanding the remarks of the hem. member, I consider I am doing my duty to the people just as well as he is. Moreover, I think I know the subject better than he does, for I have actually lived in that country. Will the hon. member produce any figures which will substantially contradict those I have presented? Of course, the figures I give may in some respects be only approximate, but I do not think my hon. friend can challenge them in any material respect. No one on this side has ever stated that he objected to Canada as a country. I have positively asserted on a dozen occasions that the potential wealth of Canada is great, but something stands between. For instance, the hon. member stood up two or three times and interrogated hon. gentlemen on this side, asking them whether they would take dividends from the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is what is the matter; the attitude is taken that organizations of this character should have the right to extract their dividends first and let those who produce the wealth of the country take what is left. That is my interpretation of the attitude of the hon. member; that is possibly his concern at the present time. We have heard many statements that there is to be a trade revival in Canada; that better times are coming. But I want hon. members at the first opportunity, to look at the individual who makes this prophecy and see whether he himself sits on the mourners' bench. It is safe to say that those who prophesy better times are not among those who sit on the mourners' bench.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No; the hon. member himself is sitting on the mourners' bench.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, I have expressed what are my firm convictions in this matter, and I think I have said enough to make my position clear.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Chairman, the question of immigration has since confederation been an important and pressing problem. We have through the years framed various policies with a view of increasing the numbers of our people, and whether our efforts have achieved a measure consistent with the amount of public money expended is perhaps open to some question.
In announcing his proposals the minister indicated that he was not bringing before the House any, as he described it, brand new policy; he informed us that he was taking the middle course. His position could perhaps have been more adequately described had he suggested that he was sitting on the fence, and I am sure he has earned the at-

Supply-Immigration
tacks which are usually made upon those who assume that attitude, because, if I mistake not, his emotions must have run through the whole gamut of human sentiments when one considers the reluctant expessions of appreciation which came to him from some members of his own party and, in addition, the sledge hammer blows which have been directed at his policy by other members supporting the government. I think, perhaps, the minister must have had in his mind the injunction which many years ago was given to one of the leaders of the Jewish people when he was enjoined not to make "any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." It seems to me, that the position of the minister can only be compared to that of the heroine who was "There twixt heaven and earth suspended while the bell tolled to. and fro."
I think it is desirable, Mr. Chairman, that we should pay some attention to the census statistics in so far as they may be of value in determining the policy of parliament in connection with this problem. The House, I think is indebted to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in indicating the exact history of our emigration problem. I would like to suggest that the statistics of Canadian emigration, so far as they are disclosed to us by the United States, show that in the decade between 1901 and 1910 some 179,226 people left this country; whereas in the following decade, between 1911 and 1920 some 742,000 odd emigrated from Canada. We find also, if we take the decade-and I do not intend to weary the House unduly with figures- from 1911 to 1921 that, allowing for the natural increase, according to the figures there must be a loss to this country of something like, 1,200,000 people. Now let me quote one or two other figures with regard to immigration during the past two years. In the fiscal year ending March, 1922, approximately 90,000 people came to Canada; the year previous the arrivals numbered 148,000 odd; and in the year 1920 some 117,000 odd. So that last year, if we except the war years from 1916 to 1919 the low water mark in inmmigration was reached taking our history as far back as 1902.
In connection with these facts I want to make a few observations. It seems to me that we have two problems to solve-the problem of emigration and the problem of immigration. I have already indicated the extent of the emigration to the United States as indicated by the figures I have given. I
would like to point out that that emigration is a voluntary emigration; it is not induced by any advertisements on the part of the United States government. That is a distressing feature of 'the situation because experience shows that that sort of emigration, that is voluntary emigration, is made up of the young, the industrious and the ambitious. That is an unfortunate fact. What is the reason that the best of our manhood and womanhood are leaving the country? Occasionally in former days people in emigrating were influenced by religious considerations; at other times they were influenced by political considera-' tions. To-day there can be no question at all but that the reason for the emigration to the United States is due to the fact that our economic conditions are not all they should be. It is quite apparent that the emigration to the United States is due to the desire either to escape the existing economic conditions, or else to obtain better economic conditions. I mention these facts not because I am discouraged; on the contrary I am not; I mention them because they constitute an appalling and a tragic fact that our own people- our own Canadian and Canadianized people -are unable to obtain that measure of satisfaction which they look for in this country and are therefore seeking a refuge in a foreign land. That is not an easy thing for a Canadian to do, it is not an easy thing for a Canadianized individual to do, because it necessarily means the severance of the ties of kinship, the severance of the ties of devotion which binds everyone to this land. Therefore, I say, Mr. Chairman, that the primary duty of this government is to investigate this condition with regard to emigration.	"
In this connection I am reminded of the statement of Sir Andrew Macphail. Speaking some time ago at McGill university he said; referring to the government:
You put a little less stress on this policy of immigration until you are quite sure you can keep the immigrants you pay for.
After some further references to the number of people leaving the country he said:
The people of Canada cannot save themselves by this process of immigration any more than could the Romans by their system of slavery.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
like to point out to my hon. friend that the United States have an embargo against all other nations except Canada.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite appreciate the fact
but my point is that the United States, as a government, is making no effort to induce
Supply

Immigration

immigration from this country. It seems to me that the government should take this matter of emigration into consideration,' not in any panicky mood because there is no necessity for panic. I think they should ascertain, as far as it can be humanly ascertained, the existing cause and then fearlessly apply the remedy whatever it may be. I am not going into the causes for emigration; it is not necessary to do so at this particular time. I do suggest, however, that if you want to keep people in this country there must be a determined effort to reduce the cost of living, there must be a determined effort to reduce the burden of taxation under which this country is reeling at the present time. Now what is the government's attitude toward this question of emigration? What is their policy in regard to this important matter? I suppose that if I were to ask the Minister of Finance he would tell me in Asquithian language "Wait and see." It appears to me that the government are assuming the fatalistic position that little can be done to stem the tide of emigration. I do not agree with that view at all. Personally I would vote for a very definite, a very clear cut, and a very courageous programme for the purpose of stopping the emigration from our land.
There is another interesting fact to which I would draw the attention of the House in connection with the census figures. At the census of 1901 the figures indicated that 62.3 per cent of our population was rural. The census of 1911 indicated that 54 per cent was rural, a decrease of some 8 per cent in that decade. The census figures of 1921 indicate that 50.3 per cent was rural, a further decrease of something like 4 per cent. There must b some reason for the rural depopulation that is evidently going on. I mention that because I am impressed with this fact: That every person who migrates from the land into an urban centre becomes a potential emigrant from the country. The person who leaves the land and endeavours to compete in the city necessarily finds difficulty in carrying on there owing to the specialized conditions prevailing, and therefore I think it is important, if we can check the rural depopulation, that we should do so. At least we should make some determined effort to ascertain and remedy the cause, and thus to my mind shut off one of the potential taps leading to emigration from Canada.
May I be permitted to mention what occurs to me as one or two important reasons for rural depopulation? There is, of course, the lure of the city so-called, but more important than that are the hardships incident

to a pioneering land, the difficulties and hardships which must be overcome. I for one regret that during our entire history we have never seen fit, or at least on very few occasions, to pay any honour to those who pioneered in Canada. We have multitudes of honours, titles and otherwise, for those who have achieved political success, and we have the same conditions prevailing for those who have achieved some measure of commercial success, but for the man who lives on the frontier we have never been able to award or accord to him what seems to me his fitting recognition. *
The second cause for rural depopulation is necessarily the high production costs, and I use the word " high " as compared with the amount received by the producer in return for his efforts. It seems to me that these causes can be ascertained with a fair degree of accuracy. What are the causes which create high production costs in relation to the returns received. First of all I want to suggest, and I know my friends to the right will entirely disagree with me, that chief among these deterrents, chief among the difficulties is the tariff. We have built for forty years on a policy designed to put tall chimneys in eastern Canada. It seems to me that our policy for a time at least should have that degree of orientation which will enable farmers to reap the just reward for their efforts. Some hon. gentlemen may think that the farmers do receive a just reward for their efforts. But I presume that no one will dispute the view taken by the president of the Dominion Bank in his annual statement for the year 1922. He says:
Of the unfavourable features, immigration returns are most disappointing and, so far, it appears that no sound measures have been devised by governments, or others, that will bring any improvement. The many attractive features that Canada has to offer to settlers have been more than offset by the poor results that farming operations have shown in the past two or three years.
He goes on:
Excessive taxation is a great detriment, and there can be no relief while provincial governments and municipalities so freely spend money which they obtain from the public with astonishing ease.
Why he eliminated the Dominion government from his observations I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: What was the date of the speech?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It was in December, 1922. I say that the question of the tariff and its bearing upon the primary producer is a matter of vital importance, and I think our policy should be changed in so far as the tariff is concerned.

Supply-Immigration
Another important element, and I propose to give the government credit for having made some progress, lies in the fact that our whole country, our whole transportation system at least, seems to be in the hands of combines, combinations which have as their avowed purpose apparently the raising of rates to the extent that the traffic will bear. I am sure that hon. members of this House cannot but be impressed with the evidence that has been given before the Lake Shipping, Commission and the evidence also taken before the special committee on Agriculture, from which it appears that not only the railways and the ocean companies, but also our own National Railways and our own Canadian Government Merchant Marine have been to some extent at least implicated in this effort to maintain rates at what they deemed to be a proper standard instead of, as the people have a right to expect, competing with other railways and other transportation systems. The government, I think, is entitled to some credit for having undertaken these investigations. I think, too, they are entitled to credit for having inaugurated or at least given promise of inaugurating a policy which will do much to eradicate combines when and where they are found.
Another important element, it seems to me, that must be considered before an immigration policy can secure that measure of success which is desirable is to free western lands from the group of exploiters and speculators who now have them under control. I think that perhaps in consultation with provincial governments a progressive and scientific system of taxation could be undertaken with regard to the speculatively held lands in order that they will either be put to productive use or come back into the hands of the state, and thereby be of service to intending immigrants.
These, Mr. Chairman, are only a few of the difficulties which confront the farmer in western Canada, and I believe, for that matter, in all parts of Canada to-day. I think some effort should be made in order to relieve him of these burdens which, to my mind, unnecessarily make his position perilous.


Charles A. Stewart: I think I agree with my hon. friend very largely so far as the unoccupied lands are concerned, but is it not a fact that in our own province these lands are coming into the hands of the government very rapidly, much more rapidly than the government would wish, and is not that also the case with the municipalities, so that taxation is almost a burden to-day on account of the large areas of land owned by
the municipalities? I am not inferring that the speculator should get one cent. I am just pointing out the actual conditions.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: There can be no question that large areas of lands are coming back into the hands of municipalities and of the government as well, but that is not true of the lands adjoining the railways to the same extent as it is of lands further removed. What I should like to see is a progressive and scientific system of taxation applied to these lands adjoining the railways, which, if they were in the possession of the government, could be used for colonization purposes. '


Arthur Meighen: I am aware personally of lands adjoining the railways the taxation on which is now ten per cent of the value, or something near that. How much higher does the hon. member think the taxation ought to go?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In my judgment it ought to go to the point where the speculator or exploiter will either turn to production or forfeit his right to the land.


Arthur Meighen: These lands have been bought from and paid for to the province, of which the whole people got the benefit at, say, $10 an acre. The taxes now have amounted to more than the land is worth and are still at the rate of ten per cent. In a word, the whole value has already been confiscated and the province has got the money. How much further would he have the province or the municipality go than that?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If the province has the lands and they are now in a position where they can be turned to productive use-


Arthur Meighen: The province got the $10 an acre, and because it does not pay to hold at a ten per cent tax the province gets the lands too. I am asking how much further he advises they go.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not very well see how with regard to that particular parcel of land, the government can go much further.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows that in a few years taxation takes back the whole thing. Then, of course, payment of that rate, of taxation for rhe future is impossible, for no human being will pay it, and the man turns the land back too. Thus the province gets the land and the $10 an acre. The poor fellow who bought it gets nothing at all. I ask, how far r'muld the province go beyond that?

Supply-Immigration


Joseph Tweed Shaw: There is no necessity of the province going further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I certainly would not for a moment suggest that the province, by confiscatory legislation, should seize all the lands simply by imposing an excessive rate of taxation.


Arthur Meighen: That already exists in at least two provinces, if not three.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have no desire to join issue with the right hon. gentleman with regard to that matter But I know, regardless of whether the taxation be high or not, there are, adjoining railways in Saskatchewan and Alberta, vast areas of land which are unproductive, which are not put to any proper use and which are simply being held by speculators against the great day when, perhaps, boom conditions will again exist. I think the government should direct its best energy, and give primary consideration to that particular problem.
With regard to the question of immigration itself, I have no objection to a vigorous immigration policy. I have not the slightest objection to bringing people into this country who can, if conditions are favourable, make themselves into efficient citizens. I have no objection to a well-considered immigration policy, provided that that immigration policy is synchronised with an efficient, if I might so call it, emigration policy, or a policy designed to prevent emigration. I do not ask that all immigration must be stopped until the emigration problem is solved. I think these two problems should go side by side. If this House will give to the problem of emigration its serious and undivided attention, and at the same time co-ordinate that with a policy of immigration, progress will be made.
As regards the problems which touch the farmers of western Canada, the problems to which I refer, and which are the exciting cause of the emigration which exists to-day,
I do not ask the government simply to look in the direction of a solution of those problems; I do not suggest to them that there should be what the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) called a mere "molecular movement" in the direction of reform. They should courageously undertake the solution of those problems in order to accomplish some results in preventing further emigration from our country. After all-and I have said this before in this House-the best immigration advertisement is a contented and prosperous farmer. I ask the Acting Minis-
ter of Immigration how he can expect farrm ers or others brought in from foreign lands, unacclimatised to our conditions, unfamiliar with our life, to succeed where we have today men who have had the advantage of free land and who, despite their strenuous efforts, have not achieved that measure of success which, at least, would constitute them the best of immigration agents for this country.
There is, however, one point in regard to which I have very serious objection to the government's policy. I refer to the Canada Colonization Association. This scheme was bom in the heads of various transportation and manufacturing interests. The Canada Colonization Association is the subsidiary and the inheritor of the Western Canada Colonization Company. It is now, as the minister has indicated to us, a headless organization. The government has apparently no written agreement with that organization; but it has agreed to pay them SI00,000 this year, of which $40,000 has already been paid. I have looked with some interest at the advertisements of this association, and I find amongst other things that they tell us that the whole wide world is their field of activity for immigration purposes. They tell us that, as regards the United States, there will be hundreds of agents canvassing on behalf of this country, drumming up immigration, I think they call it, before the snow flies. May I say, just in connection with that,, to show that that was the situation, that I have had the advantage of reading a copy of a letter directed by the Minister of Immigration to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Crawford? Mr. Crawford wrote to the minister on the 11th October last in these words:
We are. leaving for Europe this month to arrange for agriculturists to come to Canada, and as we have a letter from Ukrainia asking us if ,we can make the necessary arrangement for fifteen thousand families to come here in the spring, we. would like to have a letter from you saying what assistance we can have from your department, and one that we can show them when we arrive in Ukrainia.
These people are Christian agriculturists and will have plenty of means to start farming. Some of them we intend to settle on Canadian Pacific railway western land, Canadian National railway land and some on homesteads in the Peace river block.
Through our paper the "Friend of Ukraine" we are receiving many enquiries about Canada as besides the western Canada distribution we are mailing a large number to the United States and Europe. The paper is printed half in Ukrainian and English, which will be a means of education to these people in Canada.
We are enclosing some of the recent issues of this paper, and we would ask that you advise the Post Office department that we should have the 1$ cent rate as we are now paying 8 cents per pound. We have over 2,000 subscribers although they are not all paid up.
We would like an appointment to talk this matter over with you, and although we have been trying for

Supply-Immigration
weeks to do this we have not been successful. We think our work will be a benefit to Canada.
Yours very truly,
Crawford and Kurdydyk.
These gentlemen are apparently not asking for anything. They are asking simply that certain regulations of the Post Office department be applied to them, and they give indications of bringing to this country some
15,000	Ukrainian families who have adequate means. The Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization on the 14th October last answered these gentlemen in these words:
I have your letter of the 11th. instant, enquiring what assistance the Department of Immigration can give in connection with bringing out a number of Ukrainian families to Canada next spring.
In reply I may say that the question of assistance to immigrants coming to Canada has been given careful consideration, but it was felt that, in view of our present financial condition, the department would not be warranted in asking for an appropriation for this purpose at the present time. However, I may point out that the Canada Colonization Association, with headquarters in Winnipeg, Manitoba, has rather elaborate plans for assisting immigration, and I wish to suggest that you get in touch with Mr. M. A. Brown, the vice-president of this association, at the Bank of Hamilton building, Winnipeg.
For your information I am enclosing herewith copy of the Immigration Act and regulations, which will give you full information of the qualifications required of immigrants coming to Canada at the present time.
So that it is perfectly clear that on the 14th October last the minister had made no restrictions, and, in fact, the Canada Colonization Association had made no restrictions, with regard to the field of their activities. But the situation seems to have been changed, because we find now, according to the words of the minister, that this association is restricted to the United States, the most fertile field, the best field for immigration for this country, and it has no authority or apparently exercises no authority beyond the confines of the North American continent. We also find that although this company had advertised that hundreds of agents would be carrying on, drumming up the work of immigration in the United States before the snow commenced to fly, according to the minister only some sixty agents are operating to-day. Now why this state of coma that characterizes this organization at the present time? I suggest that in this vital and important matter the government has no right to abdicate its function to the Canada Colonization Association, a headless organization of this character, which has in no measure lived up to the promises it made, which has no written agreement with the government, or perhaps if anything only a verbal contract, and whose responsibility is based on such verbal contract. Therefore I most strenuously object to the 89 J
government carrying on any further negotiations with that association. I am quite satisfied that that position represents the feeling of a large number of members of this House. The promoters and associates of this organization have themselves withdrawn support from it. Then why should the parliament of Canada now bolster it up further with an appropriation of $60,000? I think that the government can without any loss of dignity simply refuse to subsidize the organization further and put this matter of possible immigration from the United States into the hands of its own responsible agents. In addition to that, those members of the House who have written letters expressing, to some degree at least, confidence in the organization have repudiated the suggestion that they meant to convey that the government should give any financial assistance to the organization. I say, therefore, that the government can and should have no further dealings with the association; In any event I am perfectly satisfied that after the publicity this association has now received its work will be of little avail in the future. '
Let me say in conclusion that, if I judge rightly, the country does demand a vigorous policy designed to prevent indiscriminate immigration but which will bring into the country those who can make a success under the conditions that prevail to-day. Personally, I have the greatest faith in this country. I see no reason why we should at this time be discouraged or why we should lose faith. I think there is great hope for the future; and I believe that if we bend our energies to the consideration of these problems we can accomplish something of real service to Canada. We are fortunately situated. We are not embroiled in the many difficulties and entanglements which are so typical of European and other countries to-day. We have a great opportunity in this country, and we simply need to apply ourselves to the task. I am confident, as a Canadian, having in mind the lofty type of patriotism, characterizing our citizenship and believing that our people have courage and devotion to their country, that we can achieve success even though some hon. gentlemen seem to think that that is out of the question nowadays.


Mr. LUCAS:: I doubt whether much more can be said in this debate, as the field has been pretty well covered. But there are a few observations I want to make, as some hon. members have misconstrued some of the ideas which we in this comer have tried to place before the committee. I think I can safely say that there is not a member in
1398	COMMONS
Supply-I mmigration
this group who has not the greatest faith in ttiis Canacla of ours; and in painting the conditions as they exist, hon. gentlemen on this side have had no intention of advertising this country other than as a place of splendid opportunity, but which opportunity iS handicapped by the artificial "Conditions Which surround us; and I claim, furthermore, that there is H6 one' who can possibly have a greater love for this country than the man whose' feet are firmly implanted in the soil.
With regard to our population, I think that anyone who travels over this vast country must be conviriced that it is necessary that we should have more people. Personally I am sincerely anxious to see more people come into the country in order that we may develop the immense resources which we possess. But what do we find when we look back over our history during the past forty years or more? We find that as a result df the pursuit of a certain policy, our population instead of increasing has actually subsided. During the past generation at least we have been boasting" about our grbat natural resources in Canada,'and as yet We have only three persons to the square mile as compared With thirty in the United States and 903 in England 'and Wales. And we find that the 'streaffl of population1 is not increasing but actually subsiding. '':rv	"	'


Arthur Meighen: Is my hon. friend not aware that the last census returns showed the largest percentage of increase in Canada, over the 'ten years before, of any country, ih the world?
Mr. .LUCAS: -That may be, quite true,, but the fact remains nevertheless that in the last ten years, in spite of the immigration that has; come, into, the country, we have lost more people than have come in. , , ...	,


Arthur Meighen: I; am not referring to emigration, but to the actual increase in population. The percentage of increase in Canada is the largest of any English-speaking country in the world, indeed, I think, of any country, as . shown by the official census returns. I know that it has been pretty- bad since 1921, but the condition I speak of. prevailed for the ten years before.


William Thomas Lucas: I do not wish to' take issue with the right hon. gentleman on fhe question, but. I believe that the facts as we have them from our own Bureau of, Statistics, will bear out the sfatphmnts J have made. I was about to remark that the facts, suggest two or three,; conclusions. We have, either misrepresented our natural resources and grossly exaggerated then), or we have proved that we do npt ,kn,(j)W how to, handle

a great estate. We know as a fact that we have not exaggerated our resources; and we know also, that we have as industrious a class of people in Canada, and as good a class of farmers, as can be found anywhere in the world. And speaking of our farmers' achievements, we know what they have been able to do in competition with outsiders at any of the great expositions that have taken place, especially on the American continent. I speak from memory, but I think I am safe An saying that at the great international fat stock show at Chicago last year Canada carried off 19 out of the 25 prizes. So that the trouble rests not with our farmers or with the country itself; there must be something wrong with the policy which we have had since confederation. We have ' heard a great deal, and I know that much has been said from this corner, in regard to the conditions in this country; and hon. members have stood up in this House and told US'practically that we did' not kpqw what we were talking about. Those hon. members have offered us sympathy. Well, Sir, I want to tell hon. gentlemen that the fttrmers of western Canada are not comipg here looking for , any sympathy ; they are asking for a square deal, for a chance to make good, for an equal opportunity with others: My hon. friend (Mr. Marler) the other night in an excellent speech told us that what we wanted was courage. I would ask hoh. gentlemen of this House to consider for a moment the character of the men and women who have carried civilization into those western plains, who have endured the hardships and the toils of a pioneer life, who have combatted through hail, frost and insect pests' and other natural afflictions, and; then say whether these people are lacking in courage.
We are told that one of the solutions to remedy our adverse conditions is to reduce our standard of living and do as our forefathers did in the old pioneering days. It is even suggested that the peasant type of settler should he brought in from Europe. Mr. Chairman,'since when have the British Aock become mih weaklings. Are we going to admit that the ebinbination of the "two greatest races that the world has ever known is about to fall down in the development of this country and is to be supplanted by the peasant type of iMmigrant from Europe? I think it is time that we as'Canadians woke up and faced this matter squarely. " ' '
We hear a great deal about the necessity of the farniers reditcihg their standard of living and undergoing the privations of pioneer dayS: - Perhaps we Have all gone a little too far' in the high standard of living.. But "why should we expect' the' farmers to be the only

________________Supply-1 mmigralio'n
class to reduce their standard? Would it be unfair to say to our manufacturers, for instance, that perhaps they could do something along this line as well and so be able to produce goods at a price which we could afford to pay?
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) last week in a very eloquent address told, us about an ingenious young Irish immigrant who by following out a course of semistarvation rose to a veiy high position in our public life. Well, while he was talking I wondered to what heights that immigrant might have risen had he remained at home and applied the same ingenuity and ability. He might not only have become member of parliament, but he plight even be the ruling power in the Emerald Isle to-day. I think some hon. gentlemen, were led to believe that such a successful career as depicted by the hon .member for Springfield was only possible in Canada. Let.ipe remind the committee that in Great Britain , notwithstanding her great burden of debt and other troubles, there are still possibilities for the individual who possesses ability and . application. In this connection we cannot forget the wonderful career of that little boy in a Welsh village who rose by sheer ability until to-day he is regarded as one of the greatest, statesman the world has ever known. It is not the material resources of a country that make for great statesmen. Recently I read an article by; Mr. Otto H. Kahn concerning British-American relations, in the course of which he said:
It is not the possession of raw materials and other latent resources, it is not the bounty of nature, it is the qualities and efforts of its people that make a nation great.
The immigration estimates now before us show a large increase for the purpose of bringing in new settlers. The question naturally arises, what have we got to offer our settlers today. Comparing present conditions with those of twenty years ago, our settlers were then able to take up free land. If a man took up a quarter section and was not able to make his farming operations pay his overhead was not piling up. At that time we had a very energetic railway policy, and the workmen engaged on railway construction provided ready purchasers for anything the settler produced and if in the fall season he needed some ready cash he could go out with his team and work on the railway grade and thus secure enough ready money to carry him over the winter. We hear a great deal to-day about the men who put up with hardships in those days, and that they were not even able to secure postage stamps. That may be true, but while they were waiting for postage
stamps their overhead expenses were not accumulating to any alarming extent. Now immigrants are to be placed on land of an average value of $18 to $20 an acre, and unless he has the requisite amount of capital to purchase his farm outright he must be successful from the very beginning, otherwise interest charges, taxes and the high cost of living .are going to force him out of business.
I am not going to relate in detail the conditions now prevailing in the. West; those have been already presented at sufficient length. But I would just like to say that conditions are undoubtedly bad, and our people are getting so discouraged that unless this government can give us some policy which will instil fresh hope into our people, I fear for the results. I do not suggest that we should not allow anyone to enter Canada until we get conditions perfect, btit I do say that if the government could give us Some ray of hope for these people so that we can tell them: The government is honestly endeavouring by bringing in a new 'policy-because it has been amply' demonstrated that our present policy is not producing the results expected-a policy that we hope will improve your condition, such a message would mean a great deal to these people and they would take fresh courage, because I believe there is: not a single farmer who would not dig in and work harder to pull through if we could give him some ray of hope that he would succeed.
After the arguments that have been advanced in this, House the government and the minister (Mr. Stewart) should be fully seized of the fact that we are not in favour of the colonization scheme which he has placed before the committee. I hope the government will fully realize the responsibility they will be assuming in letting it appear to the country that this Canada Colonization Association scheme is being backed by the Dominion government. It may be safely assumed that the high-powered salesmen who will be engaged to drum , up settlers, having in view only their commission of $320 if they land a settler ' on a half-section, will pajmt.sptne very,rosy pictures to prospective immigrants, and when these immigrants find, conditions have been misrepresented naturally they wifi look to the government to assume responsibility for the statements which they were led to believe were true.
I do not believe in criticizing any sehejnp without endeavouring to offer some suggestions along constructive lines, I believe that the first essential in keeping settlers on the land is to have the right kind of land settlement policy. The next is the reconstruction

Supply-Immigration
of rural life around various forms of co-operative enterprise. The old policy of bringing settlers into the country and leaving them to shift for themselves will not do. They must be taught the best methods to ensure success. And, furthermore, hand in hand with, or rather in advance of an aggressive policy to obtain this type of settler, there must be action by the federal government to ensure that those already on the land and those about to come may have adequate markets and marketing facilities, to the end that they may obtain some reasonable profit for their labour and investment.
I have made a note here of four suggestions that I think might well receive the serious consideration of the government. In the first place, there is the question of a reduction of the tariff. The people are getting discouraged because they have always felt that the Liberal government stood for a low tariff. The very fact that the people turned out the old government indicated their dissatisfaction with the then prevailing conditions, and they are looking for a change.
Another suggestion would be a reduction in our transportation costs and equalization of our freight rates so that we may be able to get our goods out more cheaply. I would submit also the desirability of considering a long term credit scheme for agricultural loans. I do not offer this suggestion with the idea that the farmers should be given more credit; possibly one of the things we have been up against in the past is the fact that we have had too much credit. But a three months' loan to the farmer is of no use. The United States is realizing the necessity of taking some action along this line. If the government could do something to assist in the providing of capital with which we could replace the present loans that are piling up at a high rate of interest, the effect of which in the end will only be to drive us out of the country; if we could have these extended over a long term so that we might have some hope of ultimately getting out of debt, . I am sure it would mean a great deal.
Another suggestion is that there be some encouragement of co-operative enterprises. I do not refer now merely to the little cooperative store; we must get some method of pooling our grain and our live stock. After all, this is not purely a farmers' question; it is a national question, and if the government could offer encouragement along this line the result would be very beneficial indeed. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) expressed the view the other day that his part of the country at least was
FMr. Lucas.]
over-institutionalized. I largely agree with that view, not as respects schools, but as respects almost every other line. Speaking about our grain, any hon. members who have travelled through the West will bear me out when I say that in every little town along the railway-and they come every seven os eight miles-one is impressed with the large number of elevators that have been built I think I am safe in saying that in practically every little town there are from three to five elevators. That means that, in the first place, there is the capital outlay; then there is the local buyer, who is actively engaged only about three months in the year but who receives an annual salary; then there are inspectors going up and down the country, and there are the head offices with their
5 p.m. general managers and staffs of clerks. That load is getting too heavy for the farmers to carry. The same conditions exist in our banking system; in every little town there are two or more banks; there is hardly a town in the West which has only one. Going from here to Toronto via the lake shore route one cannot help being impressed by the fact that three lines of railways paraL each other, requiring three stations and three sets of employees in every little town. That is what our competitive system has done for us, and it is something I think the government should take into its serious consideration.
I hope that the government will bring in some policy that we may be able to take back to our people with the view of giving them a little hope and inspiring them with fresh courage to go on for the future. I believe we have in Canada, not one of the finest countries, but the finest country in the world. It is a matter of regret for me to see hon. members, as has sometimes been the case in this House, seek to obtain party advantage rather than face squarely the issue before the country. The time of the House was taken up noticeably last year in an effort to place the responsibility for our railway situation upon one party or the other; in fact, we fought the election campaign of December 6, 1921, all over again. I do not think that is what we are here for. If we could get away from that sort of thing; if we could forget who is responsible for what has happened in the past and get down to a solution of the problems actually before us, it would be a good thing for the country. The people are demanding that we give them a lead in the matter of bringing them out of the very serious conditions now prevailing. I hope therefore, that hon. members in every quarter

Supply-Immigration
of the House will lend their ability to the solution of the important problem we are now considering and do their best to make this Canada of ours a place we would love to live in.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: I wish to interject only a word or two into the discussion on this important subject, I would begin by calling the attention of the committee to at least one section of the good old province of Ontario where the farmer still has confidence in the resources of our great country. New Ontario offers to-day the greatest field in the world for colonization. The constituency that I have the honour to represent has nearly doubled its population in the last two decades. Throughout that broad section of the northland the farmer is happy and prosperous and new land is continually being taken up by a hardy type of settlers who have gone into that country to remain. Our colonization problem has more to do with the getting of a suitable class of immigrants.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are these people we would call immigrants

 people from outside of Canada?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Not for the most part. Most of them come from elsewhere in Canada. The most prosperous and the happiest in that north country came from the province of Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You would not class them as immigrants, then?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They are French; they do not emigrate.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Let me illustrate what occurred in my own constituency. Twenty-five or thirty years ago Father Paradis went to Michigan and induced fifty or sixty families to come into the district which is in the vicinity of Verner. The second generation of these hardy pioneers comprise to-day the most prosperous farmers in Ontario. I invite hon. members, either of the Progressive party or from among those who represent the cities, to look through the train windows as they pass through Nipissing and see what has been accomplished by settlers who were reclaimed from the United States. The same conditions obtain along the three national railways. These hardy settlers followed the lumbering concerns into the wooded lands of the north. They cleared those lands and developed their farms under the most difficult conditions; but, endowed as they were with courage and possessing large families, they have succeeded in transforming that lumbering country into a prosperous and happy farming community.
This process of colonization is still going on, but let it not be thought for one moment that the difficulties which the settler has to face in northern Ontario are any less than those which the settler in the West has to overcome. The farmer who has gone into New Ontario has had many obstacles to surmount, and one of his greatest handicaps has been the forest fires from which the western farmer does not suffer. All through that northern section the farmers have established comfortable homes, with large outbuildings, and the value of their lands is constantly growing. In my own constituency the population in 1901 was 24,931; in 1911, it was 43,679; and in 1921, it ha'd risen to 58,525. This constituency is largely rural, and thirty years ago it was almost a wilderness. At the present time the lands contiguous to the three railways which traverse new Ontario are gradually being taken up by settlers of the same class. There has also been a continuous influx of the same type of farmers across the border into the district, of Abitibi, in the province of Quebec, and to-day that section of Quebec is peopled by from fifteen to eighteen thousand happy and prosperous farmers. Again I say that if we are going to settle our immigration problem in a satisfactory manner, the class of settlers brought to the land is a paramount consideration'; to my mind it forms the crux of the whole situation. The French Canadians in northern Ontario have had to face other difficulties besides those attendant upon the development of the land. The province of Ontario does not give the French Canadian minority the same privileges or the same treatment that the English minority enjoys in the province of Quebec. Nevertheless, those men have clung tenaciously to the lands they have developed, and to-day they still have confidence in the good will of the English speaking majority of Ontario and look forward to an early settlement of this disability which presses upon them so heavily.
There has been no exodus from the farms in northern Ontario. We have there a class of farmers who, during the days of prosperity, laid aside a sufficient amount to carry them through the period of depression. The prosperous farmer in the north listened to the counsels of those more familiar with our economical conditions and to-day are passing through the prevailing hard times without complaint.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does my
hon. friend mean that the class to whom he refers took the advice of financial organizations and others to provide for the future?
Supply-Immigration


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: They were largely advised by an independent press, who, knowing their conditions, urged them to prepare for the reaction which must ultimately follow the period of prosperity.
In connection with disabilities from which the farmers in that district may suffer there is one matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization. At the outlet of lake Timiskaming, during the past winter, lumbering operations have been carried on on a very large scale. At a point on the Ottawa river on the Quebec side, where the stream is quite narrow, six hundred men have taken out
200,000	logs. On the Ontario side, since the 4th of October, one thousand men have taken out 450,000 logs. The results have been that on both sides of the river there are two great areas covered with from four to six feet of slash. On the Quebec side, is located Kippawa Pulp and Paper Company's plant which cost fifteen millions to build and which would be jeopardized were a fire to take place in these immense quantities of slash. I wish to go on record as stating these facts because there is at the present moment a great deal of anxiety among the people of that section of Ontario on account of the conditions I have described.
In conclusion I wish to say that there is one feature about the agricultural conditions in New Ontario which has contributed a great deal to the prosperity of that country; it is the fact that they have a market practically at their own doors. The mining industry has undoubtedly helped very largely towards the successful development of that north country. But even so the government of Ontario have unlimited confidence in the possibilities of the northern district and are now extending the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to within 130 miles of James Bay. It is safe to say that as soon as this railway is in operation we will see a continuous inflow of immigration into that northern country. There never was a more opportune time for the farmer who is prepared to accept the hardships that necessarily accompany the development of northern lands to go in and settle in that country. Mother nature has been generous but she does not easily give up her treasures. Still we invite that class of settlers to go into the north where the prospects of creating a home under the most favourable conditions now exist and advantages of the most promising character may be reaped.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: also provided with a fairly good home market, with a city of 300,000 at his door, which supplies him with a very good market for dairy and other small farm products. But even if we take into consideration these facts, are the farmers of Manitoba in such a prosperous con. dition as one might infer from the speech to which I refer? I have in my hand a copy of the Manitoba Free Press of February 6, 1922. The Free Press is a western paper, imbued with the western spirit, a paper that is always boosting for the West, a paper that believes to-day in a vigorous and energetic immigration policy. Yet, in that issue some very illuminating figures are quoted. After referring to the budget of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) for the fiscal year 1921-22, it observes that Manitoba's share of the taxation contained in that budget, on a basis of her population, is $28,800,000. To that is added interest on the provincial debt, $8,140,000, taxation in the city of Winnipeg, $9,500,000, and also taxation of the municipalities. within the province, $10,750,000, making a total of $57,190,000. It roes on to quote some figures in regard to the cereal crops. I will not weary the committee by quoting them all; but the total value of the cereal crop of Manitoba for that year is shown to be $40,500,000. The paper subtracts this from the total amount of the provincial taxation and interest, and this leaves a deficit of $16,690,000. I do not propose to be an alarmist; but these figures are rather startling when we see that the whole cereal crop of Manitoba in the year 1921 came nearly $17,000,000 short of paying her taxation and interest. It seems to me that the question that we should be considering to-day in all its seriousness is not immigration, but emigration.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Yorkton Enterprise, a paper published in my constituency, and in an editorial in a recent issue, it states':
Although thousands of people have left Canada for the United States during the past *winter, from the self-complacency and indifference exhibited by our legislators at Ottawa-once again ensconced in their magnificent quarters for the transaction of the nation's business-one would imagine that all was well with the country.
Let me say that the handwriting is on the wall for this parliament. This is what the people of western Canada and, I believe, of eastern Canada as well, are thinking of to-day, namely, the problem of emigration, and not that of immigration. From Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on the east to British Columbia on the west, people are leaving this country in thousands. In a recent newspaper article, I saw the state-(Mr. Campbell.]
ment that fifty families per week were leaving Nova Scotia. I was reading the Charlottetown Guardian a few days ago, and it stated that in twenty years that island had lost all its natural increase and 1,000 of its population per annum in addition. We have not heard very much from Ontario or Quebec as to these conditions; but I noticed that the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers) in his speech a few days ago-this speech was in French and I have just recently read it in English-refers to the very serious emigration from Quebec. There are some illuminating figures in that speech which I would commend to the consideration of some hon. gentlemen in this House.	.
I have a clipping from this morning's paper, a despatch from Windsor, Ontario, dated March 21, which states:
Lured by high wages, hundreds of young Canadians are emigrating to the United States. According to the railway and ferry companies, no fewer than eighty families a day'are entering the States at Detroit.
On one train arriving here this afternoon from the East there were forty-five young men who said they were on their way to Michigan industrial centers. A majority of the men are between 25 and 40 years of age. Most of them came from Toronto, Hamilton and other cities of eastern Ontario. Lack of work and prospect of high wages, they explained, induced them to leave the Dominion. More than half of the 45 are mechanics connected in some way with the building trades.
We come to the prairie provinces again, and tens of thousands of people have left those provinces for the United States. If I might be pardoned for making a brief reference here to another article in the Free Press, it is a report of a meeting of the United Farmers of Manitoba at Elm Creek on November 14. I notice the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) was present at this meeting. The article states:
The president read a letter in which the Hon. D. L. McLeod, provincial secretary, suggested co-operative help from the local for distressed and needy fanners, it being understood that in some districts this year, there are many in need of aid. This subject was freely discussed, and a motion carried that local secretary notify the central organization to the effect that Elm Creek is anxious to help.
When the situation in parts of Manitoba is of sufficient seriousness for the provincial secretary to circularise the locals of the United Farmers of Manitoba, solicting aid on behalf of indigent farmers, surely this is something that should not be ignored and evaded by this House. It seems to me that in considering this situation we are taking a position not much better than that of a certain Emperor of Rome who fiddled while his city was burning. We are playing in this regard a policy of equivocation. I do not want to be understood as opposing a policy

Supply-Immigration

of immigration; I do not understand that any hon. gentleman in this section of the House opposes immigration; but what we do stress is the inadvisability of bringing people to Canada under false pretences. I remember some years ago reading in an English paper an article which told a story of a young English immigrant who had been lured to this country by the tale of high wages on the farm and of how easy it was to start farming. He came to Canada and wandered over the prairies and this eastern country looking for work which he was unable to obtain. Finally he worked his passage back to the Old Country, and almost his first act was to shy a brick through the window of a Canadian immigration office in the city of London. Taken before a magistrate, he told his story and he was allowed to go free, I think rightly. In the western prairies to-day there are thousands of people who are harbouring a sense of injustice, who will feel as long as they live that an injury has been done to them; that they were brought to this country under false pretences. This is a spirit that is poisoning their lives and something that they will pass on to their children. Some of them left much more comfortable homes in the Old Country than they will ever hope to obtain here. Some of them threw up good positions, the like of which they cannot obtain here. We should leave the door open for any good sound, healthy immigrant of a good type who wants to come to this country. Let us invite them here; let them come; but do not carry on a campaign in England, Europe, the United States or anywhere else, because then a distinct responsibility rests upon the government for bringing those people in, very often under false pretences. If we refuse to spend money in this way and let things take their natural course, a considerable number of immigrants will come to Canada and become absorbed without any particular difficulty.
Many hon. gentlemen have stressed the fact that in the period from 1900 to 1913, in which we enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, we were able to absorb a very large immigrant population, and they see no reason why that should not be repeated at the present time. Conditions obtaining at that time do not obtain to-day. We were constructing a third transcontinental railway which opened up millions of acres of good arable free land. The immigrant coming to the country was able to secure, without any particular measure of difficulty, a very good farm adjacent to the railway. He was able to establish his family there in a little cabin in which they lived in fair comfort; then he went out to
work on the railway or in one of the many building gangs that were operating in the country and was able to come back in the fall with a very substantial bank account. In that way he was able to purchase some horses and the necessary machinery and in a short time he became fairly well established on the farm. During that period it is true he was keeping the farm; the farm was not keeping him. But to-day conditions are reversed. The immigrant coming to this country must purchase his land and he has not the privilege of going out and securing work at good wages as in those days. So far, thank Providence, we have had no breadlines in the country; but if a policy of immigration on a vigorous scale were prosecuted we might very easily have those conditions. It is pointed out regularly that by additions to our population we could reduce our debt. That, however, does not always hold good. I can indicate some concrete instances in the West where additions to population by the opening up of new districts have resulted in actually increasing the taxation per head. When a new district is opened up the first few settlers are able to find their way in by wagon trail and there is not much expense. In a little while some more people come in; the roads are fenced off and a highway must be built through a country that is partly timber and partly swamp. This is a very expensive undertaking. The provincial governments are appealed to and a large amount of money is expended on the work. Then a municipality is organized and large sums are borrowed. Later on, come schools, with a borrowing of more money, and still later a branch line, accompanied by the opening of new towns and the building of new elevators, involving further borrowing with increased indebtedness.
The member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who, I am sorry, is not in his seat, has a suggestion to make by way of solving the troubles of the West. He advocated the bringing in of settlers and the building up of industries in the West that would absorb our agricultural products and build up home markets. Is the hon. gentleman aware that in the province of Saskatchewan alone this year we raised six times the amount of wheat that can be consumed by the whole population of Canada, and in the three prairie provinces ten times as much wheat as all the Canadian people would require? In these three provinces the total wheat produced was about
400,000,000 bushels, which would feed 80,000,000 people. Now, supposing that we got 80,000,000 people into the country and that we

Supply-Immigration _____1_____________
started manufacturing industries on a large scale, I would ask my hon. friend where we would sell all those manufactured goods. As to the urgent needs of the country there can be no question. Our public debt is over four and a half billions of dollars, for the federal debt is only a part of the public debt.
One phase of the situation that appears serious to me is the fact that so much of our debt is owed in other countries. Of the Canadian Pacific Railway common stock alone only twenty per cent is held in Canada, and so far as my information goes practically none of their bonds, debentures or preferred stock. It simply means that we are taxing ourselves very heavily, to pay dividends to this corporation, while practically all that money goes out oi the country. It is therefore patent that if we are ever going to get the country on a safe and solid foundation, its basic industry, agriculture, must be placed on a more prosperous footing than at present obtains. "There can be no prosperity", said Sir Wilfrid Laurier, "that does not have its genesis in the soil of our country." The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) suggested the extension of the housing scheme to the farms, and the erection of $2,500 cottages for the use of farm labourers. One of the real difficulties of the farmer in the West, and the hon. gentleman pointed it out himself, is the fact that the farm is already unable to pay its way. I quite agree that the farm labourer is as much entitled to live in a $2,500 cottage as is the worker of the city. But, sir, the farming industry cannot afford to make this possible at the present time. If the government wish to undertake a real colonization policy I am not opposing it; but it will have to be on the basis of financial assistance to the settler. The farmer who comes in and buys land has to struggle against short payments and a high rate of interest, and thousands of these men are being foreclosed on to-day, or, seeing that it is impossible to meet their payments, are moving to the United States or to our cities. It appears to me that if some means were provided by which these men could liquidate the debts with which they are faced to-day, and could have their total indebtedness spread over a period of years at a low rate of interest, thousands of the settlers now leaving Canada could be saved to the country, while on the other hand a great many others could be induced to come in. We hear a great deal about the trek of the young men from the farms to the cities. I think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) referred to this as the lure of the arc lights. I know

hundreds of young men of that class, and in the great majority of cases they would be only too willing to remain on the farm could they but see any opportunity of owning a farm of their own. But anyone desiring to obtain a farm must pay down a considerable amount of money; and in addition he is faced with high taxation, a short term and a high rate of interest. So that it seems an utter impossibility for him to establish himself. I know that thousands of young men would come back to the farm to-day were they offered an opportunity to purchase farms at reasonably' low rates in districts already settled, and provided their payments were spread over a long term of years at a low rate of interest.
The extension of the Soldier Settlement Board system was advocated by my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) and I heartily agree with him. I think that is the only policy which is possible to-day. It is not a new policy; it has been successfully carried out in New Zealand, and it is the policy that has made Denmark what she is to-day, one of the most prosperous agricultural countries in the world. This policy was tried out with unqualified success in the province of Prince Edward Island. Between the years 1866 and 1875 the province bought out most of the land in the island and re-sold it to the tenant farmers, giving them a long period of years in which to pay and fixing the interest at a low rate, and the history of that policy shows that it re-established the whole agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am not an alarmist, neither am I a pessimist. I have an abiding faith and abounding confidence in the future of western Canada. We have the richest of soil, and in the north we have an abundance of fuel and timber and as well a bountiful rainfall. Nature, indeed, has been most lavish in her gifts. So that with some economic readjustment, with the fiscal changes that must come about if we are to get upon a proper basis of prosperity, and with a sane colonization policy such as has been advocated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I have no fear for the future. But, Mr. Chairman, we must shun this false optimism as we would avoid the plague. It was a spirit of this kind that left not only over western Canada, but some years ago also over eastern Canada a path of ruin and destruction in its wake such as we find in the track of a cyclone. Real estate oil and mining booms brought ruin in their train. The people have had enough of them. Ill-founded optimism is

Supply-Immigration
a wily, elusive will-o'-the-wisp that leads not to the high road of prosperity but beckons us further and deeper into the bog and the morass. Let us rather face the future with courage, tempered with caution, taking due note of the handwriting on the wall, paying due heed to conditions around about us, and I have no doubt we shall see a way through.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, this has been to me the most interesting discussion which I have heard since I became a member of this House. I think no speaker has taken part without adding at least something new. I suppose some members would think that nothing new can be added at this late stage of the debate, but I think I have something which is at least a little bit original.
It is always interesting to me to hear hon. members, particularly ministers and lawyers, discuss the problems of the farm and attempt to explain why people leave the country for the city. It is especially interesting if you know the study such gentlemen have devoted to the problem has been, as the last speaker (Mr. Campbell) said, from an arm-chair. I do not know that I am very well qualified to discuss the question of why people leave the farm, as I have only been on the farm for about ten years.
It is impossible to refer to all the statements made during the course of this debate with which one may have disagreed, but one statement which struck me as needing some discussion was that made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). It is given at page 1153 of Hansard, where he says: *	'
Th* 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.
Now, Mr. Chainhan, with the first sentence I do not disagree, but the second I cannot allow to go unchallenged, namely, "Were it not so"'-this debt-"there would be nothing disheartening in the situation." I think there is something very-disheartening in the situation, and I shall endeavour to prove it. I do not wish the committee to take my word for it, and I shall quote first the opinion of the hon. minister himself (Mr. Stewart). Speaking at .Ottawa, rqpently, he said
The market at, home is overstocked with produce, which cannot be sold profitably because of the high overhead of those doing business. This is the result of deflation in some iines, and not iri other's. Parti -cujarly affected by these conditions is the farmer.
As I want'to: be as brief as possible I shall leave the quotation right1'there, and quote vety shortly from the annual report of the
Bank of Commerce, in which Sir John Aird, the general manager, states:
It is said that if we are to secure outside assistance it must be in the form of selected immigration of men who will go on the land and help to bring our large areas of unsettled, fertile lands under cultivation, thereby providing traffic for our railways and a home market for our manufactures. But of what avail will it be to place these newcomers on the land if those already settled there are unable to make farming pay?
If hon. gentlemen do not care to listen to farmer members, they might at least listen to the opinion of Sir John Aird and try to visualize the conditions that would cause him to make that statement. To bear out the correctness of his view, I propose to show the chances that an immigrant going on the land has to-day compared with the chances which we had ten years ago. I have here a statement containing the prices of four implements which any farmer must own if he is going to make a living on the land. The prices are for 1912 and 1922 respectively, and I want to tell hon. members how many bushels of wheat it took to buy these implements in 1912 as compared with 1922. First of all, comes a gang plow-


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the item under consideration is for salaries, and I am afraid he is getting dangerously near the point of his remarks becoming irrelevant to this particular vote. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member in the midst of his address, but there is the danger to which I have referred.


George Gibson Coote: I am quite willing to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am not giving a ruling. I am mailing the suggestion that there may be some danger of irrelevancy.


George Gibson Coote: Well, Mr. Chairman, I notice that this item asks for an increase of $25,000 for outside salaries. I do not think there is any sense of our increasing this vote unless the committee is prepared to change the policy under which the country is retrogressing at the present time, and for that reason I think that anything which bears on the chances of success of an immigrant is relevant to the discussion. But I am quite willing to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if you will so rule,


George Newcombe Gordon: I am not making any sutU ruling. I am merely suggesting that it is' quite possible for the hon. member to go too far1 in the illustration he is about to give
Supply-Immigration

in support of the position he takes in regard to the policy of the department. But if he wishes to make his illustration and draw an inference from it there can be no objection.


George Gibson Coote: The statement I have prepared is made up from prices of implements which I obtained last October from the manager of a wholesale implement warehouse in Calgary. The prices of grain which 1 have used in this calculation I secured from the United Grain Growers of Calgary. They are the prices which prevailed at Cayley where I happened to sell my own wheat. These are the average October prices. In 1912 a gang plow could have been purchased for 142 bushels of wheat; in 1922 it would take 210 bushels. A single disc drill. 20-run, could have been purchased in 1912 for 220 bushels; in 1922 it would take 301 bushels. An 8-foot binder could have been purchased in 1912 for 264 bushels; in 1922 it would take 386 bushels. A Moline wagon and triple box could have been purchased in 1912 for 158 bushels; in 1922 it would have cost 256 bushels. Taking the total number of oushels to purchase these implements, we find in 1912 it would require 784 bushels, whereas in 1922 the amount would be increased to 1,153 bushels.
1 have alsj worked out in pounds of prime butcher steers the purchase price of these same four implements. I shall only give the totals because I do not want to unnecessarily take up the time of the committee. In 1913 -I could not get the figures for 1912 in this case-taking the average November price on the stock yards in Calgary, 8,560 pounds would be required as against 19,831 pounds in 1922. If the price of cows were used, the comparison would be much more startling, as choice cows were quoted: November, 1913, at $5.35 per hundred pounds; in November, 1922, at from $2.25 to $2.50 per hundred pounds. I have another statement showing the number of bushels of rye it would have taken to purchase a threshing outfit in 1914 and in 1922. In this statement the price used for rye is the average price from 1910 to 1914. To purchase a separator with 40-inch cylinder, it took in 1914, 2,775 bushels of rye, and in 1922, 4,445 bushels. To purchase a 40-horsepower tractor in 1914 it took 7,017, bushels and in 1922, 9,181 bushels. To this 1922 price, sales tax of 2| per cent would have to be added; it is not included in this calculation.
A great many farmers, particularly in western Canada, make most of their purchases from mail-order house catalogues. I have made up a list of articles which the immigrant coming to this country might order from [Mr. Coote.3
Eaton's or one of these houses. There is quite a list of articles, from implements to clothes and shoes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, before the committee took recess I was warned by you that I was liable to get out of order by reading certain statements. I do not wish, of course, to have any disagreement with the Chair, and I will try to limit these statements as much as possible. I think, possibly,. I did not explain sufficiently why I wish to present these statements. If I might refer again to the statement, which I think was made by the minister in Ottawa some time ago, in reference to the difficulty in which the farmer finds himself, I want to show why it is so difficult for the farmer to exist, and to argue from that that the immigrant coming to this country would have a hard job to exist. The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is this: The farmer is in a class by himself to this extent; he can only purchase what he needs for his living by the products which he raises on his farm, and I was endeavouring, through the statements I was presenting to show that the produce of the farmer had lost in purchasing power compared with ten years ago. One reason why I do that is because the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said here a few days ago that:
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.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer hon. members to a statement made in 1911 by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition who was then the member for Portage la Prairie. As reported at page 1931 of Hansard for that year he said:
I do not say that a reduction will, to any very enormous extent, affect the price-
That is the price of agricultural implements.
-I believe it will materially, and I think it will render some relief to, particularly, the farmers of the West, many of whom, notwithstanding any statements that have been made here, are struggling between success and failure every hour.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if many of the farmers of the West were struggling between success and failure some ten years ago I want to try and give this House an idea of the position those farmers must be in to-day. I think

Supply-/ mmigration
I will be in a position to show that the man who was struggling ten years ago is in such a position that he will almost have to cease to struggle. I will not read the list which I referred to before recess, except to say that this list covers quite a lot of articles that are required by every immigrant and by every farmer. In making this list I have taken from the catalogue to which I referred a similar article in almost every case or if not similar, one as nearly similar as it was possible to find, and I will give you very briefly the purchasing power of a farmer's produce in buying this list of goods in 1912 as compared with 1922. To purchase this list in 1912 would have taken 795 bushels of wheat; today it would take 1,132 bushels. If he purchased this list with the proceeds of his barley it would have taken 1,386 bushels in 1912 and in 1922 it would have taken 2,075 bushels. If he purchased this list with oats it would have required 1,816 bushels in 1912, and to-day 2,490 bushels. If he purchased it with the proceeds of his steers it would have taken 8,430 pounds in 1912 and in 1922 it would have taken 20,511 pounds. If he purchased it with the proceeds of his fat heifers it would have taken 9,580 pounds in 1912 whereas to-day it would take 29,058 pounds. There is one bright spot in the farmer's market to-day and that is the price of hogs compared with ten years ago. Hogs are now about $2 per hundred pounds higher than they were when I made this list out. Nevertheless it would have taken but 7,520 . pounds of hogs in 1912 to purchase this list of goods whereas in 1922 the amount required would be 9,686 pounds.
I could give some more statements along that line but I do not want to occupy the time of the committee unduly; I simply want to impress upon hon. members the position that the agricultural immigrant is going to be in when he. comes here as Compared with the position which we homesteaders were in ten years ago. If the position is as I have tried to describe it, through the medium of these statements it seems to me that it is economic folly to spend money to bring farmers here under present conditions. Surely no intelligent class of people can be induced to invest their money in agriculture until such times as there is a possibility of securing at least some small return on the investment made. Nevertheless I do not wish to give the committee the impression that the situation is hopeless. We can still produce as much as we ever did and we are willing to do it if we can in turn get our living out of farming. Even if we were producing without a profit, but simply not making a loss, I would be
willing, for my part to go on producing. I do not think it is wise at this time to spend a, lot of money trying to bring immigrants into this country, particularly if it is imperative that they shall be agriculturists. We already have settlers from every country from which we can hope to secure these immigrants; and if you make the people who are now here satisfied, and provide for them better conditions than in the countries from which they came, they will send word back to their friends and we will have a satisfactory flow of emigration from other lands into this country. But we cannot get immigration unless we make conditions better.
The next question which would naturally arise is, how is this to be done? How is the cost of living going to be brought down to where the agriculturist of this country can purchase his living with the produce of his labour? Let me give one example to show how we are suffering from high prices as compared with the price of our own produce. I sold my wheat this year for less than a cent-and-a-half a pound. A few months later I had occasion to buy some rolled wheat and was charged eighteen cents a pound for it. That is a serious condition of affairs surely, when the price for rolled wheat is twelve times higher than the price of the whole wheat itself. Surely it is time for the manufacturers of this country to take some notice of that fact. If I might again quote from Sir John Aird's speech at the annual meeting of the Bank of Commerce:
The cost of our manufactures cannot indefinitely continue to be higher than the farmer and the majority of the consumers in the home market can afford to pay. Not even a revival in foreign trade, unlikely as this appears to be on a large scale in the near future can avail to benefit us if the cost of what we have to sell is higher than in other countries as well or better situated with regard to foreign markets than we are.
He goes on to say that both capital and labour must co-operate in seeing that costs are reduced. It seems to me there is no body of people in Canada who could bring about a reduction in the cost of living so soon as the bankers themselves if they would do it. If they would mete out to the manufacturers of this country the same treatment they mete out to the farmers, we would soon have a reduction in the price of manufactured goods. The banks say to the farmer when he has his wheat produced: You had better sell your wheat and pay off your loan. If the banks would say that to the manufacturer, tell him to sell off his stock of manufactured goods for whatever the market would stand, we would be able to get the goods at a price we could afford to pay. I do not suppose the
Supply-Immigration

banks will do this because in this country the banks are controlled by the same class of people that control our manufacturing establishments. I am rather afraid that the same set of men are controlling this government, and if that is the case, we shall not get much relief. Possibly I am mistaken: I hope I am. I hope that the government before this session closes will by the legislation it brings down, and particularly the budget, show that it is going to secure for the people of this country a lower cost of living. You will find in the 1919 platform of the Liberal party that they believed a lower cost of living can be secured in this way, because that platform contains this plank:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: first, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
I would suggest to the minister that he might very well postpone the consideration of these estimates for the Immigration department until after the budget has been brought down. Then we would know whether there was any use spending money trying to get immigrants into this country or not. I am glad he has allowed the second item to stand for some time, and I hope he will see his way clear to postponing consideration of the Immigration estimates until after the budget is down.
There have been so many remarks made during this debate as to the necessity or desirability of filling up the vacant lands in this country that I want to refer briefly to that. I think it is only fair to ask those hon. members who are so anxious to have those vacant lands settled, why they want these vacant lands occupied. Have not the farmers who are here now done pretty well? Is it because we have not produced enough? I have a table here which I would like to present, but I am very much afraid of the Chairman so I will just point out that the production of the farms of Canada last year in grains, field crops, cattle, hogs, sheep and milk totalled SI,399,241,527. You will notice that this does not include fruit and a great many other small items produced on the farms. The value of this production gives no adequate idea of the amount of our production. Let me give just one instance which I have taken from the report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. It shows that for the year ending March 31, 1921, we exported to the United
'Mr. Coots.]	-
States cattle to the number of 295,000 odd, at a total value of $21,000,000 odd, or an average of S73 per head, and for the year ending March 31, 1922, we exported 172,981 head of cattle to the United States, valued at $3,980,801, making an average of $23 per head. I hope hon. gentlemen will consider what that drop in the value of cattle in one year from $73 to $23 means to the farmers of Canada. Yet hon. gentlemen get up in this House and ask why our farms are mortgaged. What is the reason for that big drop in values? It is because the farmers of Canada are dependent on a foreign market for the price of their products. The hon. member for Fort William dwelt at some length on the value of the home market. I wish to assure the House that we would like very much to have a home market, but we have not got it. We have glutted it so often that no one can blame us for being very skeptical of the ability of the home market to absorb our products. In spite of the fact that we have not got this home market some hon. gentlemen are anxious to fill up our vacant lands. When that is done, what are you going to do with the produce from those lands? That is the question we want answered, and no one in this House has answered it so far in this debate. I have the opinion of an experienced grain man to the effect, that if we had had this year the same average yield of wheat that we had in 1915 the price of our wheat would be 20 cents a bushel less than it is to-day. Some hon. gentlemen will say that that is a very unlikely thing to happen, but let me tell you, on my own farm this year

I happen to live in Alberta-I had a crop of wheat averaging 34 bushels to the acre. I do not believe any hon. member in this House had a better crop. I have no objection to the Acting-Minister of Immigration putting that statement in the literature which he sends out to the countries from which he hopes to get immigrants. I am ready to back it up with my affidavit.


Charles A. Stewart: What will the hon. member for Bow River say to that?


George Gibson Coote: I will be very glad if the
minister will see that he is made acquainted with that fact. But the sorry part of it is that if we all had a crop of 34 bushels to the acre the price of wheat, almost as sure as we are here, would drop down to the price of stock feed. There would be nothing to stop it till it got down to that point. I think it is only a fair proposition that if we are to have our vacant lands filled up with agriculturists, you should at least open to us on

Supply-Immigration
free terms every market that is available. The only foreign market that amounts to much to-day as regards our wheat and cattle is the market in Great Britain. I do not think I need remind the committee that Great Britain to-day is in fairly hard circumstances, because she has an immense debt to pay to the United States; she is largely dependent for her prosperity upon foreign markets, and the markets to which she usually exports much of her goods have had their purchasing power very seriously curtailed on account of the trouble in Europe. I do not wish to stress this point too far, because I think it is an unpopular one. There are in this House many who seem to believe that all we need to do to get prosperity back to Canada is' to produce; but we do not have that example set to us by the manufacturers of this country. When they have produced a little surplus of goods, they lock the door; they tell their workmen to stay away until they get some of those goods sold. The farmer has not done that. The farmer has produced to the very limit of his credit, without any guarantee of even seven per cent dividends, and I do not know of any other class in Canada which has done that. In spite of that fact, the only solution that is offered for our difficulties in Canada seems to be to bring in more farmers to compete with us who are already here, because if you can bring in enough to increase our production of wheat and cattle by 30 per cent, you will succeed only in lowering the price. A gentleman whom I met in my constituency who was a member of the former parliament and who is generally credited with being a hard-headed business man, said to me two years ago: "I do not see why farmers complain so much about so many people leaving the land." He said: "The more that leave the land, the better for the rest of you who are left on it." Hon. gentlemen can easily understand his line of reasoning, and that is the line of reasoning adopted by almost every other class in Canada. That is, they want their own numbers limited, but they want the farmers' numbers unlimited. We have heard a great deal in this country, particularly in the last year and a .half, about class legislation; but I think this proposal is getting very near class legislation.
I have no objection whatever to immigration. I think every man who is a good, moral, physically sound and decent citizen, should be allowed to come into this country; but I do not think people should be brought in here under false representations, and I do not think the efforts of this country should be limited to securing immigrants of one particular class.
That is most unfair. If I were looking at the matter from a strictly farmer's standpoint-and I hope I am not-I would say that what we need in this' country is, not immigration of farmers, but immigration of people who will eat what the farmers are now producing. We can produce; I think we are producing almost enough now in this country to feed 20,000,000 people, and we can produce enough to feed an almost unlimited number. We produced in Alberta this year, although Alberta has a bad name, more wheat than the people of Canada can eat. You must find some place to put that produce, and until you do that, why lay the stress on immigration of farmers? I really cannot see the fairness of this, and more than that I cannot see where much profit is going to come from it.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Is there nothing but wheat that the farmers can grow? Do they not grow other products as well as wheat?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, they do; but I have given the committee to-night the purchasing power of many things that the farmers produce, and in none of those that I quoted have we got back within even a reaching distance of 1911. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statement of his leader which I quoted a little while ago, that in 1911 many farmers, particularly in the West, were struggling between success and failure every hour. I would also refer him to the fact that the cattle market is worse than the wheat market, and as regards cattle production, I will guarantee that Alberta, if you give us two or /three years' notice, can furnish all the cattle that all the people in Canada can eat. I am not one whit afraid to make that statement. I am going to anticipate another question at this point. I presume some hon. member will tell me that we should make butter; but if all the farmers of Alberta go into the dairy business, they can supply Canada with all the butter that she can eat. I do not think the proposition is a hopeless one. I believe, if eVery other class in Canada would do as well as the farmers who are now here are doing and have done for the last five or six years, we would soon return to prosperity in this country. But as I said before, the farmer is the only man who has produced to the limit, put his produce on the market and taken what he could get for it. He has hoarded up no farm produce, and very few farmers have hoarded up any money.
The immigration policy of this country has always been, so far as I have any recollection, directed to bringing into Canada more farmers. We had the soldier settlement scheme

Supply-Immigration

in this country to put soldiers on the land. I always thought that was a little bit unfair to the rest of the soldiers, and I am not going to enlarge on that now. But I want to point out that in Canada we have always laid great stress on production in agriculture. We have spent millions of dollars every year on experimental farms and the promotion of agriculture generally, and the emphasis has always been on production. Practically all our efforts have been directed to greater production, with apparently no effort being made to get us a market.
To keep strictly in order, I want to say just a word or two about retaining people in this country. That has been gone over pretty thoroughly; but one question has not, so far as I know, been touched on, and I want to deal with it very briefly. It is in regard to the people who are leaving this country to get rid of their debts. I know I am on dangerous ground as regards this; but you will find, I think, in the minister's own speech, some reference to a certain percentage of farmers who are bankrupt. Quite a number of our people are leaving this country with the idea that that is the only way in which they can get away from their debts. They know they are bankrupt and that if they stay here and should be able to make some money, it is liable to be garnisheed by their creditors. Under present conditions many men, when they go to a trustee in bankruptcy are advised something to this effect by the trustee:
Before we could undertake to handle an assignment in bankruptcy in this matter, we would have to be advanced the sum of fifty dollars for the payment of preparation of documents, registration and advertising of notices, mailing of notices to creditors and the drawing of statutory declarations. If you are prepared to forward us this amount we shall1, upon hearing from you, send you the papers duly prepared for signature.
The only difference is that some trustees will not accept fifty dollars; they ask seventy-five dollars, or maybe more. The unfortunate part of it is that a great many of these people have not even the $50 to hand to the trustee in bankruptcy in' order to have their assignment taken over by him. I would appeal to the government to- appoint trustees for certain districts, to be paid by the government and to whom a man might make an assignment in bankruptcy if he so desired. I believe that money could be better spent that way than by paying or assisting to pay the passage of some immigrant to this country, because many people who are here already would be glad to remain in the country if they could get some relief from their debts, debts which in many cases have been contracted not through any lack of in-

dustry on the part of these people but more by reason of poor crops, drought and so forth. The minister I think will realize the necessity for something of this kind. I do not know whether he will agree with me that this trustee should be paid by the government, but in any ease I would invite him to consider the point whether it would not be better to spend money in the way I have suggested than in tiying to bring new people to the country. I would call attention to a statement that appeared in the Ottawa Journal last night to the effect that this year's quota of 77,000 immigrants from the British Isles will be exhausted by next month, according to Harry Landis assistant commissioner of immigration at the port of New York. Perhaps it would not be out of place for me to suggest that the minister might arrange with the United States to have all immigrants whom they cannot take in sent here for examination and admittance if they should prove desirable. This article goes on to say that a number of Russian immigrants to the United States have been refused admission, and it might be possible for some of these people to come here if they should prove desirable citizens.
In closing, I would make a suggestion to the government, particularly to the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding) because I think the matter Of success or failure of the farmer immigrant lies very largely in his hands. , I think his success depends upon his having a lower cost of living and access to a larger market than we have at present. The only large market outside our own to which we have free access is that of Great Britain, and I believe that my hon. friend, if he would do his duty, should give Great Britain free access to our market in exchange. That would help the farming industry in this country more than all the other legislation I can think of that could be brought down at the present time. If the Minister of Finance does anything less than this he will not be doing his duty to this country.


Mr. STANSELL:: Somewhere, Mr. Chairman, I have heard the remark "I had not intended to speak on this subject, but it does seem to me that an item of this kind should not be rushed through the House without discussion." I have no desire to embarrass the minister, because I think he deserves sympathy. It has been suggested that no man in Canada to-day could administer his department with entire satisfaction to this House and to the country. I believe that is correct. I do think, however, that it could be administered with a little more satisfaction to the House and the

Supply-Immigration
country than we have promise of so far. I have a recollection that a wish has been expressed by the minister himself during the progress of the debate that he had some of the qualifications of a noted leader mentioned in Scripture. Most of us will readily recall that when Moses was surrounded by difficulties, amounting in some cases almost to rebellion on the part of his followers, it was a common thing for him to take counsel of his brother Aaron; and when I saw the serious and prolonged conference this afternoon between the minister and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) I wondered whether history was repeating itself. I sincerely hope that this conference between the minister and his political relative once removed, will provide him with that necessary information to enable him to deal with this question with finality next Tuesday.
There is no question that the matter of immigration is of the greatest importance today. This is well demonstrated by the interest that has been evinced in the subject during the course of this debate. I must admit at once that it is a question of such importance that had I the ability, I could not deal with it in the limited time at my disposal to-night However, there are one or two phases of it upon which I wish to touch briefly. Undoubtedly, there is a feeling of nervousness on the part of some interests, and individuals in this country, who take the view that at the present juncture immigration is not desirable in the best national interest. Some have said that owing to Canada's financial situation immigration is not desirable now. This may or may not be true, but I can say without hesitation that, unpleasant as circumstances may be in regard to many lines of endeavour, in regard to many interests and professions in Canada, I still believe that conditions in this country are very much better than they are in any other country in the world, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary. There is some apprehension on the part of labour, I believe, that immigration would produce more unemployment, while agriculturists fear that it might result in over-production. The suggestion has also been made to-day that the cause of the trouble is to be found in the tariff. This opens up a large question with which I do not propose to deal. It is possible that my views would not accord with those of some hon. gentlemen in this House, -yet I fancy that if we could wipe out our tariff at one stroke conditions in Canada still would not be anything approaching the millenium. While there have been some objections to immigration, I believe 90J
myself that in the national interest we do need more people to-day, although I am not prepared to say that immigration should be directed entirely toward the farm. I believe Canada is, or is destined to become, a country almost entirely self-supporting. Therefore we need a balanced immigration. Immigration of this kind would be less likely to disturb conditions and lead to the results that some hon. members, evidently fear.
In advancing a few reasons why I personally am not apprehensive in respect to immigration at the present time, may I be pardoned if I mention a few immigrants with whom I have become more or less familiar? During recent years twenty-four immigrants, mostly from the United Kingdom, came here to seek their fortune in a country which they believed provided greater oportunity for their ambition than the Old Land offered. Most of them came without means and without having friends here-practically strangers in a strange land. Yet they have not only made a living, they have prospered to a considerable extent and to-day are in comfortable circumstances, if not in affluence. In adition to that they have been honoured by the constituencies in which they have made their homes, and now ocupy seats in the House of Commons. I should like to know if any one of these twenty-four gentlemen, most of whom are members of the'party seated to my left, will get up to-day and say that the country that has so welcomed and honoured them should now put up the bars and say to the world: No one else need apply; conditions are so bad that we do not fecommend anyone else to come here.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the hon. member suggest that anyone in this quarter of the House has advocated putting up the bars and keeping immigrants out?


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


John Lawrence Stansell: I did not say so. I asked if any of those twenty-four gentlemen would advocate such a policy. However in attempting to answer the question of my hon. friend, I would say that some of the speeches made on this subject sounded dangerously like the advocacy of such a policy. I am willing to admit that conditions are not as bright in Canada to-day with our farmers as we would like to have them. I am willing to go further: I submit that if we in this House attempt to deal with the question of immigration, or with any other question affecting our national interest, it is of the highest importance that we first try to understand, as far as may be possible, the difficulties under
Supply-Immigration

which each section of the country labours. There can be no satisfactory solution of the problem so long as we each feel that the other party in interest does not know what he is talking about. This question must be approached in the same spirit as all other national questions-a spirit of compromise and sympathy.
I have heard during the course of this debate and in other debates too, a great deal about the wonderful natural resources possessed by this country. Undoubtedly we are greatly blessed in this respect. But, Sir, is there any possible way in which we can even approach the proper development of these vast natural resources without a greater population than we have at present? As this question affects our farmers, let me say there are two opportunities open to men engaged in any line of production, and particularly to farmers. In order to make farming profitable we must secure wider and better markets, or else lessen our cost of production. I believe that the prospects for higher prices in the near future are not very bright. Therefore it is up to us by all means possible to reduce our production costs. I know that in my own section-and surely the same condition must apply to the West-if we had more men on the land wages should be a little lower, resulting in a little lower cost of production than has obtained during the last three or four years. So viewed from any angle a properly balanced immigration should be beneficial to Canada.
There may bp a difference of opinion as to how we should proceed to secure such immigration. Personally I believe an immigration policy to be effective should not be spasmodic but should be a steadily continued policy conducted along sound lines. I think the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) stated in answer to a question that about $269,000 was to be expended this year in advertising. At the moment I do not propose to question the wisdom of this expenditure, but I want to point out a factor that I think is vitally necessary and supplemental to advertising, and that is to see that the quality of our goods is such that our customers will continue to purchase. In other words, no government should attempt to deal with this important question of immigration without bearing in mind these two aspects, each complementary to the other, namely, the desirability of attracting immigration; and the retention of the immigrants so attracted. To attempt to deal with immigration from the one angle alone is in my judgment simply an admission of incompetence. I have a high opinion of

the energy of a man who attempts to fill a bottomless pail with water, but a mighty poor opinion of his judgment. Therefore, I believe it is the duty of the government before attempting to stimulate immigration to study first the conditions which cause the loss of immigrants after they reach our shores. Nc doubt in all countries immigration is accompanied by a certain amount of emigration; and while Canada has suffered from emigration in the past, still I believe lately we have been losing in greater proportion than is consonant with our national welfare. Therefore, while I do not wish to depreciate the value of advertising, no money spent upon it at the present time can compare in results with the money spent on a stamp that carries to the Old Land a letter from a satisfied immigrant. A satisfied customer in this, as in all other businesses, is the best advertisement.
Now, in my judgment this question should be handled entirely by the minister and his department, and not by private enterprise.
I have not a great deal of faith in a combination of the two. I have seen the results of immigration to this country due to private enterprise. Circulars depicting conditions in the most glowing colours were distributed in Great Britain and other countries and a very desirable class of immigrants was attracted here, but they were settled in localities where success was practically an impossibility, and the main welcome extended to them was a scramble to relieve them of surplus cash under the guise of supplying them with necessary equipment. They were, in short, bled white by the very speculators who brought them here. The advertising that that class of settler distributes from this country is of the most damaging kind.
There is another class of advertising, of which I speak, perhaps, with some reluctance. We have had during last session and this, a kind of advertising distributed throughout this House and the country by the representatives of the people. I do not for a moment doubt the truth but I do very much question the wisdom of it. I do not know how any country or any business could make a success if in connection with it the kind of advertising was carried on that we have distributed in the last year and a half. If I were engaged in a business, which, as it likely would be at this time, was labouring under financial difficulty, I would not send out salesmen at a salary of $4,000 a year to proclaim everywhere my financial condition, and then have any hope of surviving. I am in sympathy with those who are subject to the conditions that I believe exist in the West, but I am not

Sup ply-Immigration
in favour of .publishing our family troubles to the world, because I believe, as I said at the beginning, that conditions in other countries are worse than they are in Canada. The vital need of the Canadian people to-day is a little more faith in themselves and their country, and an inclination to dwell a little more on the bright spots than is the case at present.
We have heard some very doleful tales with respect to conditions in the West and also in other parts of Canada, but I am sure that we could at the same time make public accounts of outstanding successes on the part of farmers in all sections of the country. I am willing to admit that conditions may not be as good now as they were formerly, but surely in this great country, with all the resources it has, it is not the part of wisdom, it is not the part of good business or good judgment, to advertise to the world that we are in the deplorable condition that some hon. members feel impelled to portray to the committee. There are certain conditions which may accelerate this movement of people from our borders, and it should be the duty of the government to study the whole question from every angle and attempt to apply a remedy. I venture to suggest that if by the exercise of stringent economy there could be a slight lessening of the burden of taxation resting upon the people to-day; if there could be even a small surplus reported by the hon. the Minister of Finance, it would be a hopeful sign that would do a great deal to attract attention to us and bring us a most desirable class of immigrants.
I am not, Sir, a believer in immigration attracted by over-coloured advertising, because that kind- of inducement appeals to a class of people-unfortunately, to be found in almost every country-who wish to get rich quickly, who wish to get something for nothing. . The class of people we want in this country, the ones who will do the most good, are those who come without capital, if you wish, or better still, with capital, but with plenty of ambition and a determination to work and to succeed. There is room in this Dominion for thousands, yes, for millions of that class of people. Many of them have come to our shores in the past and have succeeded here and contributed a great deal to the building up of our nation, and still more could be accommodated. We need therefore a policy of immigration not based on financial exploitation-or corporationist greed -but rather do we need a national policy based on sound business principles and having
in view the best interests and requirements of Canadian citizenship.


Mr. HALBERT:: according to that experiment, he had to draw S460 out of his capital to break even.
I am not going to say that the farmers of Ontario are doing a great deal of grumbling about immigration, but a certain amount of immigration can be used to advantage in that province. They need help on the farm. In some cases it would not be necessary to build houses for the help because on a great many farms in Ontario that are being pastured there already exist empty houses and good houses at that. There is no question about it that the farmers in Ontario to-day cannot get help. On the , Toronto train recently I met a neighbour of mine who was going down to the city to hunt for a man. I saw him in town afterwards and asked him how he had made out. "Well," he said, "I got one man who promised to meet me at the station; I am not sure whether he will be there or not. The rest all told me that they would go to the farm just when they could get nothing else to do. They were going to stay in the city a while longer and see if they could not get something there before they would go to the farm."
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say something with which I do not think the committee will agree to the extent they agreed with my first statement. I concur in a great many things that have been said as to what is wrong with agriculture-that is high freight rates, the tariff, and a lot more things are responsible for present conditions. But I am going to mention one thing, which has not yet been mentioned and which may not be popular in this House; nevertheless I think it is time that somebody said it and I am going to be the one. That is one of my reasons for taking part in this debate. Along with other things that are wrong my opinion is that we have too many people in Canada to-day who think that Canada owes them a living. I believe that Canada owes a living to the returned men who are disabled and their dependents; that is one of the responsibilities the war has brought upon us. But I claim that outside of that class Canada owes no man a living who is able to work; it does owe every man a chance to make an honest living. The trouble is we have a class of people in this country who want to work shorter hours for more pay. If a farmer goes to work with his team on the roads he can get $5 a day for himself and his team. He supplies the team, the wagon and the harness. He furnishes the grease for that wagon, board' the team, Repairs his harness, and furnishes the whole outfit for $5. He also has to board

himself as well as the team. ' Now, if the chimney blows off his house in a storm and it is necessary for him to get a bricklayei to rebuild that chimney he or his man will have to work with the team, and he will have to board that team and himself, and perhaps his help, for two days in order to pay the bricklayer for a day's work in rebuilding that chimney.
I believe in every person getting a chance to make an honest living. I do not believe, as some do in bringing in immigrants to compete with the farmers in order to produce more potatoes and thus make potatoes cheaper and at the same time keep out artisans for fear they may bring down the wages of plasterers, bricklayers, or other mechanics in this countiy. I believe it was the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), who said there were 6,000 unemployed in Winnipeg and therefore we should not bring in any more immigrants. If the present conditions continue we will always have unemployed in Winnipeg and other large centres. If the present Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization is going to wait until we have no unemployment in Winnipeg, or other cities, before he makes a move he wdl have to wait until our population is only one-half of what it is at the present time, and perhaps longer. I think the government can change the existing conditions, although I will not dwell on that point at the present moment. The people themselves can change the conditions if they are willing to go to work, but we do not want immigrants who want to live without working. I was surprised to hear even some of the hon. members on this side complaining. When I look at the hon. members from the western provinces in whose ranks I sit I observe practically that one-half of them were immigrants. I think we can also put in that category three premiers of the western provinces. Now, if a carefully selected immigration policy has provided Canada with men of that type, I think that policy has done a great work for this country.
Now as to the class of people that we want, a case was brought to my attention not long ago. A young American came over to a town near the border, between here and Toronto, and rented a garage shop. He paid three months' rent in advance in order to secure the shop and then returned to the other side in order to make his arrangements. This happened last winter. He went back home and packed up his belongings and started with his wife for Canada. But when he got to the border he found that he could not be ad-

Supply-Immigration
mitted unless he would sign a statement that he was a farmer. This he absolutely refused to do because he was an honest man; he declared he knew nothing about farming. The matter was discussed for two weeks, from December 28 until January 10, and then the Immigration department decided to let him enter the country. By that time, however, he had gone back home and started a garage shop there. I think that man would have made a good citizen. In my opinion we might have admitted him to Canada; his entrance into the business might have brought down the price we have to pay for getting our cars fixed.
What do we need to-day in order to boost our cities and towns? We have heard a great deal about the value of the home mai'-ket; it has been mentioned several times in this debate. It reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who had six boys. She said her boys all made money on a wet day trading in old clothes with each other. The old clothes were all in the family in the morning and they were all in the same family at night. If we consume all we produce how are we going to pay our liabilities abroad and keep out of debt? What is necessary in order to make our towns prosperous-and I think the business people in the cities and towns have not yet realized it-is this: You want a contented industrious Canadian citizen on every one hundred acres around each town in the province of Ontario. As the result of such a policy the business men in those towns will do better, and the manufacturers, the wholesale men in the large cities will ship more goods to those towns, and the whole country will be benefited thereby.
A great deal has been said about our natural resources. We have those resources and we are very proud of them. But if you take a ton1 of coal from a coal mine you have reduced your natural resources to that extent; if you cut down a tree our forest resources have been reduced by that much; if you take a fish from the ocean, lake or stream, our fishery resources are to that degree lessened; but when you produce from the land, provided your farming is properly conducted, you have not diminished nature's storehouse to any appreciable extent. Therefore what is necessary, as I said before, is to get farmers on every one hundred acres, or you might make it one hundred and sixty acres in the West.
The farmers have not much to do. They only have to clothe and feed and shelter the people of the world-that is all. I said I would not speak for more than ten minutes and my time is about up. How can we help
in these conditions? I would say first, that we should relieve the agriculturist of the heavy burden he is carrying at the present time by taking off his back the plutocrat and the profiteer. Mr. Chairman, this is not the wail of an infant industry for protection which we have heard so often in this House. This is an appeal, and an appeal from the mother of industries, that she may be relieved of those whining infants that are clinging to her skirts and have grown bloated. Remove them, and you will help her to recover. I have faith in agriculture. I have faith that she will soon recover, and more than that, I have faith that she will assist the Finance Minister in paying not only the interest on our national debt, but in paying off that debt.
Another thing about which we should think very seriously is this: The time has come, yea, I might say it has passed when the people of this country should live within their revenue. I would go a step further and say that the time has come when the government of this country should live within its revenue. I am a believer in this country. I believe in Canada. I have not lost faith yet.
It has been said that the minister might tell the immigrants whom he hopes to induce to come to this country what they are coming to. I would not like him to tell them all. He might tell the. immigrant that he wants to have come out here from the Old Country that we have a heavy debt and want him to help pay it. But do not tell the immigrant's wife that if her husband happens to die she will have to pay a tax on the rough lumber that goes into his coffin. Do not tell her that she will have to pay a tax on his shroud. Do not tell her that she will have to pay a tax on the screw nails that fasten down the coffin lid, and that the man who digs the grave will also have to pay a' tax on the shovel he uses for that purpose. Do not tell the immigrant that if his wife should have to make a living by sewing, before she can earn five cents to buy a loaf of bread with, she will have to pay a tax of $13.05 on her sewing machine. Do not tell her that if she has to earn her living by washing she will have to pay a tax in Canada on the washing machine she uses. The minister had better keep these things from them. But he might incidentally let them know that in a few years we may have a Progressive government in this House that will take that tariff off.


Mr. LADNER:: I would like to ask the
hon. gentleman if he has not conceived of this answer from the wife, that she has far worse things to do in the Old Country.
Supply-Immigration


Robert Henry Halbert: There is one thing the
minister might tell the wife, and that is that when the immigrant passes to the Great Beyond, where no doubt he will be sure to go if he has been on the farm in Canada, there will be no tax on his royal robe up there because the Dominion Textile Company did not make it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to quote these few words from Earl Grey:
If Canada will only keep her judiciary pure, her politics clean-
Mark that well.
An bon. MEMBER: What about Moose Jaw?


Robert Henry Halbert: -her administration honest, nothing can prevent her one day becoming the controlling factor in the empire of self-governing nations.
Mr. Chairman, wrhat Canadian would shrink from such a destiny as that?


Mr. HOCKEN:: Mr. Chairman, may I first tender my profound sympathy to the Acting Minister of Immigration. I have been somewhat surprised as I have sat here this evening to see how cheerfully he accepts all the objections to his policy. In the first place, he must not bring out any artisans; too many artisans here already. He must not bring out any farmers; too many farmers in the country. If he attempts to bring out any lawyers or doctors or artists or preachers I would not be surprised if the same objections were raised. Nobody wants competition. Everybody seems to be afraid of it, and yet our whole life has to be lived in competition, and the man who is afraid of it, whether he be a farmer, artisan, business man or manufacturer-


Mr. IRVINE:: What about magazines?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I can say this, Mr. Chairman, in reply, that if there is any one set of people in this country that have shown they are not afraid of competition it is the publishers of magazines. No weaker illustration could have been chosen. Is it not a fact that everybody in this country wants to get away from cempetition? But if you allow that sentiment to prevail, you will never get any immigration at all. There is not any class of people working in Canada that does not think there are already too many of that class here, and that sentiment has prevailed in this country for forty years.* I can go back that far, and a little farther if necessary, but I can remember the complaints that were made forty years ago against bringing immigrants to Canada. Yet every man that comes to Canada, with or

without a family, creates a demand for something else that Canadians are making.
I was surprised at the mortuary allusions of the hon. member for North Ontario. You know one can go over the tariff and pick out a whole lot of striking allusions of that kind, but they do not mean anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SALES:: Don't they, just!


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They do not mean anything more than that other striking statement he made that wTe should take the plutocrat and the profiteer off the back of the farmer. I presume that that was meant to refer to the manufacturers. It it was, I can tell him that the manufacturers are not upon the backs ol the farmers to-day. They are on their knee? praying for some relief from their difficulties


Oliver Robert Gould: On the farmer's knees oi their own?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: On their own. They do not get on the farmer's knees to pray. I sometimes think that if the farmers would get on their knees and do a little praying it might do them good. It might at least inspire them to endeavour to acquire that feeling of contentment to which the hon. member for North Ontario referred when he said "What we v'ant is a contented and industrious man on every hundred acres!" He is anticipating the millennium. There is not and there never will be in any part of the world a contented man on every hundred acres in a township. Contentment does not come because, a man has so much goods; contentment comes from work largely and from some internal qualities that are not supplied by government. If the men who come out here learn to take what comes to them until they find their feet, they will be an asset to this country just as our fathers were. As regards everybody on this side and most hon. members over there, if they are not immigrants themselves their fathers were. My father was an immigrant; he came out here when he was a young man of nineteen, and nearly everybody in Canada has sprung from stock that came out here as young men to seek their fortunes and to establish themselves in Canada. They have established themselves in Canada. But this everlasting protest against competition is something that we must take account of only to disregard it, and that is the position I take about the matter. There is room in this country for every industrious man with right ideals. He will make a place for himself, and if he crowds some other fellow out, the latter is a man who does not want

Supply-Immigra tion
to work, or who will not work. It goes without saying that he is not a good, industrious, vigorous man, or he would not be crowded out. We have so many protests from the farmers. I sympathize with the farmers; I sympathize with the artisans; but whom shall we class in comparison with the farmers? The business man or the artisan? Perhaps both. I can tell my hon. friends to my left that if they were artisans working in any big city in this country in a period of unemployment, they would suffer a good deal more than they are suffering on the prairies to-day. The artisans of this country are not half as well off as the farmers who are struggling in this country. They have to go and live on charity if they get out of work too long.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not mind that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The men who do not mind that are no good. There may be some who do not mind that; but if a man has any tittle of self respect in him, he will mind it. The point I am trying to make is this: If the farmer classifies himself in comparison with the artisan, then I say he is a long way better off than an artisan. If he classifies himself with a business man, he is better off than most business men. Farmers think it is an easy thing to go into business and succeed, and they try it sometimes. I have known many men who have sold their farms, worth ten or twenty thousand dollars, and have gone into business where they would have a nice time, just buying and selling. It is so easy to buy so much at such a price and to sell it at so much more, and the record of failures contains the names of hundreds and thousands of men just like those. It is not every man who is fit for business, and even those who are fit for business have difficulties to overcome and problems to solve. They keep those to themselves for the sake of their credit, as the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) said, but many sleepless nights are caused thereby. The business men of this country have just as much to contend with as our farmers have.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the hon. member know of any business men who have made a success of business, who have gone on to a farm and made a failure?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If the hon. member will come to the neighbourhood of the city where I live, I can show him many business men who have undertaken to do farming. Some of them have succeeded and some have not. This depends altogether on the man, and it depends altogether on the man whether he
is a good or a bad farmer. If he is a good farmer, he will be successful, and if he is not, he will not. A few years ago, we had a very interesting committee on the cost of living. We had many distinguished men giving evidence, and that committee had a series of stock questions which they submitted. Dealing with agriculture particularly, the witnesses were asked in every case: "Now what is the principal factor in making a success of dairying, stockraising?" and so on. The invariable answer was: "The man." That is the principal factor. We had in the town of Belleville a man running a dairy and making so much money that he asked us not to make him expose the fact. He was taking his cream from Renfrew where a co-operative dairy was running which had never paid a dividend in its lifetime. The man is the factor, and my hon. friends to my left and their friends in Ontario, who think it is an easy thing to go into business and to make a great deal of monqy, have had their experience in Ontario. If my information is correct, they are gaining some experience purchasing it at somewhat higher prices. Even out on the prairies, some of the co-operative schemes have not panned out because of the fact that the men who are trying to run them are not good business men. To be a good business man one must have capacities that are not found on every farm or in the mind of every artisan.
I was interested and somewhat amused at the speech delivered by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). He painted a very gloomy picture. Things were bad because the crop was not big. and even if the crop was big, things would not be any better! Even if all the farmers got 34 bushels of wheat to the acre, that would not make any difference to them; they would not be any better off! That is not the kind of talk we should bear in parliament, and to my mind that is somewhat stupid. Anyone who argues that a man with a good crop cannot make any more than a man with a poor crop, has no basis at all upon which to stand; but that is the argument the hon. member put up.
My hon. friends do not want farmers to come out. The Trades and Labour Council do not want artisans to come out. I believe we ought to have more artisans come to Canada. I believe every man who comes out here creates a demand for the goods that are made by other people, and if hon. members want proof of that, let us take the experience and the prosperity of Ontario farmers adjacent to good-sized towns. Some of my hon. friends flouted the home market. The home market is the most valuable thing an agricul-
Supply-Immigration

turist can have. I was down recently in the county of Prince Edward, and there is not a poor man in the whole county. They have only a few towns but they grow stuff for canning, and that makes them all prosperous. Without the canning factories established there,-those Dominion Canners' factories, about which my hon. friends eompiain so much at times-the farmers of that county would not have the prosperity they are enjoying. I could take my hon. friends to counties in western Ontario in which are situated good-sized towns or small cities, and there they will find men, with ordinary degrees of intelligence, not only making a splendid living, but putting away a competence through their work on the farm. Farming is hard work, I admit, but it is not as hard as working in a factory. The farmer can work twelve hours outdoors more easily than an artisan can work eight or ten hours indoors and without so much loss of health and strength.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are you speaking from experience?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, I am. I worked until I was thirty-four years of age indoors and then I got anbther job and worked outdoors. So I know exactly what I am talking about.


Mr. KELLNER:: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is prepared to submit evidence to the special committee sitting with regard to those prosperous farmers?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have not a catalogue of those [farmers but if it is the wish of the committee I can get them the names of men in western Ontario that have made a large amount of money out of farming and who are making good money to-day. And I say that the tariff which is denounced so much by my hon. friends is the reason why they are making money in Ontario. The farmers of Ontario believe in protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, they do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, we had that voted on in 1911 when 72 seats were carried by protectionists. That I think is pretty good evidence.


Mr. LEADER:: Then how do you account for so many members in this group having come from Ontario, although this party has a low tariff plank in its platform?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will tell you all about it. In the last election in Ontario the farmers were not voting on any public issue.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What they were voting on was whether a farmer would represent them or someone else. The issue of the tariff did not appear in the last election in Ontario; that is not what the farmers of Ontario voted on.


Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: What was the issue? So far as I can remember, the leader of the government of that day made the statement that the tariff would be the issue.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is quite right. I made that statement, but every other party ran away from the issue.


Arthur Edward Ross: That was the issue in my riding.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Hocken) has the floor, and hon. members have not the right to interrupt him.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I still venture to assert, Mr. Chairman, that in the rural constituencies in Ontario it was the occupation of the man and not the tariff that was the issue in the last election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is my declaration and you can dispute it if you wish; but I am satisfied from the evidence I have that that is so.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The subject
under discussion is immigration.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will come back to the subject, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you will not accuse me of being the chief offender. I have been forced to step aside from the question under discussion. Now, dealing with the subject of immigration, I might say that our friends to our left have had in power for four years in the province of Ontario a Farmers' government. Are they satisfied with the immigration policy of that gove'mment?


Mr. McMASTER:: What has that to do with the immigration policy of this government?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am asking the question by way of analogy. I say they have had a Farmers' government in Ontario for four years.


Oliver Robert Gould: And it will stick.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am sorry to dissappoint my hon. friend, but I can assure him upon the most positive evidence that it will not stick. But, Sir, if this Dominion were ruled to-day

Supply-Immigration
by agriculturists, if the treasury benches were filled by farmers, the government might present a very distinguished appearance, but I doubt very much whether anything more would be done for the farming industry than is done to-day or that was done by the previous government. These hon. gentlemen talk about the necessity for reducing the tariff, in order to encourage immigration. But they know very well that if they sat on the opposite side they could not reduce the tariff, and would not, because they could not get the revenues necessary to run the . country. So that all this play on the tariff is purely for home consumption, just as it was two sessions ago. At that time free trade was promised by my hon. friends across the floor; they went out into the West and spoke of how they would give free trade. But my hon. friends to my left know how they gave it to them, and if those hon. gentlemen were over the way they would do no better.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Give us a chance.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will give you a chance if my hon. friends opposite are willing. In my judgment the best thing that can be done is to encourage the immigration of farmers, f think that farmers ought to be encouraged to come to Canada because there are millions of opportunities for farmers here, as compared with any other class of the community. There are millions upon millions of acres of unoccupied lands, in the country, and what other class of people could we induce to come who would have such an opportunity of making a living and a competence as those men whom we could put on the farms? I think therefore that this is the right class. I believe, however, that a substantial number of artisans should also be induced to come into the country and that this could be done to the general advantage of the people. One of the ways of doing that is in my judgment to improve every possible means of transportation. I can tell my hon. friends that the immigrants who come in to take up land in competition with them will obtain a greater advantage from the improvement of the transportation system than they will in any other direction. I should like to see the Vancouver and the St. Lawrence routes improved and the Hudson Bay railway built, not because I think it would be a good thing, but because I think it is necessary, to allay the dissatisfaction that exists in the West, to spend that money and demonstrate that the thing cannot be done. .
By every other conceivable means we ought to make it possible for the men who come
here as immigrants to have that much better chance of making not only a living but a competence within a reasonable period of time. Half the members here already have a competence. There are men sitting on this side of the House who have made a competence in a few years. My hon. friend from North Ontario is a retired farmer. You can go into towns all over Canada and find retired farmers by the dozen. But you do not find many retired business men, you do not find retired artisans. The farming industry is the only one that enables a man to retire unless he has a bee in his bonnet and starts into business, in which event he would soon have to retire to the poorhouse. But so long as he takes care of the money he made in agriculture to keep him in his old age he will be happy and contented and go down honoured and mourned into that wooden box which my hon. friend from North Ontario spoke of-and it will be the last tax he will ever have to pay!


Mr. WARNER:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for four days for an opportunity to speak, and have been getting hoarser and hoarser listening until now I can scarcely articulate. Therefore I feel quite gratified that I have the opportunity before I become any worse. I feel that I should almost offer an apology to the committee for attempting to speak to-night, but I shall do my best to make every one hear me, although I do not know whether I shall succeed.
During the course of this debate I have listened to a great deal that I approve of and a great deal that I doubt whether it was wise to have uttered. But at the same time I do not feel that as a member of parliament I should be restrained in saying what I conscientiously believe, so I am not going to question what any hon. member has already said on the subject of immigration. I am an immigrant myself, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good one too.


Daniel Webster Warner: I did not come to this country until I was forty-one years old. I had a family growing up and did not feel that where I lived I was getting ahead sufficiently to provide the kind of home that I wanted my children to enjoy, and I found that year by year it was becoming more difficult to realize my ambition. Therefore I looked around for some place where with energy and the exercise of what common sense I possessed I could get ahead and lay up sufficient to guarantee my children a home. I have done that in Canada, and I do not feel that Canada has treated me so badly, although be-
Supply-I immigration

fore this House last year I expressed the opinion that after living twenty-five years in my constituency it was amazing to me to see some people in the deplorable condition they were in at that time. Now, last year was the poorest I ever saw in that district, although we had enough for thepeople to eat and enough for our stock. But a country with a record like that for twenty-five years, harvests year after year that provided plenty for man and beast, is not a very bad country to live in. However, we must make conditions that will enable the average man and woman to make good and secure a living on the land, for after all the dearest thing to every man or woman is a home. I think every industrious person should be entitled to acquire a home free from encumbrances-a home that is actually his or her own. All people in my district, I am sorry to say, have not been able to accomplish that. It is only fair to say that they have been handicapped by artificial conditions, which should have been and could have been altered for their amelioration, to some extent by the government, and to a greater extent by the people themselves if . they had only seen it that way. And it may be added that during the war we learned to live so expensively that we are not willing to return to the old way again, but I think we have got to do so whether we like it or not.
I do not believe there is a man or woman anywhere in the world who is more entitled to possess a good home than the farmer and his wife. I do not believe there is any more useful couple in this world and a couple more needed at the present time than the farmer and his wife. Consequently I should like to see it made possible for them to be prosperous, and thus bring prosperity to Canada. In my opinion the government could go a long way towards helping along this line. Many opinions have been pronounced on this point, and I expressed my own pretty fully last year, so I shall not repeat them tonight, but I want the government to understand that the people are holding them responsible to do all that it is humanly possible for a government to do to help make the country prosperous at this time.
I have tried to learn to be practical. Now, I know that we are a party to debts that we must pay or repudiate. Once we understand that, then we must act with reason and with common sense. We have natural resources that we are unable to use because there are not enough people here to develop them. Members all over this House say they are not opposing immigration, that they are willing that people should come in. I go further

and say that I want to see a reasonable and. forceful immigration policy brought into effect.
I say that because I believe all our troubles can be better solved with more people here than they can be with the number we have now. The bringing in of more people and the ameliorating of our difficulties through the application of remedies must go hand in hand.
I say to my hon. friends, with the best intentions, that I believe they have gone too far in telling of the difficulties in the West. There is.no doubt that these difficulties exist, but they are not to be overcome in a day, in a year, or perhaps even in my lifetime. I want to do what I can to assist in overcoming them, but I do not go so far as to say what some hon. members have said, namely, that we must fix things up here before we can bring people into the country. I believe that to bring people here will help us. fix things up. I would not go at that work, however, without a conscience. I claim to have a conscience in this matter, and I submit that we can invite people to come to Canada in the full knowledge that there are undeveloped resources here for them to work with and that they will r.ot need to take those resources out of our possession in order to make good.
There are many hon. members who are afraid of the competition that will be created by those who are brought into the country. Well, I am in favour of having people brought here who are likely to become good Canadian citizens so that they may co-operate with us and help us pay our debts and become a prosperous nation. I would rather do that than say that would-be immigrants must stay out until we get rid of all our difficulties. If I thought that people who come here would not have an opportunity to make good I would not like to ask them to come. When I first came here I was offered so much per head-I did not know very well what it involved at that time-to bring people into the country. I was not willing to do it, because I ddi not know whether or not the people who came in would be able to make good. But having been this long in the country I know something about the natural conditions and I know they are good enough to enable people to be successful. We have problems to solve, and those who come in can help us solve them. I know what the conditions are both in Canada and in the United States. I spent a good many years in the United States; I have relations living there, and I am in close touch with what is going on. It is my opinion that many people who are going to the United States will be glad to come

Supply-Immigration
back here if we do what we can to alleviate our present difficulties. They will find out that Canada is the best place on
10 p.m. this earth for anyone who wants to have a home of his own; that he can get it more easily and more quickly here than he can anywhere else in the world. Many people are going to the United States, I know, but they are not going on farms; in fact, they could hardly buy farms there, considering the prices that lands are being held for. Our land in Canada is just as good as the land in the United States; at least, it is in the part of the country in which I live-* and I know of the conditions in the United States because I have been from east to west and as far south as Mexico. Hon. members will agree, therefore, that I know what I am talking about.
It will take a lot of money in salaries for immigration agents to offset what we have heard in this House during the last few days. If hon. members want to make those statements, if they want to deliver speeches of that kind, I am willing that they should do so; I am not trying to control them. But so far as their statements go about the conditions that prevail, I am not going to rest easily until I tell you, Sir, that the conditions are not as bad as that in the constituency that I represent. They may be bad artificially, but the natural conditions, the soil and the climate in the district where I live, are equal to those in the country in which I used to live a thousand miles to the south. Most people are afraid of the winters out in that country. Well, it is my experience that the winter at Edmonton is easier to stand than the winter in Nebraska or Iowa where I lived most of the time before I came here.


Mr. FORKE:: Why did you not say Ottawa?


Daniel Webster Warner: I am not talking about
Ottawa just now. I do not intend to talk about any part of the country that I am so little conversant with that I do not know what I am talking about.
I repeat Mr. Chairman, that I have faith in Canada. Canada is going to come out all right, but we may have to put Progressives on the other side of the House before we get things right. I hope our men will agree and work together until we can impress upon Canada the need of the changes that we have been asking for. There are several things that the farmers in the West need, and I judge they are needed in the East as well. One thing we must do is to live cheaper. We must be able to buy cheaply what we need to buy.
But before going further I want to say this. I know of farmers living in the West who are buying practically all they need for their subsistence. They do not even cultivate a garden; they do not have a cow or pigs to furnish them with meat. And when a farmer is trying to carry on farming without a garden, or a cow, or pigs it does not look very good to me.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.	*


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Michaud):: Order.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I merely want to ask my hon. friend a question.


Daniel Webster Warner: If the hon. gentleman wants to ask me a question that is all right; but if he desires to bother me he is not going to get very far.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not want to bother the hon. gentleman I would simply ask him if, under the circumstances, he would suggest the use of oleomargarine instead of butter?


Daniel Webster Warner: I expect to discuss the
oleomargarine question when it comes up later and I would like very much if my hon. friend would lend me his assistance when that time comes.
I was saying that farming without a garden, without a cow, without pigs does not look very good to me. Yet that is what is going on in some districts and it is not the right way to farm. My parents lived in Ohio a long time ago and raised wheat until the soil was so impoverished that wheat growing could no longer be successfully carried on; then they raised a crop of a different character. Later the family went into Iowa and grew wheat there until they could no longer make a success of it and had to turn their attention to raising something else. When I was ten years old I went with my father into Nebraska and we'did the same thing there; we raised wheat as long as we could do so successfully, and then had to turn our attention to other crops. I do not think the raising of wheat can be regarded as a permanent agricultural operation, nor do I think that a man engaging in farming as a mere business proposition without any idea of making a home for himself, is a very good farmer. I think that to be considered a good farmer a man needs to go on to a piece of land with the intention of making a home there, of establishing there a place to live in and enjoy life. This argument of mine may sound rather strange to some of you who heard me last year; but
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Daniel Webster Warner: Then I am ready to support the government in passing this item if they can prove to the House that they are going to pay competent agents with the money. I know we have to have these immigrants. I know the resources are here for them to develop. I know that we need them. Our debts are already made and we are a party to them. I know that we can compete with the rest of the world in the products we have if we are only given a chance to have the lowest possible rates to the markets of the world. I would rather compete with my neighbour and have him at the same time help me to pay the debts we have made in this country, than compete with him when he lives in some other country and competes in the same market that I do. If, on the other hand, part of the proceeds from the sale of his produce is turned in to help pay our debts, it seems to me that is an important matter to us. If he goes to the United States, perhaps in time they will get enough people over there to use all their own products of the kind we are raising, and we may have an opportunity to sell to them, but that time is not yet. As it is now we have to compete with them, and we are competing with them in the world's markets. I say that I would rather compete with them here at home than compete with them living in some other country.
I do not know that I have thrown very much light on this subject, but I have taken a different view from what some of our members have. I repeat, I want to hold the govern-
Supply -Im vi igra tion
ment responsible for ameliorating conditions as far as is humanly possible, so that we may be in the best possible position to help Canada get back on her feet again.
Mr. SU1HERLAND:	I may say that I
do not feel as keen to speak on this question now as I did about a week ago when the matter was first brought before the House. After listening to the many speeches which have been delivered I am very glad indeed, as I am sure are the majority of the members of this House, that the hon. member for Strat.h-cona (Mr. Warner) in spite of the difficulty under which he labours at the moment has endured until the end almost, and delivered the speech which he did here tonight. I think that it is much to his credit that he has spoken in the way he has. I have wondered often as I listened to the remarks which were delivered in this debate if the speakers appreciated the effect of the words which fell from their lips, and the thought flashed on my mind that we were inclined to forget in this parliament sometimes that we were the representatives, not of a particular constituency or of a particular class, but that every member of the House of Commons was here representing the Dominion of Canada.
As I listened to some of the objections which were raised against the bringing in of immigrants to this country, that it was going to encroach bn someone's prerogatives, I thought as I viewed in my mind this vast expanse of territory which we have here with only a few millions of people endeavouring to occupy and develop it, what claim can we advance to justify our monopolizing all these broad acres and all the undoubted resources which this country possesses if there is a congestion in some other part of the world? Surely this is not in keeping with the policy that some of those who objected so strenuously to immigration have been advocating.
I shall not attempt to cover the whole range of subjects that have been touched on in this debate, but there are some features which did appeal to me as requiring some further explanation from the minister and the government. I was not at all surprised that considerable opposition to this policy came from the government benches, and some also from both groups on this side of the House. The question of immigration under present conditions is a very serious and a very vital one to the future welfare of this Dominion. It is, as I think has already been acknowledged by some members of the government, perhaps the most important and vital question that can engage the attention of the government
Supply-Immigra tion

and of parliament at the present time. I appreciate the difficulties which the minister and the government have to contend with in this matter, and the pressure that is being brought to bear from so many different sources. I believe that any hon. member of this House, if he was left free to act according to his best judgment, would adopt a very different policy from the one that has been placed before us for bringing immigration to this country. I think the policy is narrow and sectional, but it is possibly in keeping with the age in which we are living and the times through which we are passing. I sometimes wonder if the whole world has not gone mad, if something is not necessary to bring people to their senses. It is just possible that the best thing we could experience at this time would be a period of very severe depression in order to bring people back to their senses.
Surprise is expressed in some quarters that the youth of our country are not remaining where they were born and brought up. I do not think any surprise should be exhibited at this at all, because they are the sons of a colonizing race. This is evidently bred in the bone, and one can hardly expect that people of this disposition are going to remain in the place where they were born and brought up, notwithstanding how ideal conditions there may be. We have in Canada the descendants of two great races, and we all believe that we have in this Dominion a great country and that we are going to become a great people. I often wonder if the fact that people of French descent are more inclined to remain at home and not to wander so far abroad is not due to the circumstance that they are not the descendants of a race that has been so historically noted for its colonising proclivities. The Anglo-Saxon has wandered all over the world, and wherever there was a vacant place, you could rest assured he was there, establishing the Union Jack. This is going on to-day, and notwithstanding the fact that many of our young men are going to the United States at the present time, I am sure, as the hon. member for Strathcona has already said, that you will find them trooping back again in the course- of a few years, if we only do our duty by ourselves under present circumstances. It is an easy mat~ ter at any time to find fault with a government which has to carry on, and it is very easy to find fault with the present government. I am inclined sometimes to wonder why many of the things which we heard about during the general election which took place a couple of years ago, have evidently [Mr. Sutherland.I '
been forgotten and why no effort has been made to put those policies into effect, if they were going to prove to be such a benefit for our country. I am not, however, going to blame the government for that, because I believe it is in the public interest that they should forget those old platforms of theirs, which they did not take very much stock in themselves, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has several times intimated to the House.
To my mind, the one outstanding matter which is affecting those particularly engaged in agriculture to-day is the enormous quantity of imported produce that is being disposed of in the Canadian market. I noticed the ex-president of the Ontario Agricultural College, Dr. George Creelman, in a speech which he delivered in Toronto a few months ago, stated that last year $168,000,000 worth of farm produce was imported into this country.
I am referring to this matter for the benefit of some of my hon. friends to the left who think that some remedy different from the one I propose, should be applied to our difficulties.
But there are other matters that I should like to touch upon, and I am going to point out very briefly the greatest difficulty which we have to encounter at the present time and the one which possibly, above all others, is responsible for our present condition. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) referred to the need of competition in order to have proper development. I believe that is the case; when you eliminate competition, you are going to injure somebody in the process and you are going to remove the incentive which is necessary to bring out the best there is in anyone. That rule applies, it does not matter where you go, and one of the most serious things that we have had to face during the past few years is the fact that we have, not' only in this Dominion, but in practically every other country, what is known now as organized labour. They have in several instances dictated to the rest of the people of this country who might be termed as labourers more than they in several respects. The effect during the present winter of the attitude of organized labour in connection with the mining of coal has been almost a calamity to this country. It has indeed, been so serious that it has overreached any temporary benefit which they have received, and those who have suffered most have been the wage-earners of Canada. The same thing, I believe, applies with regard to our transportation facilities. The unions took control of the railways of this country during the war period, and they

Supply-Immigration
absolutely made it impossible for the railways to be operated so that the best interests of the country could be served. I point to those as two illustrations to show what happens when competition is eliminated and matters are regulated in that way. This means simply that you have to organize every class upon a similar basis if you are going to put them on an equal footing, and if you do that you are right back again where you started.
As regards the idea that by having the people of this country divided into sections and classes, if you are going to reap a temporary advantage, that can be done only by injuring some other class which is not so well organized as the class which is receiving a temporary benefit. The effect of this is that eventually you get back exactly to where you started. I hope, before we have to go through that whole process, something will be done to stop that course and to make the people realize that the government are going to act on behalf of all the people of this country, regardless of whether they are an organized body or not and able to bring influence to bear upon the government.
A year ago, as I listened to the Minister of Finance during the budget debate, when he was pointing out how he had made certain reductions on some things, I wondered if that was because of the pressure which had been brought to bear, and if no reductions had been made on other items because no pressure had been brought to bear. I merely mention that to show the effect an organized body will have in bringing influence to bear upon the government. I am afraid this is the very thing the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) encountered in endeavouring to bring about an immigration policy to serve the interests of this country. As I listened to the statements he made on several occasions during the debate which is taking place, he virtually admitted that he was not attempting to do much; in fact, several of his supporters charged him with not having a policy at all. He scarcely claimed that this was a policy; but he was following the line of least resistance, and he hoped to get through in that way. I am afraid such a course will not suit present conditions in this country. I know, as regards the province from which I come, we do not want to steer a middle course by which we shall be subject to the least criticism. What should and what must be done is to meet the demands of this country, and anyone who says that there is no need of more labour in this country; that we have many people out of employment and that until they are absorbed, more people must not be brought
into this country, is losing sight of the fact that there are thousands and tens of thousands of opportunities in Canada, works thar ought to be carried on that are standing still to-day because there are not enough people here to carry them on. The farmers of Ontario are only half farming; they are not doing anything like what they could or would like to do, owing to the fact that there is no labour available.
Why is there not labour available? It is simply because the labour from the farm goes into the towns where there are abundant opportunities and where wages are much higher than they are in the rural districts. Someone may ask why that is the case. Well, let me tell you what happened a short time ago. Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress, went to Toronto and insisted that the provincial government adopt an eight-hour day for certain classes who were working on government contracts, and that they should pay a minimum wage. This was to apply to all classes of labour except farmers. When he was asked why he did not extend this provision to farm labour he said that this class of labour was in the nature of a family affair and should not come under these regulations. Now, we as a parliament are responsible for fixing the hours-of labour for the servants of the people. We were the guilty parties in the first instance in fixing the hours of labour of those engaged in the Civil Service much below the standard of people engaged in any other walk of life. Is it any wonder that others look to us as setting an example of what might be accomplished by organization and pressure? It is generally recognized that the farmer cannot carry on under these conditions, and this has been demonstrated on many occasions. When we adopted daylight saving in this country there was a vigorous protest from the farmers, because undoubtedly it hampered them and made it much more difficult for them to get the necessary labour on the farm. The very fact that agriculture is languishing as it is today, particularly in western Canada, owing to the many difficulties with which it has to cope, shows that an abundance of labour is the only thing that can solve the problem. I called the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) during this session, to one article which I thought should be exempt from the sales tax for the reason that there is absolutely no labour to be had in the province of Ontario in connection with its production. And although we may not hear very much of an outcry, nevertheless there is

Supply-Immigration

an insistent demand on the part of the farmers for something to be done in this direction.
The minister (Mr. Stewart) said that so far as Ontario was concerned, the province preferred to keep its office in London and engage in practically the same work as is carried on by the federal government in bringing immigrants to the country. Do the government and the House consider that it is fair to the province of Ontario that it should have to do work of this kind in this way? A number of years ago the federal government undertook to make a disposition of all the immigrants coming into Canada, and the Ontario government gave up the work in which they had been engaged. Ontario was practically neglected because nearly all, in fact one might say all, the literature published and, circulated by the Department of Immigration for years back has been devoted to western Canada, while little or none has been published to serve the purposes of that province. The publications issued by the Department of Agriculture itself, which are in the greatest demand by well-informed people in the Old Country when they are seeking information in regard to this country, contain so little with regard to the province of Ontario that intending immigrants receive no encouragement from that source to come to that province. This is a matter I have endeavoured to press not only upon this government but upon the previous government on numerous occasions. I may observe that I am referring to the reports in connection with the experimental farms of this country, from which you will find that there is practically no effort being made to do justice to the wonderful possibilities we have in that province.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me inform the hon. gentleman that in conference with the provincial governments I offered, as I am prepared, to distribute literature of any sort, which any province thinks will be of value to it, through all the agencies of the federal government. I did not suggest that the Ontario government should close their office in London, but I do think that it would be a saving of expenditure if all the outside work were carried on by the federal government.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The history of immigration work in Ontario is just as I have endeavoured to point out. The work was handed over to the federal government in 1902 and for a number of years they controlled it until the provincial government were finally forced to adopt the method to which I have
fMr. Sutherland.]
referred and establish their own agencies in the Old Land again. At that time there was a conflict, because while the federal government were paying a bonus of $5 to the booking agents for every immigrant booked to Canada, no commission was given for any immigrant sent to the Ontario government's agency. This was the case until 1908 or 1909, when the Ontario government again entered upon this work in the Old Land. And if they do not see fit now to give up their office and agencies the reason I think is obvious. Now the minister says he is prepared to print literature for the province.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member has mistaken what I said. I said I would distribute literature for the provinces; and even if the government of Ontario cares to maintain its office, as I am quite willing that it should do, it may use every federal agent we have to advertise the province.


Donald Sutherland: The fact that immigration comes within the scope of the federal government and not of the provincial government would justify the Dominion in giving impartial treatment to all the provinces. I doubt whether there is in the whole' Dominion a place which is so well adapted as Ontario for the bringing in of immigrants, particularly if they lack the experience to start on their own resources. They come into Ontario, however, and after they have obtained some degree of experience the fall excursions for farm labourers are advertised all over the province and these people go to the West and engage in harvesting. Many of them see great opportunities of obtaining cheap lands and they remain out there. I venture to say that tens of thousands of those who have come to Ontario have gone out in that way.
Now, the minister has entered into an arrangement with an organization known as the Canada Colonization Association. I remember seeing this matter featured in the press for a considerable time past, and it struck me as propaganda that was being carried on with an object. When I saw that it was to be purely for philanthropic purposes I became somewhat interested and wondered how it was that such an earnest effort was being .put forth. I followed the proceedings as carefully as I could and noticed that the minister had announcements to make from time to time with regard to government policy. A year ago very little criticism was offered because the government had not been in office very long. But owing to the fact while the war was on there was practically no

Supply-Immigration
immigration to Canada, and that during the past year immigration has fallen off by some 90,000 as compared with the previous year, it was undoubtedly a warning to the government that some effort should be made to meet the situation.
The minister has stated that the Canada Colonization Association has had a rather stormy career lately. In fact from his remarks I rather gathered that he himself was somewhat dubious as to the wisdom of continuing the arrangements entered into with the association. It was characterized by the Prime Minister as a welfare league composed largely of hon. members of a political persuasion opposed to his own, and I was wondering if that was one of the reasons which accounted for his apparent anxiety to favour the association. Certainly to do so would be something unusual. I may say that so far as I am concerned I do not know who are at the head of the Canada Colonization Association, nor am I aware what their political faith is, and I care much less; but I do say that when the government undertake to vote large sums of money to be handed over to land agents with a view to bringing immigrants to this country and placing them under the control of the Soldier Settlement Board, they are leading those people to believe that the government are to some degree at least officially responsible for the treatment which these immigrants are accorded. I shall not go into the history of this association at length because it was dealt with very fully before. When the minister (Mr. Stewart) first brought the matter up I put several questions to him, and it appears now that I was right in the conclusions I had arrived at on that occasion because what I said then has not been since contradicted.
When the Prime Minister pointed out that Sir John Willison had resigned from the presidency of the association owing to the criticisms which were being levelled at it, be asked to have some confirmation from the two groups on this side of the House as to their attitude towards the association. Letters were read by the Prime Minister, and he endeavoured to draw the conclusion that their writers were in favour of such a policy as had been advocated by the government. 1 do not think that conclusion could be reasonably drawn from those letters, for the very fact that the association had received them for that purpose would to my mind bring them under suspicion. If the association are in a position t-o do what they claim, if, as their papers indicate, they have been organized purely on a voluntary basis without any
91 i
idea of making a profit then they ought not to resort to these methods.
Let me quote a few articles from the Toronto Globe of September last dealing with this matter. On September 2, 1922, the Globe contained this item copied from a Winnipeg paper:
S. W. Jacobs, M.P., continued his criticisms of the King government's immigration policy and his advocacy of the private ownership of the government railways before the Winnipeg Liberal Association.
On the same date the Globe contained the following despatch from its Ottawa correspondent :
Progress is also being made in formulating an aggressive and prudent immigration policy, and Honourable Charles Stewart, who has had this in charge, has his program about completed, and it was discussed to some extent at to-day's cabinet meeting. It will likely be dealt with again to-morrow by the cabinet, and it is understood that next week the plan for stimulating immigration of the better class of people to this country will be made public.
On the 11th September the Globe had this announcement on its front page, headed "Ministry discloses plan of importing needed citizens."
Careful selection of agriculture workers. Canadian Colonization Association will work in conjunction with British overseas settlement officials, federal and provincial co-operation-
This was evidently the policy which the government decided to adopt on that date. On the following day the Globe contained an editorial headed, "The peopling of Canada , in the course of which the following appeared:
The Canadian people will approve both the aim and method of the federal government's new immigration policy, etc. The services of the Canadian Colonization Association, an organization backed by private capital, which has been a long time mapping out the field for immigration to this country and will have the financial support of the Imperial government, will be employed in the location of settlers.
I should like the minister to inform the committee what financial support this association is receiving from the Imperial government.


Charles A. Stewart: I will give my hon. friend those particulars when the item comes up for discussion.


Donald Sutherland: The item, as I understand it, is for the outside immigration service?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. SI  THERLAND@: And this is a matter under the control of the outside service?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it comes under the next item, No. 53.
Supply-Immigration


Donald Sutherland: The article in the Globe would make it clear that this association is receiving financial support from the British government. Now, it will be observed that not a word is said in these articles in regard to the bonus which was being paid to the association by the government. Thq people have been misled by the government not divulging the whole scheme. Let me ask why this information has been kept back until the item comes up in the estimates. The minister states that this is not the item. This item is for the outside service in connection with immigration, and therefore this business must of necessity come under those officials, or else it is being handed over holus bolus to this association without any control whatever by the department. I hope the minister does not imply that some control will not be exercised over this association?


Charles A. Stewart: I made a statement in the House this afternoon that I had not full information and that vote 53 would be delayed until that information was forthcoming. We are discussing vote 52 which deals entirely with the employees of the government.


Donald Sutherland: Outside?


Charles A. Stewart: Outside. It has nothing to do with the organization my hon. friend is discussing.


Donald Sutherland: The outside employees must of necessity be the field officers, and consequently must come in touch with this work.


Charles A. Stewart: No, no. I have tried to make it clear to my hon. friend that those dealt with in the $700,000 vote are practically all civil servants. No activities of the association come under this particular vote; they are covered by the next vote, No. 53, which we propose to leave open.


Donald Sutherland: Then there are evidently two systems: The machinery for carrying on under the old system is still being retained; and this is entirely aside from anything connected with the present system.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it seems almost hopeless to get my hon. friend to understand. I made the statement the other day that we had been giving grants to the Salvation Army. But we do not interfere with the army in the handling of those grants, and that has been the practice of the department. for years. They are working in the same fields in which our agents are working-employees of this government, and the same

applies to the Canada Colonization Association. The money-I will deal with the matter when the item comes up-is given them by way of grant as well.


Donald Sutherland: The grant to the Salvation Army is in view of work which they are carrying on, well known services that they have been rendering. In the other case there are conditions attached that do not apply in the case of the Salvation Army. If, therefore, there is no check by the officials provided for under this item, I do not see how there can be otherwise.
On September 16 the Prime Minister is reported to have delivered a speech at Stouff-ville, in North York. The report says:
Mr. King spoke at some length on the immigration policy. He said that Canada must get quality and not quantity in immigration, and the plan of co-operation between provincial and federal governments had been worked out. We are determined that we in Canada should say who would come and who should stay out. Conditions as they are discouraged many who would be good citizens in better times, he said, adding that there had been organized in Canada the Canada Western Colonization Association, which would sell lands on thirty-year terms and would look after settlers. The government would work in co-operation with the association, choosing and bringing out settlers, and having the association look after them.
This statement clearly indicates that the policy had already been shaped and that a contract had been entered into with this company. You will observe that these three statements were made in September. As late as November 17 the Globe reports:
Hon. Charles Stewart will disclose immigration policy within ten days. A comprehensive plan of immigration will be recommended to the government of Canada within the next ten days by Hon. Charles Stewart. Minister of the Interior, according to an announcement he made at the Kiwanis Club luncheon to-day, following an address by Lord Shaughnessy.
The intimation is made that another policy is to be brought down. I direct attention to the fact that the Prime Minister, speaking months before, intimated that a policy had been formulated and was to be put into effect, and later the minister himself intimated at this luncheon, if he is correctly reported, that a new policy was to be brought down. On December 27 the Globe has another article, as follows:
Light Immigration Canada's Prospect. No dearth of suitable persons agree to come, but they need assistance; expense too great. In the meantime the government is just doubling its activity in publicity in both the United States and the United Kingdom, including both advertising and lecture work.
Not. a word about a subsidy or bonus being paid to anji-body; but there is an intimation that the activities of the government are not to be nearly as extensive as the people were led to believe they would be from former

Supply-Immigration
articles appearing in this government journal. On January 7 there is a fresh report from Winnipeg as follows:
Sir John Willison, in a letter addressed to all directors and made public here to-day, announces that his resignation as president of the Canada Colonization Association was due to the fact that he had no voice in settling the details of policy.
I	wonder if the reference to "details of policy'' involved a conflict between Sir John Willison and the government, or was it in regard to the directors of the company? Perhaps the minister can give the committee
some information on that subject.
II	p.m. We were assured that it was
largely owing to the fact that Sir John Willison was at the head of this organization that the government entered into the arrangement with them; yet here he states that he had practically no voice in settling the details of policy. The report quotes his letter as follows:
"A short experience of three months has forced me to realize that I cannot give adequate attention to the affairs of the Association." Sir John's letter states "Since I have had no active relations to the association when its funds were subscribed, and have no voice in settling the details of its policy, I am sure that my withdrawal should not affect its interests or prospects unfavourably. I desire that my resignation should take effect January 2nd, 1923.
This comment is made:
The new Canada Colonization Association, with a commendable programme and a useful future, is apparently suffering from internal dissension.
It is difficult to understand why the government, in view of these unexplained circumstances, should allow this company to benefit frcftn the bonuses they are being paid and the commissions they are receiving from the land owners whose lands are placed with them. These lands are listed with the company for a period of five years, on the understanding that when a sale is made it shall cover a period of thirty-two years. If any hon. member was offering his lands under these circumstances, would he not fix the value at least 25 per cent in excess of what he would otherwise accept? Yet the settler is being brought in in this way, and the Canada Colonization Asociation is to receive ten per cent commission.
This matter may be dealt with more specifically under a subsequent item, but as the first item is the one upon which the general policy of the government is discussed, it is only fair that these things should be cleared up. Before any item is passed we should have a clear statement from the minister with regard to this company, particularly with reference to the points I have mentioned. The
arrangement is unfair to the prospective purchaser. It will bring discredit on the people of this country if sales are made under these conditions. Land agents as a rule have not a very high reputation. They produce letters asked for by leaders of groups in this House, with a view to bolstering up their case and establishing their claims upon the government. Moreover, the very name of the organization is misleading; when the people know that the Soldier Settlement Board are co-operating in the matter, they will believe the whole thing is part of the machinery of the government for placing the people on the land. Much of this land is held by speculators. It is the first duty of the government, not to look after those who are holding these lands, but to protect the interests of those who have invested their money in lands for agricultural purposes and are endeavouring to carry on under very difficult conditions. Probably the best thing that could happen to this country would be for those people to be forced to relinquish their control of these lands at a reasonable price, so that settlers could obtain them. If this policy proposed by the government is dropped I am satisfied that these lands will be purchased much more cheaply than they will be through the means provided for under the proposal which the minister has announced to the House. I would again remind the House that the arrangement with this association is of such a character that the outside employees of the department must of necessity be allied, in some sense, with the association if any control at all is to be exercised over it. The statement has been made in the press that $40,000 have already been paid to the association. If such is the case I think the minister should fully inform the committee with regard to it.
I do not intend to take up any more time, at this stage but I would like to point out what is happening in the far western end of the province of Ontario at the present time. In the Ottawa Journal this morning I read the following:
Young Canadians rushing to Detroit Eighty families a day reported crossing Border
Windsor, March 21.-Lured by high wages, hundreds of young Canadians are emigrating to the United States. According to the railway and ferry companys no fewer than eighty families a day are entering the States at Detroit. On one train arriving here this afternoon from the East there were forty-five young men who said they were on their way to Michigan industrial centres. A majority of the men are between 25 and 40 years of age. Most of them came from Toronto, Hamilton and other cities of eastern Ontario. Lack of work and prospect of high wages, they explained, induced them to leave the Dominion, More than half of the 45 are mechanics connected in some way with the building trades.
Supply-Immigration

If it is a fact that there is a reluctance on the part of anyone to undertake any building or construction work in Canada under present conditions, that is a serious matter which should receive some attention. There is a need for inspiring capital with confidence, a confidence which is lacking to-day. To such an extent is that the case that I believe it is absolutely imperative on the part of the government to adopt much more stringent regidations respecting those who endeavour to hamper and restrict people in legitimately carrying on their business in Canada. An effort is being made along that line. We have heard statements made here during the present debate which I am sorry to think should ever be made by members of the Canadian parliament. One can see what the tendency and the drift is, and I believe the responsibility resting upon the government is such that they cannot afford to follow along the line of least resistance. They must face the conditions with courage, and deal with the situation in a statesmanlike manner. Then those people with capital will be inspired by that feeling of confidence which is necessary in order to enable them to go ahead and develop the natural resources of this country.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Mr. Chairman I do not think I will take up the time of the House by emitting a wail of distress such as we have become accustomed to hearing from this end of the chamber. I do not think that the people of Cariboo sent me here to brand Canada as an undesirable country for citizens of other countries to come to. Those who entertain such an opinion of Canada would do well to leave it. I do not think there is another country on the face of the earth which holds the opportunities that Canada does for a young man to make a start in life. Some people advocate increasing the population as a remedy for the situation complained of. Others say:	Do not increase -production.
Twenty-seven years ago I was farming down at the mouth of the Fraser river. At that time we were selling hay, baled and loaded on the barges for $5 a ton, and selling potatoes for 25 cents a sack, and we were not complaining about hard times either. There were a few agitators going around the country and calling out for lower production, and saying we must not raise so much hay, and oats. To-day there is six times the amount of feed raised at the mouth of the Fraser river and the Delta, and in British Columbia generally, and we are getting $30 a ton for our hay and $20 to $25 a ton for our potatoes. This country will never be what nature intended it to be until we have a population of from twenty-
five to thirty millions. There is no reason why Canada should not support that number of people. One hon. member made a statement about the "better element" in this corner of the chamber. That hon member is not here now but I would like him to inform us who is the better element in this section of the House.
There is one thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the minister. It has been stated that in all likelihood army officers would come and locate in Canada. I may be wrong in that impression; if so I stand corrected. What I am going to say has no reference to any of our Canadian army officers that served overseas. No person in this House entertains a greater respect for those men than I do. The army officers to whom I refer have spent the greater part of their lives in the Old Country and I think they are a very good class of people to steer clear of. I have known of a number of these officers who came out to Canada and settled on the land; and really it was pitiable to see their efforts to try and make a living. Through no fault of their own they were greatly handicapped from want of experience in trying to carry on farming. Indeed they are a class of people that we can ill afford to bring to this country, but if the minister has some easy and well paid jobs around Ottawa that he wants to fill by all means let him bring these men over and install them in the positions.
I am opposed to assisted immigration. If any young man, healthy and strong, comes to Canada and cannot make a start for himself we do not want him; I do not think Canada is the proper place for him. One h<?n. member during the debate spoke of a man who came from the Old Country without any money whatever and who is now sitting in this House as a representative of the people. There is another man who came to Canada without a dollar in his pocket and he is also a member of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas George McBride: If a young man cannot come to this country, make a good start for himself and go ahead I say we are better off without him. Consequently, I would give no assistance to any immigrant that comes to Canada; I am opposed to it in every way.
An hon. member made the statement that it was a love of society and a desire to have a good time in the city that caused people to flock to the large centres of population. Well, if I want a good time I start for the country; you can have a better time there than you can anywhere else.

Supply-Immigration


An hon. MEMBER:: Out at the country
club.


Thomas George McBride: The country club is a mighty good place to go to. Some hon. members have spoken during this debate for an hour or more and have concluded by saying they had no suggestions to make to the government. Well, I think I will make a suggestion or two to the government before I conclude. The first suggestion I have to make is in connection with advertising. I hold in my hand a book bearing the names of the Minister and Deputy Minister of the Interior and dated 1918. This is some of the advertising that the former government sent out, in connection with the Peace river country:
The Peace River district contains an area of over 115,000 square miles. Its charming climate and scenery, so long famed by legend and mystery, has been proven a reality. Our keen searching trials and tests have proven it to be all and more than it was ever represented to be.
The climate is excellent. The air is pure and bracing -in the. winter clear and crisp, and in summer dry and balmy. Extremes of temperature, sudden changes, and severe storms are very rare, with little snowfall and few winds. Blizzards are unknown, but the mild chinook w'inds occasionally sweep through the mountain passes from the warm Pacific.
Seeding usually begins in April, sometimes in March. Most of the rainfall occurs in June and July. The average precipitation for the full year is about twelve to thirteen inches.
The summers are remarkable for their long days and short nights. For three months there is almost continual light. The days are warm, but the heat is not sultry or murky.
Harvest commences about the middle of August. September is an especially pleasant month.
The climate need not be feared. Taken the year round, it is healthy and pleasant.
The soil is rich and easy to till. Flowers and vegetables grow with wonderful energy, and spread cheer and profit alike.
There are many large islands along the Peace river, and these are all thickly wooded with fine straight spruce.
I am only giving a synopsis of the advertisement sent out. I might also state that the gentleman who handed me this advertisement said he got it down in Tennessee, and he is now up in the Peace river country:
Seams of coal are exposed in the Rocky Mountain Canyon above Hudson Hope, of excellent quality and higher grade than most of the western Canadian coals.
Now I want to draw the attention of the committee specially to this:
Railway construction is in progress. Location has been carried west as far as Pouce Coupe, and it is only a matter of time until the steel will be laid across the prairie and thence through the mountain passes to give an outlet to the Pacific coast.
That is what I consider a contract between this government and the people who went into that country. I can take it in no other light:
Much of the country is still unexplored, but many millions of acres of fertile lands are known to lie in its valleys, and untold mineral wealth beneath its hills. It holds out very alluring promises for the future. Railway surveys have been projected from the south and east, and railway construction is in progress.
Another promise on the part of the government to the people of the Peace river country:
Much water power is available. Fish and game are abundant. The scenery is magnificent, and the summer seasons very delightful.
Homesteads have been located about Fort St. John. On the flats wild grasses and peavine grow in great profusion. The land is excellent, and very heavy yields of grain and vegetables are harvested every year on the homesteads already taken up.
Then comes another promise from the Dominion government to these people:
The government of Canada offer all resonable inducements and assistance to encourage the development of this great Peace River district. Progressive steps have been taken to open it up by establishing lines of communication and transportation.
I may say that it is essential to the life of these people that they get railway transportation. Something over two thousand people have gone in on the strength of this advertisement. Will this government carry out its solemn pledge to them? I am not finding fault so much with the old government, nor indeed with this government so far. The old government had the aftermath of the war to deal with, and this government has practically only got settled down and got the Railway Board appointed. But I think it is the duty of this government to give these people the railway facilities they are entitled to, and the railway facilities which this government pledged to them when they went into that country and settled there.
During last session I was asked a number of times to take this question up with the government but I refused to do so. I said that I would first go into the country and see it for myself, and at the close of last session I spent the great part of the fall in the Peace River district, and I have not one word of fault to find with that advertisement. I think there is a country there second to none in Canada, and although I travelled through it day after day I did not meet one person during that time who felt that he had any fault to find with the climate or with the soil.. All they asked for was railway transportation. I went from granary to granary all through that vast country and saw hundreds of them, with two and three years' crops of grain and no way of getting it out. Some of them had their grain in stacks, and could not get money enough to thresh it.
On the train coming out with me were seven men and a bank manager. I wanted to get all the information I could, and of eourse

Supply-Immigration
I was interested in talking to these men and learning what I could from them. I asked the bank manager why he was leaving. I asked him if he had got a promotion. He said, "No I am leaving that country because I think I had better leave it than go crazy in it. How can I stay in that country seeing what these people are up against, and that I am expected by the bank to make collections? I believe I would be locked up at New Westminster if I stayed there much longer. I am going out without instructions," he added "and I expect to get discharged." He was taking his wife and family out with him.
Each of the other seven men was the head of a family, and had left his wife and family in there to look after the cattle and winter as best they could. They were going out to try and earn a little money to buy clothing for their families. Four of these men went down to Seattle, two of them to work in the coal mines there, one of them to drive a teamv and the other to work on the wharf. They said they had some friends over there and thought that they could get a job. Now what is this government doing? These men will work there four or five months and make a little money to buy clothing for their children. They will buy the clothing over there, and on their way batik this government will collect a tariff on that clothing. These men go down there to earn a few hundred dollars to clothe their families and if they buy the clothes over on the American side where they can get them cheaper they will have to pay this government about thirty per cent in the way of tariff on those clothes. Is that the way to encourage settlers in this country? Is that the way we are going to treat them? They came here on the strength of this advertisement issued by this government. They are making good. They are the best class of people I have ever had the privilege of meeting. Some two or three hundred of them went over and fought our battle overseas. They went in and settled in the Peace river country on the strength of this pledge made by a minister of this government to give them railway facilities. What is this government going to do about it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A minister of the previous government.


Thomas George McBride: He was a minister of the federal government, at the time he made this promise. I was talking to a minister of this government the other day and he said that the difference between this government and the government of the United States was that in the United States one government did

not pretend to carry out the pledges of its predecessor, but he said in Canada they did. Under these conditions I say that this government is in honour bound to give these people railway facilities with the least possible delay. They went in there in good faith. They have carried out their share of the contract. What is this government going to do about it?
I do not want to take up too much time, but I have a petition here representing some two thousand settlers. They ask for a line to start from Prince George and to run into the Peace river country. This would be a matter of only about 200 miles, and it would open up that country. I venture to say from personal inspection of that country, if it had railway facilities, inside of ten years from
50,000,000 to 100,000,000 bushels of wheat would be raised there. That is something the government wants to look into. The government is talking about bringing in immigration. There is a district in which not one person, all the time I was there, had one complaint to make about the climate, crop conditions or anything else. One man to whom I spoke said that a crop failure was unknown. He had been there for thirteen years, he said, and this year came the nearest to being a failure of any year since he had been there. He had as fine a crop of wheat, oats and barley as I want to see grown anywhere. The country is a splendid one, an empire within itself, and yet those people, after they have gone in there in good faith, are tied up and cannot get transportation. Now, it is up to this government to furnish them with transportation. If this government sends a commission there to investigate conditions, and if it is found that any word in that advertisement and the statement I have made to-night is not correct, I do not ask them to do anything; but I think they will find what I have said more than verified on investigation. Therefore, it is up to the government to build a line, in my judgment, from Prince George into that district. This would put those people within 667 miles of Prince Rupert, which is undoubtedly one of the coming cities on the Pacific coast, and it is up to the government to do everything it can to develop freight for its lines going there. It would also bring that country within 892 miles of Vancouver, and all the government has to do is to build about 200 or, at the outside, 250, miles of line. I have had a railway expert go and investigate the situation, and he says that such a line could be built for $35,000 a mile. I would ask the government to investigate the matter and try and make a start at the earliest possible date.

Supply-Immigration


Mr. JELLIFF:: It is not my purpose to take up very much of the time of the committee in entering into this debate. I have been sitting here for almost a week now in the gloom and shadows of this chamber and I felt that it was up to me to bring in a little gleam of sunshine from sunny, southern Alberta. We have heard a good many complaints from this side of the House in reference to conditions surrounding the farmers of this country, and I regret to say that most of those complaints are well founded. They are true; they are absolutely true from investigations which I have been able to make. But at the same time, we must ask ourselves the question, as fair-minded and reasonable men, members of this House of Commons, a great deliberative assembly: Where in the world can we go and not find similar or even worse conditions? We have come through a great war, and the situation in which we are placed, to my mind, is to a large extent the result of the losses of men and of treasure which we sustained during that great conflict and its inevitable reaction. I doubt whether any one of my farmer friends sitting to my left to-day, for whom I entertain the utmost respect and affection, could, at this time, plant themselves down in any other agricultural country in the world and find better conditions than exist right here in Canada, bad as these conditions are. We are here to try to help correct those conditions; and when I review the whole situation as best I can, looking the world over, I must conclude, when considering the matter of immigration to this country, that there is net another country on earth where incoming men who are honest, who are industrious, and who possess a fair share of intelligence, stand a better show of making a livelihood than in Canada.
I am going further than that, and I am going to say here to-night that, looking Canada over as a whole, I know of no province in this country which can offer better opportunities than the province of Alberta from which I come. I came into Alberta as an immigrant twenty years ago There was not a railroad in my neighbourhood; I journeyed part way to the land which I had selected, on what we called a narrow-track or turkey trail railway, and in those twenty years I have seen that country fenced up all around me. Those lands which formerly were the exclusive home of the ground squirrel, the coyote and a few straggling herds of cattle are now the homes of hundreds and thousands, I am going to say, of prosperous and successful farmers. I have seen school districts blocked out, schoolhouses built, churches built, towns and cities grow up,
all the institutions of civilization placed in our midst, and the building in the three western provinces of one of the greatest empires on earth.
I am going to give the committee something from the records of our own provincial government-I am not going into it very far- just to indicate what Alberta is, what it has been doing during the last ten or fifteen years, to show it is a proper place for bringing in new settlers who have an honest intention to earn a fair living for themselves and their families. In the matter of grain, according to records which I have from the Alberta government, we produced in that province in 1909, 8,467,799 bushels of wheat, and in 1920, 83,526,901 bushels of wheat, or nearly ten times as much. As regards oats, we produced in 1909, over 24,000,000 bushels; in 1920, over
115.000.	000 bushels, and in 1921, 92,000,000 bushels.
As regards barley, we produced in 1909, over
3.000.	000 bushels, and in 1921, over 12,000,000 bushels. Passing from that to the cattle industry, let us see what took place. In 1910, the figures given as to cattle in Alberta are 672,709 head, and in 1921, 1,854,202, a tremendous growth and development. Our dairy products sprang from $7,855,751 in 1910 to $34,000,000 in 1920; our creamery butter rose from $2,315,000 in 1910 to $11,821,291 in 1920, and so on. The number of dairy cows in the province increased from 94,671 in 1910 to 423,838 in 1921; while the number of horses increased from 254,197 in 1910 to 916,510 in 1921, and swine from 237,510 to 574,318.
Now, these are some real facts in reference to what we have produced. True it is that in late years, with these great productions and with the market conditions such as they have been in the world at large, we have not been able to obtain a fair reward for the money invested and the labour put forth in agriculture in that province, and in the other western provinces. But I do not believe that that is a reason for us in Canada to stand by and let matters drift. I do not believe that the people in this country outside of this House of Commons would approve in any measure whatever of our taking an attitude of that kind. I believe that people are looking for an immigration policy; I think they are fully sensible of the great extent of our territory and the immeasurable richness of our resources, agricultural, mineral, fisheries and timber. They are looking to us to inaugurate policies in regard to immigration and otherwise which will result in such a development of these immense resources that Canada, within a reasonable period, will attain that position of

Supply-I mmigration
influence and power and usefulness among the nations of the world which Nature and destiny intended she should fill. I thoroughly believe that and I feel that it is our business to promote that end. And it all has a relationship to this immigration policy.
I am heartily in favour of immigration. I do not believe there is a member in this House who is not in favour of it; I do not believe there is a member here who does not want to see this great heritage of ours, this magnificent land with its resources developed to the utmost. I believe we all are anxious to see steps taken that will bring about that result. Speaking for myself and for the district in which I live I must say that we are very anxious to have immigrants. Nothing would please me better than to see the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) set down 2,000 good reliable farmers in my district of Lethbridge to-morrow. We have passed through as difficult times as any district in Canada,, and I believe worse. But outside certain localities in connection with which a mistake was made in earlier immigration policies, and where we had no business to place settlers without having made proper preparations, I believe that we can gjve every man who wants to come in and farm a good opportunity to make a fair, square living for himself and his family. Our people are persevering and gritty and they are determined to win. They have set aside and hypothecated great areas of land in my district to the extent of eight or nine million dollars, to be devoted to irrigation projects, and I am quite sure they will win. When they get these projects settled up and in operation there will be few failures in that part of the province, nor, I trust, any further misery or suffering. Now', it is sometimes well for us to see ourselves as other see us. I hold in my hand a letter I received two or three weeks ago from a young man who settled a few years ago in my immediate neighbourhood. Before coming out into our part of the country he was a book-keeper with T. Eaton and Company, his wife having been a stenographer with the same company. He had been brought up on a farm in Ireland. He came and settled down in that neighbourhood and made a success of farming in every way. This letter, which is -written in beautiful handwriting, is dated February 23rd., and reads:
Dear Mr. Jelliff,
In view of the discussion on immigration in the country, in the press and in parliament I am sending you a clipping from my home paper in Belfast, Ireland. It is the concluding article of a series in which this clergyman describes his trip from Belfast to Pennant, Saskatchewan and return. He is a man of considerable standing in his community,-the minister of probably

the largest Presbyterian church in Ireland,- and if you will read his concluding remarks you will see he is very favourably impressed with this country. I understand it was the custom of the Immigration department some years ago when they were going after immigrants seriously to send over to the Old Country Canadian farmers during the winter season to tell them over there the actual conditions on the farm in Canada; and knowing your intimacy with the Hon. C. Stewart-this is complimentary to myself-I thought possibly you would use your influence on my behalf in that direction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: You can "oh, oh," at this all you please, gentlemen, but here is a man who is as honest, as honourable, as conscientious, and as successful a fanner as any that sits in this House to-night.
Of course, all the world knows the unsettled condition of Ireland, and lots of young farmers are at the present time anxiously considering the question of going overseas. As you know, I am familiar with conditions in each of the prairie provinces, both city and country, as I have been in Canada fifteen years, coming direct from the Old Country to Winnipeg in 1908. 1 can address public meetings if necessary and point out in [DOT] a convincing manner the advantages the country offers to the settler, and have no doubt I could secure a considerable number of immigrants from the farms under present conditions in Ireland.
My people are farmers over there and have occupied the same farm for ninety-eight years, so that I am thoroughly familiar with farming conditions on both sides of the Atlantic.
This is a man from my own district who changed from a clerical occupation and is making a marked success of farming. He wants to go over to his native country to spend the. winter time there and bring over men in the spring to settle on farms in Canada.
Now I am going to read the concluding paragraph of the clipping to which he refers, written by the pastor of one of the largest churches in Ireland. This is from the eleventh of a series of articles he has written with reference to Canada. He came over here to investigate conditions in order to satisfy himself. He had heard a lot about Canada, his people were looking this way, and he wanted them to know the truth about the situation. He says in conclusion:
At the moment there are a good many of our young people turning their thoughts anxiously and inquiringly to the Dominion of Canada. The present industrial depression and the uncertainty about the future of our country have made many wonder if emigration would solve for them the problem of the coming years. If my articles will have helped anyone to decide the question of whether or not they should seek a new home in Canada, then one of the purposes for which they have been written will be served. For my own part, I would say that if they decide to go they will find a land of hardly touched wealth and of many opportunities, a land that is producing men and women of industry, intelligence, and resource, a land in which they will be proud to dwell.

Supply-Immigration
I know what hard knocks are on the farm. I came to Canada twenty years ago knowing little or nothing about farming. I presume I have had harder knocks on that account than the man who comes here even with a limited amount of experience in that occupation. I have seen hard times, and I doubt if there is a man in this chamber who has had more and harder financial burdens to bear during those twenty years than I have. But all through that period I never lost one iota of my faith in the future greatness and destiny of Canada. I am determined to make a win yet on my farming venture, and I believe other men are equally determined. I have seen the wonderful growth and development of agriculture in western Canada-a development such as has never been seen in any other country in the world within the same limited time. We should have hope and we should take courage from that fact.
Now as to this immigration policy. I do [DOT] not like it. I want to see immigration, I want to see this country filled up. I want to see our great national debt paid, I want to see a stop put to these great railway deficits; but 1 am doubtful, sincerely doubtful, even if this Canada Colonization Association should be all right, whether it is going to obtain the results that we have in view. I do not think the immigration policy of the minister goes far enough. I do not think it is comprehensive enough. What does he propose? He is going to bring in, I take it from the plans that have been outlined, farmers, farm labourers, domestics and children- * very commendable so far as it goes, but it is doubtful indeed if that is going to answer the purpose which I have no doubt the minister has sincerely in view.
The bringing in of children as a philanthropic enterprise is commendable, but it will be years and years before such immigrants will be able to give any appreciable help in the payment of our national debt or in decreasing our railway deficits. Then take the next class, the domestics. I cannot see with an}- stretch of my imagination that they are going to_ contribute materially towards paying off our national debt. If what. I have seen of them in my life is still charactertistic of this class, most of their resources will be spent in mimicking their mistresses and possibly in a rivalry as to which can wear the shortest dresses both at the top and the bottom. But, I repeat, I do not believe they will contribute materially towards the payment of our national debt. And the same with the farm labourers. They will help somewhat on the farms to increase the
amount of grain produced, but when it comes to the income tax and to furnishing freight for our railroads they are not going to be a very important factor. Then the last class, the farmers themselves. As I have stated, there are great burdens on our farmers and we want to give them the best possible outlook. This plan of bringing in farmers is a marked admission on the part of the minister as to the relationship of agriculture to the general welfare of the country and to the dependence that we must place on it. But he is proposing to increase the number of farmers. He admits that the farmer is the backbone of the country. But we are not going to carry our debt any easier by lengthening the backbone, for the longer you make it the weaker it will be unless adequate props are provided to sustain it, unless it is strengthened, unless it is energized, unless it is rendered more effective-and there is nothing proposed here to this end.
What I should like to have announced here in this connection is the general policy of the government, which should be dovetailed and fitted in with the immigration policy, whatever it may be, to ensure its success and to accomplish the purposes we have in view. As it is now, we are looking to immigration to lift this load by increasing the number of farmers. In other words, we are asking the tail to wa'g the dog, instead of relying on the more natural action of the dog wagging the tail.
Now, there are certain things that must go concurrently with this policy to render it effective and successful. The first is that we must lower the cost of living and the cost of production. Remove that burden from the farmer and you will remove much of the cause of his coniplaint. I know of nothing better this administration could do than to dovetail the policy outlined in the platform on which it was elected in with its immigration policy. Let them come out with the courage of their convictions upon which they secured their present place in this parliament, and they will do more to contribute to the success of immigration than anything else they could attempt. Take the burdens off the necessaries of life and the implements of farm production. Go further and take the tariff burden off the implements necessary for the development of our natural resources.
Another matter that should be taken up with a view to rendering the work of the farmers effective is the equalization of freight rates. In my own province we have a rate of 15 cents a bushel on wheat from Lethbridge to Fort William, a distance of 1,177 miles, while the
Supply-Immigration

rate to Vancouver, only 774 miles, is 15.8 cents a bushel. It is costing us 81.95 a ton more, on an equal ton mile basis of rates, to get to the coast than to Fort William. When I went into Alberta my friends said to me: "The trouble is that you are too far from your market." I said, "Well, I expect the day soon to come when I shall be able to ship my grain to the western coast," and I have been waiting for that all these years, hoping and praying that it would come, not only for my own benefit but for the benefit of the farmers generally in my province. In my district we raised 22,000,000 bushels of wheat last year-63,000,000 bushels in the whole province. If we had had an equitable rate to the West the farmers of Alberta would have saved $3,500,000 on their wheat alone. In my own district we would have saved a million and a quarter. That means something to the intending settler; to bring about an equitable condition in freight rates would give added strength and sinew to the men who are already toiling in the fields out in that country. The government has it within its power to remedy that defect.
Another difficulty we are labouring under is connected with our sj'stem of financing. We need a system of financing adapted to the requirements of agriculture, a system that will provide us with money on the terms necessary to enable us to mature our products and put them on the market in an orderly way. It has got to come. Some such system prevails in every agricultural country that we are competing with. It is but a few years ago that a farm loan mortgage system was introduced in the United States. During the war the United States had to back up its farmers by advancing them millions of dollars through their War Finance Corpora-
12 m. tion. Then came the slump of 1920 and 1921; the War Finance Corporation was reinstated and there was distributed within a few months through that corporation $470,000,000 for the relief of cotton growers, corn growers, live stock producers and the sugar beet industry of the United States-in fact, only that could have saved them from utter collapse, Europe not being able to take her supplies as she had taken them in former years. By holding back their surplus and letting it go on the market as its absorption became possible they raised the price of cotton from 8 to 20 cents a pound and the price of corn from 20 to 45 or 50 cents a bushel. That increase was not an undue burden upon anybody; it was the fair average value of the product. In this country it should be part of our policy to bring about

some orderly method of marketing our farm products so that we may avoid slumps and frequent losses by putting the products on the market as they can be readily absorbed. Europe cannot take larger quantities than she requires for short periods; they are not in a position to buy in advance, because of the demoralized condition of their finance and exchanges. The right hon. leader of the Opposition, for whom I have so much respect, would, I am sure, pretty nearly agree with me in regard to some of these things, and I am confident that if the government took action along these lines they would have his hearty support and the support of hon. gentlemen to my right as well as of my hon. friends to my left. It is not simply a question of dollars and cents; we have to spend money here to make money. I doubt whether we can get our country back into shape without going further even into debt than we are today. We must put our producers in such a position that they shall be able to pull the load.
I believe from the bottom of my heart that the future of this government depends on the prosperity of the agricultural industry. If agriculture succeeds, prosperity will permeate to the very top of our industrial and commercial structure. As I sat here to-night thinking, my mind went back to that good old first Psalm that I learned at my father's knee. It presents to my mind a picture that I would like to look upon as a vision of our own country in the future. The words I have in mind are these:
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
I like to think of Canada as a great oak with its roots buried deep in the soil, developing into a magnificent tree under whose branches the war-weary of the world, the industrious. the ambitious, the worthy from all lands can find opportunity, peace, comfort and plenty.


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chinese immigration-salaries and contingencies, $00,000.
Arthur Meighen: I suggest to the minister that considering the success he has had in getting over a really serious hurdle, he do not ask the House to wait longer to-night. This is an important appropriation, and I know there are quite a number who would like to discuss it, some of whom are not "present. No progress will be made by going on with that item. The minister has asked himself that the second item, No. 53, stand, and I do not see what he hopes to gain by going on.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m. Friday.
Friday, March 23, 1923