1923-03-20

GREAT LAKES DISARMAMENT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the Table copy of papers, correspondence, documents, etc., passed between the government of Canada and the government of the United States relative to the Great Lakes disarmament question. This is the correspondence asked for by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) a few days ago. The return includes only such correspondence as took place betwen the termination of the war and the taking of office by the present administration. The correspondence that has taken place since relates to matters still under negotiation and is therefore not brought down at present.



ALLEGED INCOMPLETE RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. STEVENS:: On March 12 the House passed an order for return of all correspon-
Halibut Fisheries Treaty

dence, etc., between the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Solicitor General. The return contains one letter from the Attorney General in which the following occurs: "With reference to the above matter and my letter of the 16th," etc. Another letter indicates that a communication not included in the return had been sent by the Solicitor General; the reference is to "your letters of the 16th and 26th." I would respectfully direct the attention of the ministry to the fact that this return is incomplete and that the letter of the 16th ought to be brought down in compliance with the order of the House of March 12.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) is not in his seat at the moment. I shall have pleasure in directing his attention to my hon. friend's remarks.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BANCROFT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BANCROFT:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the morning papers it is suggested that I supported the amendment moved last night by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) to the titles resolution. I think you called my name, Mr. Speaker, as seconder, but I did not understand that that implicated me in any way. I may say that I took a geat deal of satisfaction in voting against both the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the main motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). I may say also that I take a great deal of pleasure in sharing this desk with the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, but I do not want to be put in any postiion where I have to support all his amendments or all his resolutions, or his bills on immigration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I may say that I read the motion in amendment as being moved by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft). The names were written on the motion.


Mr. NEILL:: I took the precaution, Sir, to write the name on the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: As we say in French, "L'honneur est sauf." The incident is therefore closed.



HALIBUT FISHERIES TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to refer to a return
[Mr. Stevens.)
brought down on Friday evening, for the purpose of asking a question of the ministry. The return embodies the correspondence relating to the recent signing of the Halibut Fisheries Treaty. By the return it is disclosed that the government has attempted to make a treaty binding only on the inhabitants and nationals of Canada on our part and on the inhabitants and nationals of the United States on the other, and it appears that in respect of the execution-the negotiations having been, properly, conducted by the Dominion-the courtesy of signature by the British Ambassador was denied by the Prime Minister and denied in the name of Canada. The result of the terms of the treaty and of its execution in this new fangled manner appears to have been a rider on the part of the United States Senate in its resolution of ratification, which rider provides that the treaty shall be applicable on our part as respects not only our nationals and our inhabitants but as respects also those of Great Britain. What I wish to put to the government is this: as the correspondence, according to the file brought down, closed on the fifth of March, and as the United States ratification is conditional on its application to Great Britain, whose sanction, of course, does not appear, owing to the absence of any signature representing the British government, what is the present position of the treaty? Will there be a treaty upon ratification by this House, and what is the intention of the government as respects the United States Senate's proviso on ratification?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I do not think that what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has called the rider will create any difficulty as to the ratification of the treaty. The United States senate ratified the treaty on the understanding that the nationals of "other parts of Great Britain"-the . phraseology is rather queer-would also be prevented from fishing for halibut in those waters. This is very easy to do. As far as the territorial waters are concerned both countries, the United States and Canada, will by legislation prevent any halibut fishing. As far as the extra-territorial waters are concerned no vessel from any country can carry on halibut fishing without using either United States or Canadian ports. It will be easy in the legislation which will have to be enacted by the United States Congress and by the parliament of Canada to close Canadian and American ports to any vessel carrying on halibut fishing. Consequently, I do not see any difficulty in the ratification of the treaty.

Oleomargarine


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand that tire Canadian government proposes to carry out the terms of a treaty which by the ratification is applicable to British citizens generally and not to Canadian nationals alone, by means of prohibitive Canadian legislation against other British citizens and not by securing the voluntary concurrence of those other citizens by means of the signature of the ambassador of Great Britain.


Ernest Lapointe: The Canadian legislation will apply to all the countries of the world. The fishing of halibut will be prohibited in those waters and the restrictions which will be enacted by the parliament of Canada will apply to everybody in the world.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: I see a statement in the press this morning to the effect that this convention will not be considered completed until such time as the British government ratifies it. Will the government give us any information on this point?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think probably there is a great deal of misuse of terms in some of the expressions that appear. Ratification is an act of the sovereign. No treaty will be complete until the sovereign has ratified it. I presume in regard to this treaty that His Majesty will act upon the advice of his government in this country, and such advice as the government will give His Majesty will be based upon the approval by this parliament of the legislation that is brought down.


Arthur Meighen: I observe as well that in the correspondence the assurance is given by His Majesty of the prevention to the utmost of his power of all infringement and of all acts on the part of his subjects contraiy to the terms of this treaty. Is that assurance still relied on inasmuch as the British government's representative at Washington has since been denied the right to sign?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that the expression is correct that my right hon. friend uses, that the British representative at Washington was denied the right to sign. The government asked that one of its ministers be given full powers to sign. The British government aproved of that request and gave full powers to the minister to sign. These full powers were regarded as sufficient both by the Canadian government and by the British government. I think that ought to answer the point which my right hon. friend raised. As to any assurance which the British government or His Majesty has given, there
is no doubt in the mind of anyone, I presume, that that will be carried out.


Arthur Meighen: Just ope statement-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing in the correspondence to indicate


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: -that the British government approved of this new method of signing treaties.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I have allowed the questions so far because this is an important matter which may well be brought up before the Orders of the Day, but I would ask hon. members to kindly reserve any further questions on this subject until we come to discuss the various clauses of the treaty.



OLEOMARGARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I want to ask the government whether, having regard to the resolution passed by this House last session on the subject of the admission of oleomargarine, and to the fact that the bill subsequently introduced expires in its effect on the 31st of August, it is their intention to introduce legislation providing for an extension of the time, permanent or temporary, for the admission of oleomargarine? Perhaps I should address my question to and ask for reply from both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As these two gentlemen could not reply at once, I might answer my right hon. friend on their behalf. There is on the order paper a resolution on the subject, and the government has been withholding its decision in the matter until the subject has been discussed. After it has been debated the government will be in a better position to answer my right hon. friend's question.



MR. JAMES LARKIN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Perhaps the government is in a position now to answer the question I asked several days ago as to why Mr. James Larkin was refused admission into Canada.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Mr. James Larkin was rejected at Highwater, P.Q., on the 13th instant because he refused to answer questions put by the examining officer. He was rejected because of refusal to answer the
Bank Act Revision

ordinary questions that are asked those seeking admission to Canada. He appealed, and I was somewhat doubtful whether the proper grounds had been taken. I consulted with the Justice department, who are of the opinion that Mr. Larkin was properly rejected under subsection 2 of section 33 of the Immigration Act, which reads as follows:
Every passenger or other person seeking to enter or land in Canada shall answer truly all questions put to him by any officer when examined under the authority of this act, and any person not truly answering such questions shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or to a tenn of imprisonment, and if found not to be a Canadian citizen or not to have Canadian domicile, such offence shall in itself be sufficient cause for deportation whenever so ordered by a board of inquiry or officer in charge, subject, however, to such right of appeal as he may have to the minister.
The Justice department found we were quite correct in our contention. In addition, Mr. Larkin had just been released from serving a prison sentence, and on that ground I confirmed his rejection.



BAJSTK ACT REVISION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the' House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to revise the law relating to banking, to continue until the first day of July, 1933, the charters of the several banks to which the provisions of the Bank Act apply, to authorize the payment out of Consolidated Revenue Fund of remuneration to auditors for special examinations of the affairs or business of banks which the Minister of Finance may require to be made, and to provide for the charge of fees in connection with the registration of securities taken under the authority of the provisions of the act.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. FIELDING:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before you is a formality, necessary under our parliamentary practice, as the basis of a bill which is to be introduced immediately on the adoption of the resolution. I think, perhaps, the House will be conveni-enced if I proceed at once, on the motion before us, to state the nature of the bill which I shall have the pleasure of introducing shortly. In that measure the government will bring the best possible judgment they can to bear upon a question of the highest importance, and one of wide-spread interest. I cannot venture the hope that the conclusions we have reached will be received with unanimity. I am well aware that the question is one concerning which there there will be differences of opinion, but I am going to ask, and I think it reasonable to do so, that hon. gentlemen reserve their judgment in the mat-

ter, until they have had an opportunity of examining the bill, and, what perhaps is of more importance, an opportunity of participating in or observing the inquiry which will take place before the committee on Banking and Commerce. So soon as the early stages of this bill are disposed of, it is my intention to ask the House to refer the bill to the committee on Banking and Commerce, where there will be abundant opportunity for raising every question in relation to it, and the fullest possible opportunity for inquiry and discussion.
The Bank Act is the fruit of the study of a long line of ministers of finance, of governments and parliaments, and I feel that in the main it has served a good purpose; it has proved itself adapted to the needs of Canada; . and I venture the opinion-which, possibly, will not be shared by everybody-that any radical change in the act at present would have a disturbing effect upon the business of the country; it is a class of question upon which we shall do well, I think to go slowly.
At every revision of the Bank" Act a question of paramount importance has been raised concerning government inspection. Every minister of finance who has preceded me has, after consideration, reached the conclusion that it was not wise to adopt a system of government inspection. I have myself-in my own experience where I have had to do with a former revision-taken that view, and I adhere to that view at present. With our wide-spread system of branch banks any adequate system of inspection would call for a small army of officials; it would involve large expenditure, and my own impression is, that in the end you would have no better guarantee of the soundness of a bank, after government inspection, than you have under the present system. If the auditors who passed on the affairs of the Merchants bank had had a label on their caps denoting that they were government officials I have no reason to suppose that they would have been more capable, more intelligent, or more energetic.
I have great respect for government authority in some cases, but it may be overdone. I do not believe government inspection would give you any greater real protection than you now have, but it would, I think, give a false security, it would create the impression in the minds of the people that the government were guaranteeing the transactions of a bank, and whenever trouble might occur-and it is worth while remembering that where government inspection prevails bank failures are not rare-wherever trouble might occur and a bank failed, then, if you had a system of

Bank Act Revision
government inspection, there would unquestionably be a desire to hold the government responsible. Embarrassment and trouble, perhaps material loss to the government, would follow. In declining at present to concur in the idea of government inspection I want to protect the public-that is the people at large, and parliament-against the responsibility which I think they should not be willing to bear. So, after much reflection and with the knowledge that that is one of the big questions of the day, I am not of the opinion that we should advise parliament to adopt a system of government inspection.
I have said that I believe the general framework of the Bank Act is a good one. Nevertheless, with every revision we learn something. We have learned something undoubtedly during the past ten years, and we will endeavour, in the suggestions we offer, to show that the lessons of these years have not been lost. We will endeavour to improve the Bank Act while not making any radical departure from its general outline.
While we are not going to adopt a system of government inspection, we will endeavour to improve the present system of audit, and I think that is an important point. The present system of audit, shareholders' audit, is that a list of proposed auditors is prepared by the Canadian Bankers' Association and sent to the Minister of Finance. He has the right to strike off from that list any name of which he may not approve. I am proposing to adhere largely to that system but to make it, I think, more rigid, so that the public will have a better audit, a better guarantee of audit, than they have at present. Under the law of to-day the Bankers' Association forwards this list of persons who desire to be auditors, but there is no particular qualification required of them. I propose that the Bankers' Association shall still prepare a list, but that that list shall be confined strictly to chartered accountants; that those who are to act as auditors for the shareholders must be chartered accountants, and must have practised their profession as chartered accountants for a period of six years in a city or town in Canada where there is a head office of a bank. I think when we put that condition in we go a long way towards obtaining capable auditors. Many of the firms of chartered accountants comprise quite a number of members. I propose that in no case shall more than three members of any one firm be allowed to have a place on that list. We think that in this way we shall get capable auditors, members of the Chartered Accountants' Association of Canada. I believe there are chartered accountants' organizations in the various provinces, and they are federated into a Dominion association. We propose that the Dominion association shall supply a list of the members who are eligible under the condition I have laid down. I think it will necessarily follow that if you take chartered accountants who have been practising their profession for some years in one of our cities where there is the head office of a bank you have a reasonable assurance that you will obtain capable men of good standing. I think in that respect we shall give to the House and to the public a better guarantee of audit than we now have. We propose that every bank must have two auditors; under the Bank Act to-day you may have one or more. We propose that there shall be two auditors chosen by the shareholders, and that they shall not both be members of the one firm, they must belong to different firms; and they shall not be auditors for the one bank for more than three years in succession. We think these several suggestions will give to the public a guarantee that the auditors will be capable, that they will be independent; and the auditors will be changed with sufficient frequency to guard against anything going wrong.
Another question that is of very much importance, upon which I am going to make, shall I say?-a disappointing remark, is in relation to bank mergers. Bank mergers are not popular. The merger of any two banks, particularly the merger of two of the larger banks, undoubtedly makes towards a restriction of banking operation. It tends towards the creation, if there be such a thing, of a banking monopoly. I know that usually bank mergers are not popular. I know that more than one suggestion has been offered that no bank should be allowed to amalgamate with another unless they obtain authority by a special act of parliament. Some members may be disposed to approve of that suggestion; my own judgment is that it is too drastic a change. There are times when mergers may be useful, and not only that but I know of a case where a bank was beginning to get into trouble, but the matter being taken up in time it was amalgamated with another bank, the situation was saved and ail went well. So I think there will be occasions when, if you do not use the power which exists under the present law to authorize a merger through the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and the Governor in Council, you may have a financial disaster which could have been avoided had you dealt with the situation in time. I am willing to have the matter fully threshed out before the Banking
Bank Act Revision

and Commerce committee, but my impres-' sion is that you must trust the government of the day, the Minister of Finance of the day and the Treasury Board, to exercise due precaution and to see that mergers are not approved of, unless they are clearly and undoubtedly in the public interests. I am persuaded that to deny the government, and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board that power and to say that there can be no merger until you have a special act of parliament, is an arrangement that would not work well and might at times prevent a merger which is really desirable and necessary in the interests of the public. On this point there may be disappointment in some quarters. When we talk about protecting the public in banking matters, we had better stop and think, who are the public we want to protect? There are various interests in the public, when we use that word.
In the first.place, you have the note-holders. If the government and the parliament of Canada give to the bank the right to issue notes for circulation, then surely the government and the parliament of Canada must take measures to sec that the notes are protected. That is done; the notes to-day are secured in two ways. In the first place, they are a first charge upon all the assets of the bank, and that is usually almost in itself a sufficient protection. Then, besides, there is an insurance fund created by all the banks, to which they all contribute in order to create an additional guarantee that the notes will be protected. Thus the notes are protected, I think I may safely say, beyond any question. [DOT] Then you have the depositors. They are not as well protected as the note holders. The protection in the case of the depositors is the protection given tp any creditors who have a claim against the bank. But then you have besides the double liability of the shareholders, which stands between the depositors and loss. In most cases it will be found that the existing provisions with regard to depositors work fairly well. If something can be found in the course of discussion which is better than these provisions I am willing to receive it with an open mind. The depositors do not often suffer. There have been eight bank failures in the last 20 years. In the case of five of those failures the depositors never lost a penny. In three of those failures the banks which were smaller institutions, are still in liquidation, but the depositors stand to lose. I think it is desirable we should protect the depositors, and if anybody can suggest, in the course of the inquiry, any better method of protecting the ^Mr. Fielding.]
depositor, I am quite willing to receive it and give it duo consideration, though I do not think there is as much danger of the depositors losing now as in former days. However, that is a fair matter for consideration.
^ ou come then to the shareholders, who are the bank. The shareholder is not exactly in the same position as the depositor. He is the trustee of the depositor, He is after all only a member of a trading corporation, and I think we have as much reason to ask the shareholder in the bank to look after his own interests as we have to ask the shareholder in any other corporation to do so. We are giving the shareholders-that is the banks-large privileges in the way of circulation, but I do not think that creates a special obligation whereby we should look after them, except in the general way that all corporations are supposed to have the protection of our laws. I do not think we can undertake to make the shareholder's position as good as we do the position of the note-holders or the depositors. I am afraid the shareholder must be asked, as in any other corporation, to look after his own interests as much as he can, and not to expect the government to give him exceptional and special protection.
There is another clause in the Bank Act which has given rise to much discussion, commonly known as section 88. That section gives a prior lien to the bank in certain cases. There has been much discussion of that clause in time past. There has been much criticism even in Canada, and outside of Canada it has frequently been the subject of criticism. It is claimed that the merchant abroad-and it might be true of those at home-who sells goods to a merchant in Canada, and is not able to look after his own interests, finds, when trouble occurs, that the bank has prior claim to everything. When the unpaid vendor comes to assert his claim, he finds the bank, by its prior right, has possession of the goods. When I was in England recently I was waited upon, by a deputation of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, who made strong representations in that respect. They claimed that many English exporters had suffered severely in recent years.
I think some measure of their loss was probably due to their rather reckless method of selling. However, there is some room for criticism in the fact that the bank has priority. There are men who would advocate the total abolition of section 88. ,1 do not think such a course would be wise. That provision has performed a large and important part in the development of Canadian business, and I believe the repeal of that clause would work

Bank Act Revision
injuriously. What I am proposing now is not to repeal the clause, but that he who desires to operate under section 88 shall give notice in a public way, so that all who are concerned shall know what he is doing. I propose that any merchant or manufacturer in Canada who desires to borrow from the bank under the provisions of section 88-that is the provision which will give the bank a prior claim-must give notice in the registry office of his intention to do so. The registrar will be the Assistant Receiver General in each province. The bank will see that he registers, otherwise they will not give him the money. If the merchant at home or abroad is concerned about section 88, all he has to do is to write or telegraph to the Assistant Receiver General in the province and ascertain whether any registration has been made. If the man who is proposing to do business has been registered under section 88, all who do business with him will know that they must recognize the priority of the bank. If he gives no such notice, the bank will have no priority. I hope we shall go a long way in removing the criticisms that have been made of this section 88.
There have been questions regarding the allotment of stock, by a bank. It has been alleged in some cases that it has been contemplated that stock dividends should be declared. I do not think it has actually been done. The question has been raised whether dividends of that kind could be declared. We propose to make it clear that, whatever stock of that kind is issued and allotted, the shareholder who purchases the stock must pay in cash, and that no stock dividends shall be allowed.
There are quite a number of small amendments with which I shall not deal. Amendments will be printed in the bill in italics when it is presented to the House. I do not think I had better detain the House by referring to more than the important see [DOT] tions. There are some clauses which have become obsolete, and which are omitted. For example, there is the clause respecting the bank of British North America, which was an institution operating under exceptional conditions. That institution has been amalgamated with another bank, and so the conditions regarding it no longer exist. There were also provisions regarding fifty-dollar shares, which are no longer necessary, as the banks now generally conform to the custom of issuing hundred-dollar shares. In the returns that are made showing the banks' property we are asking a change, we are asking that the bank, in dealing with the value of their property shall include not only the
property which stands in their name, but the property which stands in the name of any corporation which they control. The banks have formed subsidiary companies which are practically branches of the bank and controlled by the bank in every way. We propose that, as respects the holding of property and as respects assets and liabilities, the returns shall show the operation of these companies the same as the operation of what I may call the bank proper. That will apply to any corporation that is controlled by the bank.
Most of the banks now have a pension fund for their employees-I am not sure whether they all have. It was found in the case of a recent bank failure that moneys designed to protect the pension fund were invested in bank stock, and when the bank stock took a tumble, the pension fund took a tumble, too. We propose that hereafter banks having pension funds shall not be permitted to invest money for the pension fund in stock of their own bank or any other bank whatsoever.
As regards bank directors, it is sometimes said that "directors do not direct." There are cases in which men who have long and honourable association with a bank desire to have their names retained on the board of directors, even when they have reached a condition where it is well known that they are not able to give close attention. I think there is an honourable purpose in that, and I would not say that it should not be done. We are proposing to introduce a clause to the effect that a record shall be kept of every bank board meeting, showing what directors have attended the meeting, and that before the next annual meeting is called upon to elect directors, that record, showing how many meetings were held and how many meetings each director attended, should be placed in the hands of the shareholders, who can then judge whether they wish to continue those directors in the service.
Some troubles have arisen owing to officials of a bank kindly lending themselves the bank's funds. We propose an amendment by which we declare that no general manager, assistant general manager, bank manager or any official, clerk or servant, can have a loan exceeding $1,000 without the consent of the directors, and he cannot have more than $10,000 even with the consent of the directors. If a bank manager or any one associated with him wants to do a little speculation, he will have to go to another bank and not get the funds out of his own bank.
There is one other provision of some importance. The bank law says, and has said for many years, that the word "bank" shall
Bank Act Revision

not be used by any person or corporation other than a chartered bank. This is a wise precaution. But though the word "bank" cannot be legally used, there are men engaged in what is practically banking business, who do not come within the operation of the law, and more than once disastrous failures have occurred. One occurred in Winnipeg within the last few weeks, where a corporation having no bank charter was actually doing a banking business with disastrous results. We are proposing that whoever desires to receive money on deposit in Canada, shall obtain a license from the municipality in which he proposes to do business, and that he will have to make a substantial deposit with that municipality as a guarantee of his good faith. The local knowledge which is possessed by a municipality will enable the authorities to know whether the party is of good repute. We aim to prevent an irresponsible person establishing a private banking business and taking deposits, and then, by and by, having a disaster follow. We exempt from this certain cooperative and agricultural organizations, the character of which is well understood; but all these people who have been undertaking to receive large deposits and then involve depositors in heavy losses, will, we hope, be reached by the clause which we propose.
Those are the main provisions of the bill which I am presenting to the House. There are many minor things which I do not propose to mention now. Again, I want to say that I realize the fact that there are strong views held by many hon. members of this House and many citizens outside as regards the need of material changes in the Bank Act. I hope and believe that on a thorough inquiry such as that which will take place before the Committee on Banking and Commerce, some of the erroneous impressions regarding the present banking system will be removed. At all events, with the assurance of the desire of the government to have as full an inquiry as possible into the matter, I am going to ask hon. gentlemen to reserve their judgment until that inquiry takes place, and in the meantime to see their way clear to let this bill progress so that it may reach the committee on Banking and Commerce at any early date.


Sir HENRA DRAATON:: I entirely concur in the procedure outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). There is no use in discussing this bill at present and in advance of the evidence. I think we shall serve our common purpose, which is to get the best results we can out of this bill, by letting the matter take the course which my hon.

friend now proposes, passing it through its initial stages and referring it at once to the committee on Banking and Commerce.


Mr. GOOD:: This resolution on which the bill is to be based, calls for the full ten-year period. The date as stated in the resolution is 1st July, 1933. It might appear in the course of the investigation that it would be better to have charters extended for less than the full ten years. If this resolution carries, would it be possible to make such a change?


William Stevens Fielding: The bill will propose the ordinary ten-year period; but there is no reason why the committee might not adopt a suggestion along the line of my hon. friend's proposal.
Sir liENRY DRAYTON: Or in any other direction.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, respecting Banks and Banking.
Motion agreed to and bill read. the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read the second time?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend desire to postpone the second reading or to take it now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 83, respecting Banks and Banking.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Arthur Meighen: It was intimated last night that we should go to-day into Committee of Supply on the Post Office estimates, and after that on the Immigration estimates. There is no objection to the Immigration estimates. The minister (Mr. Stewart) is here. The Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) is not here, there is an acting minister in his place. If the government is in a position to say that it is impossible for the Postmaster General to be back this session, then, if it is

Supply-Immigration
also impossible to appoint someone in his place, there can be no objection to our going on. But it is very unsatisfactory going on with estimates in the absence of the responsible minister, particularly in a department where so much has taken place in respect of which the element of patronage has so violently entered in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret to have to inform my right hon. friend that the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) has been anything but well for some time past, and has been advised by his physician that he must have a prolonged leave of absence. I doubt very much whether he will be back in the House for some little time; certainly he will not be back until after the Easter recess, and it is indeed a question whether he will be back for quite a while after that. Under the circumstances, therefore, I think it is best to proceed with the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I am not satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister. If there is any reasonable chance of the Postmaster General being back this session, I think his estimates ought to stand. There are lots of other estimates that we might proceed with besides those of the Postmaster General. But to go on with that minister's estimates in his absence is not advisable. If there is a reasonable chance of his being back after the recess, or at some time during the session, his estimates should stand, and we might go on with the estimates of the Department of Immigration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to having the [DOT] estimates stand.


Mr. BUREAU:: Leave an item open for discussion, but do not delay the progress of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization-immigration outside service-salaries, $700,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not intend to discuss the whole question of immigration at great length or in any general way, but I desire to direct a few remarks to the minister (Mr. Stewart) and to his colleagues on this very important subject. I am sure the House will have noted that the discussion which has taken place during the past week is receiving a great deal of public attention. It is generally recognized, I think, that the immigration policy of the government is a matter of primary importance to the country at large. My particular intention in rising to-day is to advise the minister and the government that in taking this important step which they propose in connection with their declared policy on immigration, they must do so with their eyes open. I should not like to sit silent in my seat and allow these estimates to pass and then next year, perhaps, find myself called upon to bring to the attention of the minister some of the results that might ensue from a policy of this character not in the best interests of the country. If I sat silent and allowed estimates to go through without any comment upon this important subject, the minister might well say afterwards that the hon. member having refrained from giving any expression of opinion, he was justified in regarding that silence as consent. In my estimation the bargain, or arrangement, or contract which the minister has entered into with the Canada Colonization Company is fraught with very grave possibilities. I think my hon. friend is entering upon a road that will lead him to possible chaos and perhaps even worse. I am not suggesting at this moment that there is any intent on the part of the minister or of those associated with him to commit any act of a dishonourable character, not at all; but what I do see in this bargain is, as I have stated, the danger of grave possibilities, and I want the minister to be fully apprised of my views on the subject, as also, I trust, the views of hon. gentlemen in the House generally.
Now, let us briefly examine this matter. The Canada Colonization Company has entered into an agreement or, as I choose to call it, a bargain, with the government. By virtue of that bargain, the government must accept, whether it does so in specific terms or not, the responsibility for the actions of the Canada Colonization Company, its agents and servants. And whether the government willingly accepts that responsibility or not, let the 4 p.m. committee be assured of this, that if anything does occur that is calculated to be an injury to any of the expected immigrants, or any other people of the community, the public will place the responsibility on the government after the difficulty or trouble is discovered. The minister himself stated that the Canada Colonization Company and the government had fully discussed this matter. He informed the House that several conferences had been held; and I find in a statement by the company itself, set forth in a very great detail in a full-page advertisement in a newspaper I have

.Supply-Immigration

under my hand, certain facts which I purpose bringing to the attention of the committee, so that hon. members may properly judge of their importance. For instance, there is a statement, which confirms what the minister says, that the whole project has been fully discussed with the government, with the minister, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with the hon. member for South Renfrew, minister without portfolio, (Mr. Low), and with a committee of the cabinet. I recite this merely to show that the matter has apparently been the subject of concurrence on the part of the government as a whole. The minister says that a committee of the cabinet "have had many conferences with the association." The statement of the Western Canada Colonization Association shows that the working capital of the company has been over-subscribed to the extent of $1,500,000. Why should they, under those conditions, find it necessary to receive from the government a grant of $40,000 and further sums at the rate of $10,000 a month for the purposes of carrying out their project? That is a pertinent query, and one in respect to which I think the committee should be furnished with the fullest possible information. The association claim also that their project has been approved by the imperial government, the Dominion government, and the Canadian railway companies-meaning by the latter, I presume, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. If that is the case, do these three bodies share the liabilities of the colonization company? Are they jointly responsible? If so, in what way? Has the Imperial government definitely entered into this agreement? If it has, the documents showing to what extent they have accepted responsibility should be laid on the Table. The same applies to the railway companies; if they are equally liable we should know just to what extent that liability goes.
The next thing claimed by the association is that they expect to spend-I am quoting their own figures-$30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in the next five years. I want the committee to note this fact, because it is evidence of the enormous scope of this movement. To what extent has the government, which is a party to the association's activities, supervision or control, in sight or knowledge, of the expenditure of this large amount within five or ten years? That is another query that should be fully and satisfactorily answered to-day. The chief reason why I at least am a little alarmed about this part of the agreement is because the association states that the major portion of this $30,000,000 or $40,-

000,000 will be expended on commissions. The significance of that will be better understood if I point out to the House the nature of those commissions. In a full-page advertisement the association declare that they are securing in the United States and other countries efficient real estate agents to push the sale of Canadian lands. I will quote the minister at this point. He says, page 1148 of unrevised Hansard of this session:
They-
That is, the association.
-have in the United States to-day sixty agents who are operating on a commission basis, who receive for their service something like ten per cent per acre.
I am not questioning the bona fides of this association, but here is a body with which the Dominion government is closely identified, which has in the United States what are known among real estate men as high pressure salesmen, out selling Canadian lands on behalf of the Canadian government and this association, and receiving a commission, of ten per cent. When you turn loose an accomplished real estate agent who has in view the possibility of a ten per cent commission, his main object is to make as much as possible- to earn the commission, no matter how he earns it. He will tell any story that he can "get by" with in order to earn that commission. I want the government to appreciate that point. Has the minister any supervision over these agents from the United States? So far as I can discover, he has none whatever. Does the minister know the names of these "sixty agents"-I quote his own words

"who are operating" in the United States to-day? Does he know their bona fides, their qualifications, their trustworthiness? Or is it not reasonable to assume that this great army of agents, which will multiply very largely as business proceeds, are not known to the government at all? On the face of it we must conclude that the government is wholly ignorant of the detailed administration of the association. But the government must be prepared to assume responsibility for the activities of these agents. My experience- which is not inconsiderable

in connection with salesmen who are working on a commission basis is that even though they intend to be honest, they very frequently, if not almost generally, overdraw the picture and seek to earn the commission rather than give accurate information. At the rate of 200 families a year, $10,000 a month for ten months means a cost to the government of $500 per family. If any figure of that kind is to be paid by the government for these settlers, the country

Supply-Immigration
will be put to a very large expenditure indeed. I strongly advise the government against the expenditure of large sums of public money for the importation of immigrants. I do not think an examination of the records respecting immigration will encourage the minister very much from that point of view. The Atlantic Trading Company, for instance, and other institutions of that kind, the movement of the Doukhobors to western Canada, and such like, where there was encouragement, bargaining, or any assistance given, rarely resulted in any benefit to the country.
Let me take another point. Under this agreement, according to the minister's statement, and verified again by this full-page advertisement, it is purposed to arrange for 32-year agreements of sale with the intending settler, and an illustration is given in the advertisement to this effect. Take a 160-acre farm at $20 an acre; that would cost $3,200. The cash payment asked is $320-I want the committee to follow this bit of information. There is an agreement made for $2,880, and under the scale of payments set forth in this advertisement, and referred to by the minister himself in his speech, at the end of ten years the settler would still owe $2,883, or more than the face value of the agreement when he started out. But that is not all. What becomes of the $320 of cash payment? The whole of that $320 goes into commission.


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to understand how my hon. friend arrives at that figure, that the amount would be $2,883 at the end of ten years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have the statement
worked out here on an actuarial basis by this company. The first year it is $2,880. There is a $320 cash payment, which, deducted from $3,200, leaves $2,880. I will not read the figures for each year, but will take one or two at random. The first year the principal balance is $2,880; the sixth year there is still owing a balance of $3,095.71; the tenth year it is $2,883.15; the twelfth year $2,756.77, and so you go on down till in the twentieth year it is $2,074. In the thirty-second year the principal is wiped out with the final payment, but for the first three years no payment is made at all, and the interest is added to the principal and it takes up to the tenth year for the purchaser to catch up what he has lost in the added interest in that period. So the statement I make is quite correct that at the end of ten years the settler still owes $2,883.15.
What I wish to draw attention to is that the minister has apparently accepted the scheme. He is so quoted here, and has so stated him-
84J
self, and I am pointing out that this is not a very satisfactory agreement. Although the 32-year payment scheme sounds all right, if you say it quick and do not examine it too closely, you find when you come to examine it closely, that there is very little advantage to the settler in that regard.


Charles A. Stewart: It is exactly the same as any other amortization scheme of that character. It is no different. There is nothing new.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree but I am pointing out what the result is.


Mr. GOULD:: The hon. member argues that at the end of three years these conditions readily lend themselves to a man leaving the organization?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. I have a few more observations to make in regard to this bargain. I am trying to give to the committee the facts. What becomes of the $329 cash payment?
And this presents to my mind what is really an absurdity. The $320 goes to the Colonization Company, and not to the vendor. Here is where the vendor receives a blank cheque, as it were. The vendor who is asked in this advertisement to list his property with 'the government, and who must enter into an agreement for five years gets nothing at all. He cannot get anything at all for some three or four years, and then he receives at the end of the three years $40.80 out of this liability of $3,200. The first $320 cash payment goes to these high-pressure salesmen. It goes through the association to their agents. They are paying to their agents in the United States and elsewhere ten per cent, or something like that, but it all goes to the association. The vendor gets nothing at all. Does the minister think for a moment that the vendors of these properties who are expected to come under this scheme will permit a condition of that kind? According to this advertisement, there is a very clever inducement held out to vendors to list their properties, and it is this, that the Imperial government, the Canadian government, and the railway companies are behind this scheme. Now the average person with property to sell will say: They are the people to whom I should entrust my property. But they will wake up very shortly to the fact that they are getting little or nothing out of their property. The association deducts one per cent of the six per cent interest in addition to the $320, and that lasts for eight
Supply-Immigration

years. That is another very extraordinary charge. Then we go further. The Dominion government have certain responsibilities.


Charles A. Stewart: Is not that one per cent for the purpose of acting as agent for the vendor, if they so act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, but what I am getting at is the unsatisfactory nature of this so-called agreement. The association get one per cent of the interest, leaving five per cent to the vendor.


Charles A. Stewart: In the event of their continuing to act as agents. If they do not they get nothing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, certainly, but the object of my hon. friend's bargain and the expenditure of public money is that the thing is going to be a success.


Charles A. Stewart: I will discuss that later. What I want my hon. friend to point out to the committee, if he will do it-and I am quite certain he wants to make a fair presentation-is this, that if they act as agents for the vendor for whom they have sold the land, for that service they will get one per cent.


Mr. BOYS:: Of the money they collect?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, one per cent of the six per cent interest. That is where the purchaser pays six per cent per annum, the association acting as agent for eight years, following the three years where no payment is made, and it is allowed to take one of the six per cent paid in interest. That is its charge for acting as agent. I want to say to the minister that that arrangement will fail, and I think it will fail in two ways. First, I think it is simply inviting trouble and disappointment for those who purchase under this scheme, and secondly, I am certain that once the vendors realize-what shall I say?-the shabbiness of it, and I do not use the word offensively, as far as their interests are concerned, they will withdraw their property unless they become involved for five years before they properly understand the conditions. I think my hon. friend is simply laying up a peck of trouble, if I might use that expression.
Now then, what about the government? The government are asked not only to assume a vast responsibility as to this association's activities, but they must extend and maintain agencies in all countries of the world, or virtually so,-that is to maintain and extend agencies in the United States, 
in Europe, and in Great Britain at the expense of this country, and for which we are being asked to-day to vote some million-odd dollars. In addition to that the government, not only gives to this association these enormous and valuable privileges and its whole moral support-and I believe actual responsibility-must pay for the advertising, must carry on an effective advertising campaign. I would think that out of the ten per cent or twenty per cent that this concern get they might at least pay for the expense of maintaining agencies and the expense of advertising and publicity. But no: the government pay that in addition to its grants and its gifts to this association.
Now, I want to read to the committee what appears to me to give a fair interpretation of the meaning of this whole scheme. At the bottom of this full-page ad of the association are these words in leaded type: Owners of vacant agricultural land within 15 miles of railways in the western provinces are requested to list their properties immediately with the Canada Colonization Association, Bank of Hamilton Building, Winnipeg.
That seems to be really what is at the bottom of the whole business. Here is a magnificient opportunity for this Canada Colonization Company to induce people to list their property with them, and, if they did list, they would be bound for five years; their property would be listed with the company for that period of time. Is it fair- I put it to the minister very frankly- to use the name of the Imperial government, associated with the Dominion government and the big railway companies of Canada to induce property holders to list their property with these agents? I do not think it is. Because, after all, these people-I care not how estimable they may be as citizens- are nothing more or less than a real estate association. You cannot escape that point-, there is no escape from it. Their whole activity is based upon the very revenue that they expect to derive from the sale of lands; -it is on a commission basis, they pay their agents on a commission basis just the same as any land company does. My hon. friend referred to the general manager in quite glowing terms and his qualification, quoted by the minister was that he was the successful manager of the Luseland Company. Now, this is the point I want to warn the government and the House against. Not that these people are not honest or honourable, not at all, but that the whole proposition is largely a real estate listing and sale proposition, and the government is entering into that rather

Supply-Immigration
than into an immigration policy. That is what I want to warn the government against.
Now, to summarize the situation very briefly, we have these facts: The government subsidizes this company to the extent of $100,000 annually; the government is to maintain its offices all over the world at the cost of the public treasury of Canada; the government is to pay for the advertising, or to maintain the advertising; and must turn over all their emigration machinery to the use of this association; every move made by the association, in so far as this scheme is concerned, must be supplemented by the organization of the Immigration department. And the association is to get ten per cent on the sale price, plus the one per cent interest for ten years. The association employs the agents, the government does not employ them; and the association alone controls the agents, the government does not control them. I doubt if the minister has any idea of the extent of the provision with respect to these agents. I feel very much alarmed about this point in particular: the turning loose of agents in all quarters of the world. And with what guarantee? Simply this: Go out and sell Canadian western lands: the Dominion government is behind you: this association- with the backing of the Dominion and the Imperial governments-is behind you; and you will get ten per cent in respect of any lands you sell upon which immigrants enter. That means, the agents will be telling pretty roseate stories. My hon. friends to my left have been telling us some very doleful stories. I am not altogether agreeing with them, although there is much in what they have said; but it would be the height of folly for this government to associate themselves with the high-pressure salesman's story as to the conditions that obtain in the Canadian West. Most of them-certainly ninety per cent of them-have never seen the Canadian West I venture to say.
I now wish to reiterate what I said a moment ago. In fact., my purpose in rising to-day is to press home upon the government that they must be prepared to accept full responsibility for whatever results may come from this campaign.
Let me say just a few words more before I take my seat. It is not to my mind so much a question of immigration; the problem is one of emigration. That is not a new statement, I merely reiterate what others have said. I think my hon. friend the minister would be well advised to turn to his colleagues and put some very pertinent questions to them. My hon. friend is the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization.
It appears, to me at least, that he has separated himself and his department from the government. He is going Qut with this colonization scheme, and other measures, to carry on an immigration policy and he has ignored the fact, apparently, that there are some sound reasons for the emigration from Canada of so many people during this past year or two. Why does he not tell the Minister of Finance that one of the reasons why people are leaving Canada, one of the reasons why there is such hard times in the industrial world, is because of heavy taxation? and in some regards, as I have stated before to the House this session, unfair taxation. This is not an attack I am making upon the Minister of Finance, I am simply stating what I think to be a problem-a problem that ought to be faced before we enter into any extensive scheme of immigration. Stop this emigration before dealing with this problem. I invite him. therefore, to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, who ought to co-operate with him in this matter, the necessity of meeting this problem of taxation, solving it-simplifying it if you like to use that term-so as to promote industrial activity and more contentment in the country.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
include customs duties in that "heavy taxation?"


Henry Herbert Stevens: I felt sure that question
would be put, but I hardly expected the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) to ask it; I really expected it to come from hon. gentlemen to my left. I do not wish, nor do I purpose, being side-tracked into a discussion of the tariff policy. My opinions on the tariff question are well known. The problem that I am. propounding-namely dealing with the financial situation as regards industry and agriculture-is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and not mine. I am prepared at the proper time-and when it comes in a few weeks I shall avail myself of the opportunity-to state my opinions very clearly and I shall have no hesitancy in doing so. But I say that is the problem to be dealt with; and the minister, before entering into this scheme, ought to have addressed himself to' the Minister of Finance, in regard to it. He should also have addressed himself to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and asked him to co-operate in the promotion of trade. I know he has done something, I know he wants to do something; but it is only by the co-ordinated activity of the government that these things can be done, and not by one minister framing a policy for his department alone.
Supply-Immigration

It would appear to me as if the ministry were all at sixes and sevens, and not co-operating at all. Referring to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), upon his shoulders, as the head of the Agricultural department of Canada, rests the responsibility of solving or leading in the solution, of the problem of why agriculture is not successful to-day. I do not say he is responsible for the problem, but I say he is responsible for its solution, or for the lead in attempted solution. My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) should have addressed himself to the Minister of Agriculture before he propounded this policy, which, I am certain in my mind, will bring nothing but pain, suffering, disappointment and discord. My hon. friend has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to fall back upon. It is true that he stated the other day that the Prime Minister was consulted in the matter. To my mind at least, there is little evidence that this scheme were properly considered by the government as a whole. It might have been, but if it was, then it reflects but little credit on the government. My hon. friend for Fort William (Mr. Manion) the other day made a very excellent suggestion to this House. He made an excellent speech, and he made a reference that merits the closest consideration of the government, and I hope it will receive such consideration. One of the great difficulties in Canada is a thousand-mile gap between eastern and western Canada. It is a geographical difficulty, but the fact is that a barren, almost depopulated, or unpopulated, area exists and while it may not be caused by the government, yet I believe the first responsibility of a settlement scheme in Canada should be towards bringing the eastern part of Canada together with the west. There you have a wide .barren territory, with no traffic developing or little traffic, very little settlement, and with a lot of splendid land, and it would behoove the minister, I think, in co-operation with the Ontario government, to study how he could populate that hinterland of Ontario, or that gap between the East and the West. The speech of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) the other day was one of the best expositions of this problem given in the House this session. He referred in a different way altogether to this same problem which my hon. friend for Fort William mentioned. Here you have an hon. member from Ontario and an hon. member from Manitoba, both recognizing that the difficulty was to bring the population in their respective districts, bordering on this gap to which I have referred, to a level commensurate with means that exist there 
to sustain a large population. Therefore, I say to the minister if he wants to inaugurate a first-rate, a fundamentally sound, scheme of immigration, there is where he can find scope for his activities. Why should he at this moment seek to force, through high-pressure land salesmen-I want the minister to get that-upon the three prairie provinces, whose representatives in this House tell us there is no use putting more settlers there at the present time because of the difficulties they are placed in-why should he force this immigration? Why should he, through the high-pressure salesman and through this scheme, force immigration into the provinces, when we know perfectly well that in northern Ontario there is just as fine opportunity for a different type of agriculture, but for agriculture waiting for assistance? I would certainly be more than willing to vote money direct to assistance of settlers in that area, rather than to vote money to be expended in connection with this enormous, and, I think, highly painted visionary scheme, presented to the minister by the Canada Colonization Association, and accepted by him.
I rose for the purpose of impressing, if I could, upon the minister and the government, the dangers that confront them and the government, the parliament and the country in the acceptance of this contract. I fear the minister has made a serious mistake, and I do not think it is too late now to retreat from the position in which he finds himself. It is true that this project was precipitated some time last fall, and there may have been negotiations carried on some time since, but parliament has not yet approved of it. I would not want to be one who would say to the government " we must resist absolutely your policy in immigration ", I have grave doubts about it and serious apprehensions as to its effect, and I want the minister, if. he persists in going on, to realize that these dangerous waters lie ahead of him and what the results may be; so that he cannot come back to parliament next year and say that parliament as a whole participated in the scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it appropriate that at this moment I should give the committee some information with respect to the organization in regard to which my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has just offered his criticisms. The Canada Colonization Association is not a new organization and was not a new organization when this government took office. It had the endorsation of the government which preceded this government through their Minis-

Supply-Immigration
ter of Agriculture. It has been in existence for some two or three years to my certain knowledge. I do not desire to cover that ground, but I want to point out to the committee that in the very difficult situation in which I found myself with respect to this question of immigration, I felt that this organization, patriotic as they called themselves, which my hon. friend denies this afternoon-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not deny it.


Charles A. Stewart: If the hon. member does not deny it directly he denies it by implication.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement. I said I did not question the bona fides of the association, I am not in a position to do so. Next year we may be in that position.


Charles A. Stewart: Nor is it my intention to give a certificate of character to these men, but simply, if I can, to place my position before this committee.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister referred to the former government having approved of the organization-I think he used the word "approved." I hope he does not mean to imply that the former government in any way approved of any plan by which this organization would get any advantages or any special assistance from the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I was not inferring that a letter had been given them by the Minister of Immigration, and in fairness to him I need not deal with some changes that have transpired since the occasion of that letter. This organization was started some three years ago. I well remember the propaganda carried on throughout Canada. It was heralded as a patriotic endeavour on the part of the citizens to settle privately-owned lands along our existing railways. I mentioned the other day they had difficulty about their land listing proposition, inasmuch as they were asking for legislation to validate listing over a period of two years, if I remember the circumstances properly. At that time, as Premier of the province of Alberta, I refused that, and I have had some personal experience in land selling and the dealing in land, and one of the very practical difficulties that a Minister of Immigration or any government is faced with in connection with immigration to-day is that we have no longer available, within reasonable distance of our railways, land that we can offer freely to attract settlement to Canada. That was the great lure in the past;
but although there are millions of acres of land still available, we cannot advise people to go into outlying areas and to take up land for themselves, as they did formerly when coming to Canada.


William Charles Good: May I ask the minister a question?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will let me make my statement this afternoon, I shall be glad to answer all questions that anyone may wish to ask at a later date.
That is the situation we have to face. I said the other day, and I repeat, that we must have our propaganda, our advertising and our discussion confined very largely to encouraging incoming settlement amongst agricultural classes. There can be no doubt about that. There is at the moment undoubtedly a place for people in Canada within the boundaries of our urban centres, and that is becoming more apparent every day. The organization we have at the moment throughout Canada would indicate that there will be a fairly lively demand for mechanics to engage in the building trades in the various cities of Canada, and we are ready, willing and glad to make that known in countries from which we hope to attract settlers. But when I mention the great railway problem and the difficulty that has been mentioned by my hon. friend, namely, the burden of taxation that is bearing down upon the shoulders of the people of Canada, one way in which this can be relieved is by getting additional people into this country. That is not the only way, it is true, but that is one of the ways. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) stated the other day -that one of the lures we were offering to people to come to Canada was to come and assist us with our very heavy burden. Let me answer my hon. friend in two ways. We are not overpersuading people in the countries from which we hope to attract settlers, and there is no difficulty about convincing them that their opportunity in Canada is better than in the country in which they are living to-day. I am speaking of people engaged in agriculture in those countries, and I speak of Great Britain, Scandinavia, the European ; continent and the United States. Therefore, I think we can say with caution and safety, that we are offering a better opportunity, if we confiine that settlement within reasonable distance of railway facilities. Thus, we are not asking them to come to Canada, primarily to assist us in carrying our burden. If I thought we were doing that, I would be the last one to advo-
Supply-Immigration

cate that our agents scattered throughout the various countries I have mentioned, should offer the advantages of Canada to incoming settlers. Moreover, I have been very careful, in discussion with agents at Chicago, with Colonel Smith, who is in charge of twelve agencies in Great Britain, and with Mr. Willans, who has recently gone to the Continent, to ask them to be sure not to over-advertise, and not to overpersuade-if that is the proper way to put the matter-people to come to this country, but to offer the advantages that Canada is ready to offer, to all who intend leaving countries in which we are engaged in settlement work to-day. I hope that answers some of the questions raised by some hon. members with respect to the propaganda that we are carrying on. First, it is to the advantage of these people to come, because I believe they can better their condition. Second, they can undoubtedly-no one will deny the fact- be of a great deal of assistance to the people of Canada.
As regards migration, as near as I can discover, that has been going on since 1885 in greater or less degree. That ii has gone on during the last year, no one will deny, and probably to a somewhat greater degree than on former occasions; but the unprecedented prosperity in urban centres of the United States has been the attraction. Whether that will continue is problematical; but at all events, I am getting assurances from the agencies of the United States that a very considerable movement wall come to Canada this year.
As regards the Canada Colonization Association when they first approached me, they were endorsed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, by the Canadian National Railway Company, by the banking institutions of Canada, and by boards of trade from one end of the country to the other. And let me say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that those institutions, those boards of trade and those individuals who lent their endorsation to this scheme, did so on the scheme outlined by my hon. friend this afternoon. That was the scheme that was endorsed almost universally, as I stated the other day, from Montreal to the Pacific coast.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do these railway companies, boards of trade and banking institutions accept any responsibility for the results of the activities of this company?


Charles A. Stewart: That is another question. I will come to that later on. I simply want to state this afternoon that,

as Minister of Immigration, I felt that this organization had the backing of the people of Canada who were anxious about land settlement. I do not propose to discuss at any length this afternoon the question of the basis of settlement, or the scheme outlined so well by my hon. friend. Responsible organizations in Canada have stated both publicly and privately that immigration is the great question in this country. I say that it is one of them, and I have repeatedly said that, it is, perhaps, not the greatest one, because some of my hon. friends who are sitting across the floor of this House and many on this side will, I am sure, agree with me, that many other things could be done that would, perhaps assist the situation. I have great respect for the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I think, perhaps, something might be done by way of tariff reduction that would help the situation materially. But, while I say that, let me say that I cannot forget that there is upon the shoulders of this government the responsibility of raising a tremendous sum of money annually, and the thing that the Immigration department could best advertise would be the fact that we have at last reached a point where our revenue covers our expenditure. I am not unmindful of these facts. As I say, I have a great deal of respect for my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) who has to deal with matters of this kind, and I am prepared to support him when he has to take into consideration the situation as it exists throughout Canada. My hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) had a different idea from mine altogether; and throughout Canada different views are held. But I say that the one paramount thing we must consider, the one question we have to face at all times, is how we shall raise the revenue. My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) said-and I am not going to say anything on that point-that it was the method of raising this revenue that he objected to. Undoubtedly, his view in regard to this matter is different from mine. Now, I do not believe that it is within the province of a government to go into the real estate business; and I want to keep as far away from it as does my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre. I do not want to see the government of Canada implicated in any scheme in which it has to act as agent between the vendor and the purchaser of land. Indeed, I do not believe that the government could ever occupy that position, either through the agency of the Soldier Settlement Board or of any other organization that might be in its direct pay. My hon. friend

Supply-Immigration
may say that because we are offering to assist this organization, which is backed by the money of private interests and private individuals throughout Canada and which has the endorsation of all the people and all the responsible bodies I have mentioned, that we are nevertheless making a serious mistake. Well, I think that you, Mr. Chairman, as well as other members of this committee, so far as this debate has progressed, will agree with me that the man who could evolve an immigration policy that would satisfy all the members of this House would be a second Moses.	*


An hon. MEMBER:: Greater than Moses.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly.
That, at any rate, is my opinion, and I form that opinion after listening to the speeches of hon. gentlemen on all sides of this House. It is a fair assumption, I think, that the members of parliament are representative of the feelings of the people throughout Canada. And whatever our views may be, I think there is one thing about which we are all agreed, and that is that we must get people into Canada. I say, therefore, let us bring into the country people who have a fair chance of making a success. My hon. friend says that we should have a well rounded out policy and should beware of the difficulties that beset us. I said the other day that I was aware of the conflicting opinions throughout Canada; which I had heard from all quarters; and I am well aware also of the difficulties under which the agricultural population of Canada is labouring. But I still think that there is an opportunity for saving the situation and giving a decent chance to the people who come amongst us. Let me repeat again, most emphatically, that if I did not feel that way I should not be advocating immigration to this country.
My hon. friend makes the statement that this organization may get the government of Canada into difficulties. Now, I said the other day, and I want in all fairness to repeat, that from what I know about the organization it has not the entire approval of all the people who have subscribed their money to it; that is, I mean, the scheme under which this organization is operating at the present moment. And when I make that statement I want to deal with the objection that has been voiced in reference to this matter. I stated that the Canadian Pacific Railway lent their endorsation to the scheme, and when I spoke of the scheme I meant the 32-year plan of land selling. Colonel J. S. Dennis, who is a strong advocate of the scheme which my hon. friend has criticized, as it affects
the vendor and the purchaser, does however object-and in fairness to him I make the statement-to the taking of the ten per cent commission by the organization; and that is one of the reasons why he to-day is not an advocate of this particular scheme. He does not approve of the taking of that commission. But let me explain.


William Alves Boys: I understood the minister to say that the scheme had the approval of the late government and also of the various institutions to which he has referred; and his latest interjection raises that very question. What scheme was it that had their approval? Was it the scheme now before the people, or some previous scheme? I hold in my hand an early prospectus of the company, and there have been no fewer than three variations in it since last September. One important variation, and one that has prompted me to rise now and interrupt the minister, is the very point of commission. The prospectus I have in my hand, and which I am given to understand was issued about September last, with two variations since, provides a commission of fifty cents an acre on the land actually sold. Taking the illustration which appears in this flaring advertisement referred to by my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre, we find that 160 acres rated at $20 per acre produce a commission, not of $80 as would be the case on a fifty-cent basis, but of $320. And the same thing would apply to the sale 5 p.m. of the whole 900,000 acres if the same basis were adopted. What I want to ask the minister is this: Is he in a position to say that the gentleman he has referred to as the late president-in fact, he was the only president-Sir John Willison, who presided for a period of three months, did approve of the fifty cents an acre commission or the ten per cent commission, which is very much larger? There are many other features on which I should like information from the minister, but for the moment I will confine my question to this point.


Charles A. Stewart: Sir John Willison did approve of the scheme. He toured the western provinces and spoke to the boards of trade. I may say that he also addressed the Board of Trade in Toronto and outlined the very scheme my hon. friend has discussed this afternoon.


William Alves Boys: The ten per cent commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What scheme?
Mr. STEWART .Argenteuil): The scheme you outlined this afternoon.
Supply-I mmigra tion


Henry Herbert Stevens: The ten per cent, commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
scheme as it is outlined in the advertisement referred to by my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: There are three variations in it.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, let us deal with the last one, because we shall only become entangled if we try to consider them all simultaneously. I will confine my remarks to the last scheme and try to give the committee a fair statement of the facts as they exist in connection with this matter. Colonel J. S. Dennis makes the statement that this organization was to be patriotic, to be supported entirely by private subscription. It was not to take any commission but was to be supported and paid altogether out of the moneys to be raised by the various subscribers to the organization. Now, I want to be perfectly fair and to make myself clear on the matter.


William Alves Boys: Was not that the proposition that Sir John Willison lent himself to? In other words, did he not advocate a scheme that was to be patriotic, a philanthropic proposition. I am told that these gentlemen did subscribe $1',000,000, but that there was no real estate proposition for commission at all. They were to devote the money for a period of probably three years to the encouragement of the work of settlement, and when that was done, it was supposed that the company would carry itself.


Charles A. Stewart: With the single exception of Colonel J. S. Dennis I do not know of, nor has there come to my knowledge, any other objector. And I presume that Colonel J. S. Dennis was speaking on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In fairness to Mr. Beatty I may say that several conversations took place between him and myself with respect to this matter prior to the visit to Great Britain of Mr. Brown and his associates to interest the overseas government. I had been pressed ever since July of last year to lend assistance to this organization on the ground that it would be in the best interests of the settlement of these privately-owned lands-in other words, the getting of these lands out of the hands of owners who could not utilize them and were not cultivating them.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Does the minister know why General McRae left this organization?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes,-well, perhaps I should not say that. I do not know why he left, but I do know that his scheme was not acceptable to the board of directors.


William Alves Boys: Was his salary not fixed at $25,000 a year?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no knowledge of that.


William Alves Boys: I am informed on an authority which I do not dispute for a moment that for acting as president he was to receive $25,000 -and that in connection with a scheme which had been started for patriotic and philanthropic purposes. I understand that that was a source of dissatisfaction.


Charles A. Stewart: The only knowledge I have of the organization during the presidency of General McRae was when he asked me for legislation in Alberta to make compulsory the listing of privately owned lands. I do not know what salary he was paid or how long he was employed by this organization.


William Alves Boys: I am not saying he was paid that, but I know that amount was fixed, and I am given to understand there was trouble over it. One does not wonder that there was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister refers to Colonel Dennis, of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Do the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways officially endorse this scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Let me
make a differentiation to my hon. friend. So far as the 32-year plan of land settlement is concerned, yes-all of them agree.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the ten per cent to the company?


Charles A. Stewart: No. I have tried to point out that Colonel Dennis objected to that provision for the ten per cent to go to the company. An organization of this kind appeals to the Canadian Pacific Railway; they think it is in the best interests of Canada and that it ought to be supported by the government; and they are a unit in expressing approval. Now, have I made that plain to my hon. friend? So far as the purpose of this organization is to settle these lands, it has received entire approval. The one difficulty is the objection to the ten per cent taken by the company.
I have stated that pressure was being exerted from all quarters in this matter, and that criticism was being made of the government and of the Immigration department in that they were not participating in the overseas scheme. It has been stated that we are urged largely by the transportation companies to bring settlers into Canada. That is

Supply-Immigration
not the ease; I will deal with that in a moment or two, in connection with our propaganda for getting settlement. But I yielded to the extent of assisting this organization as we did last fall. They went forward; they listed in the neighbourhood of half a million acres of land. I cannot of course, take an affidavit on this floor that the vendor of these lands knows all about the provisions of the listing; I assume he does. I have heard those who own land privately, private individuals as well as corporations, maligned because of the very fact that they were holding it. As one who had something to do with taxation I endeavoured in the province from which I come to make it unprofitable for the absentee landholder or the owner of land out of use to continue to hold that land. We imposed an unearned increment tax and we gave to those who improved their land a reduction of 25 per cent from the rate applying to unimproved areas so far as local taxation went. There is no property tax in that province, so that the man who holds unimproved land is more than walling to sell it. The greatest criticism I received from our agents was that there was no responsible organization to which we could send prospective settlers to purchase land. I have pointed out that I did not think it was good business for the government to go into a land selling scheme. For these reasons I thought it wise to utilize this organization to a certain extent in our scheme of settling those lands. I hold in my hand a telegram from Sir John Willison sent to me on September 30. It is to this effect:
Have just completed tour of West. Have had conferences with four western governments and with grain growers and held many public meetings. Interviews with all governments most satisfactory.
He interviewed the western governments and placed this scheme before them. The telegram continues:
All meetings warmly sympathetic. At Winnipeg meeting five hundred representative citizens called by James Stewart adopted with enthusiasm resolution offering plan Canada Colonization Association. Everywhere we emphasized action government in uniting all forces for immigration and settlement. Beatty has appointed Col Dennis to represent Canadian Pacific on operating committee association, and Chipman of Grain Growers Guide with approval Crerar has agreed represent western farmers.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: May I ask whether any farmer's organizations in any part of Canada have endorsed this scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Not to my knowledge, except that there is on record a letter from the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) endorsing it. In fairness to him I may say that except so far as this telegram
goes I did not know what connection we had with the organization at that time. But that propaganda, if you call it such, that settlement outlined by my hon. friend, was then in existence and it was on that basis that this enthusiastic reception was extended. That is what I want to convey to my hon. friend, because I am being severely criticized in connection with this matter.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether if I had turned this thing down I would not have been criticized just as severely by some hon. gentlemen of this House for refusing assistance to this organization. I realize full well the difficulties of a position of this character. I want to do the best I can for the people of this country. My business is to get people into this country, and to bring them honestly and legitimately if it is humanly possible so to do, to bring in citizens who will assimilate with the life of this country and assist in nation-building here, no matter whether I am here as minister or whether this government or some other government is in existence. I have endeavoured to do this in a careful, conscientious way.
As I stated the other day, one other factor in inducing me to listen to the proposal of this organization was the fact that I knew of the activities of Mr. Howard Everett. I have known of his activities for years. Does anyone in this House, does anyone in this parliament think that the activities of governmental agencies alone in Canada have brought all the settlers in this country? Let me ask my hon. friends who have lived in western Canada, some of them longer than I have, do they not think that in a very large way the settlement that is in western Canada to-day was brought in by men who came in and purchased cheap land, and then went out and spent money and sold it and placed settlers on those lands? I frankly admit that some of them did not always tell the truth, that they over-coloured the picture, because as my hon. friend has rightly said, there is always an inducement to do that kind of thing. But here is one organization, and I would ask any hon. gentleman representing the areas that this company operated in for twenty years in Saskatchewan and central Alberta, have they heard any complaints about it? So far, as I am concerned, I have never heard that Howard Everett or his company misrepresented land to any individual whom they settled, but I have heard this, that where dissatisfaction existed they made it their business to change the individual to more congenial surroundings, and perhaps to better land, believing, and I think it is good business, that
Supply-Immigration

to have a satisfied settler was a better advertisement for them than to make the small sum of money that might accrue from refusing to make that exchange.
Mr. Chairman, I am not unmindful of the difficulties that surround a situation such as this, but I have felt that as one of the agencies for settlement we might give this organization a trial, and I have recommended it to the government. My hon. friend has said that there is a signed agreement in existence-perhaps I should qualify that statement that there would be a signed agreement in existence. There is not. We have discussed this matter from time to time, and undoubtedly this organization have certain promises of mine that I hold more or less in respect. I believe from the experience that I have had in connection with western Canada that this organization can be a real factor in settling western Canada, and that is the reason I am asking for the consideration of this committee.
My hon. friend made one other statement, that the agents of the government are to act with this company's agents. That is not the case. Rather is it the reverse. They are to carry on their own work. True, if you pick up an advertisement of our government in the United States you will find reference in one particular to this organization, namely, that they are in Canada and that we think it is an organization upon which the intending settler can depend for information of a reliable character, but he is under no obligation to purchase from the company. Furthermore, they .have not gone into Great Britain. They will confine their operations entirely to the United States. They will not even be in the eastern states. Their business, so far as this year at all events is concerned, will be bringing settlers from the western states to settle in western Canada, and I think that that is a task for which Mr. Everett is eminently fitted.
Our own immigration agents in the United States are working along the very same lines on which they have always worked. They are advertising Canada to the man who is intending to leave the United States and come here and settle, and I take it that there is no criticism of that. What I want to emphasize here and now is that the statement made the other day that we are endeavouring to bring people to Canada by false representation has not one tittle of foundation in fact. That is not true of our efforts in any country in the world, none excepted. We are endeavouring to advertise Canada as Canada exists, and the opportunities that are in this
'Mr. Chas. Stewart.]
country for those who are desirous to come here.
Let me follow that one step further and say this:	We do not approach any individual
until he has first made application to the agent. In the United States, for example, where advertisements are carried in the newspapers, when we get an application for information from some individual a card is sent out asking him for certain information, which is filed when it comes back. A mark is made upon the map indicating where this individual lives, and he is invited to meet on a certain day one of our agents who will be at some convenient point to which he can drive in. He then interviews the agent and the advantages of Canada are placed before him, the conditions are depicted just as they exist. If he is interested, we hope to get him to come up to Canada. That is true of the American field, and true also of the English field except that we go into it a little more intensively over there. I had hoped this year to have a number of motor cars in Great Britain. We have one in the British field at the moment, and we hope to have two or three carrying advertisements and showing motion pictures and giving lectures on the advantages of this country. We have very strong competitors in the Old Land. The Australian government and the South African government are all in the field in the Old Land for immigration. One of the principal difficulties in connection with moving people from the Old Land to Canada is that a great many of those who are willing to come and would make very desirable settlers are financially unable to make the move; but I do not want to be led away into a discussion of that phase at the moment.
I welcome criticism from any hon. member of this House. I am not averse to it at all. My object is to recommend to the government, in the light of this discussion and the various suggestions that are offered by members of this House, what is the best thing to do under the circumstances, what will be in the best interests of the country in connection with immigration.
One hon. member the other day asked me to give him the personnel of this organization. I have the names here, but before giving them I had perhaps better say a word or two about Sir John Willison. Sir John Willison was in charge of this organization for a short space of time. I have said that he endorsed the scheme that has been presented to the committee by my hon. friend this afternoon, that he has retired, and that the reason for his retirement was a difference of opinion that

Supply-Immigration
apparently existed between some supporters of the organization here in the East and its vice president. In addition he pointed out to me that he does not feel that he understands all the ramifications of an organization of this kind; he feels that he cannot give his time to it, and that he is not warranted in taking a salary for devoting attention to an organization whose work he does not thoroughly understand. That is the purport of his statement with respect to this matter. I have said to the committee that I believe the success of this organization depends upon Mr. Howard Everett. I do not believe it depends upon Mr. Brown because Mr. Brown, with all due respect to him, has had little or no experience in the actual selling or disposing of lands. He has, no doubt, been valuable in stirring up public opinion and getting the subscriptions of those organizations that have backed this institution so far-and many of them are backing it to-day.
Let me read to you the names of the gentlemen who are in control of this association, although I think I shall have to make an exception in the case of my hon. friend the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) whose name appears here. My .hon. friend, however, made an explanation the other day with respect to his connection with the association, and I do not know that there is anything I can add to his statement.


Mr. FORKE:: I am not at all ashamed to be in the association.


Charles A. Stewart: No. I want to give the committee all the information with respect to this matter that I am in possession of, and to be fair to all parties concerned. The officers and directors of the company are:
Vice-President, M. A. Brown.
General Manager, Howard Everett.
Secretary-Treasurer, F. D. L. Smith.
Directors:-
M. A. Brown, Winnipeg.
W. W. Evans, Winnipeg.
Robert Forke, Pipestone, Man.
Col. F. J. James, Regina, Sask.
S. W. Johns, Saskatoon, Sask.
J. F. Cairns, Saskatoon, Sask.
J. K. R. Williams, Regina, Sask.
Sam McLeod, Prince Albert, Sask.
Chas. McDonald, M.L.A., Prince Albert, Sask.
Hon. R. G. Brett, (Governor of Alberta), Edmonton.
Pat. Burns, Calgary, Alberta.
.. C. S. Noble, Nobleford, Alberta.
Brig. Gen. H. F. McDonald, Vancouver, B.C.
Col. Nelson Spencer, Vancouver, B.C.
Eastern Advisory Board:-
A. M. MacQueen, Toronto, Ont.
Robert Hobson, Hamilton, Ont.
Frank Cockshutt, Brantford, Ont.
Lt. Col. R. W. Leonard, St. Catherines, Ont.
F. D. L. Smith, Toronto, Ont.
That is the statement I have to make with respect to this matter. I think I have covered the field very well except to say this: I stated the other day that the association had half a million acres of land listed at the present moment, and that land is all listed within reasonable distance of the existing railways largely our own national railways. They are making some progress. The latest reports I have from them-and these reports are to be furnished monthly [DOT]-denote that they have 200 intending settlers ready to bring to western Canada to examine the lands that have been listed. They have agents in the United States, a very large number of agents, and undoubtedly these men will be under the control of the manager, Mr. Everett. If there is an element of danger to this government in trying to utilize and use the services of an organization of this kind-as my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) pointed out-backed by the people I have mentioned so far as I know-because I have had no contradiction of this telegram of Sir John Willison's of the 30th September that there was full knowledge of the scheme that is now before the House-I have had no communication or no objection with the single exception of the one gentleman I have mentioned, Colonel John S. Denms. I still believe that a great many people in Canada think this is the proper method to handle privately owned land, along the existing lines of railway, which it is so desirable to bring under cultivation and have settled.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has suggested that we are not co-operating with the provincial governments. I think I told my hon. friend the other day that not only was I trying to co-operate with them, but that I visited them last summer and placed before them the very serious situation, in my opinion, that existed in Canada for the lack of an adequate population. I went to the province from which my hon. friend himself comes-I went as far west as British Columbia. I met the government in the Vancouver Hotel and discussed this matter with them. They are vitally interested, they are willing to co-operate; but they feel, perhaps, that it is a duty of the federal government to assume, in a large way, the financial responsibility of this work. With respect to the prairie provinces I did the same thing. Not only that but I called a conference last fall and asked representatives from every province in Canada to come here and discuss this very vital question in all its aspects; and these governments, so far as I know-I have had no intimation to the contrary-have endorsed this scheme outlined by my hon. friend. My hon. friend
Supply-Immigration

asked me why I recommend a scheme of this kind to the government? I felt, Mr. Chairman, that I had the backing, and that this government would have the backing, of the provincial governments; that we would also have the backing of these organizations that I have mentioned in a scheme of this kind when it had been so fully and clearly explained to them-as I was ready to believe had been done by this association and by so responsible a gentleman as Sir John Willison; because I think we can say with full assurance that Sir John Willison would make a fair presentation of the facts in a case of this kind. I felt too, and I think my hon. friends from western Canada will agree with me, that when a scheme of the kind was presented to westerners, who knew every phase of an enterprise of this character, they would be critical and examine the situation very carefully before lending support-such support as I have mentioned by way of resolutions passed by certain bodies-to an undertaking of this nature. Therefore, if I have made a mistake, if I have gone astray in making this recommendation, all I have to say is that I am in mighty good company.


Mr. SPENCER:: Did the Alberta government fully endorse the proposition?


Charles A. Stewart: I know that the Alberta government was visited by these gentlemen and I know that previously they endorsed this scheme. I cannot say that 1 have in my possession letters from the Alberta government, since September 30, endorsing it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit me one more question and I will not bother him any more. Has he official endorsation of this scheme, as set forth in their propaganda, from the Imperial government, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, the provincial governments of Canada, and the banking institutions to which he has referred? If he has will he lay those endorsations on the table?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not endorsations from those organizations in writing. I have an endorsation from Colonel Amery, who was in charge of the Empire Settlement scheme, after Mr. M. A. Brown and Mr. Smith had laid this matter before him. However, let me in fairness, say this: Colonel Amery pointed out quite properly that before they would be prepared to lend full support to the scheme it would have to be endorsed by the government of Canada. Have I made myself clear?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all. My hon. friend has made himself clear to this extent-he will correct me if I am wrong-that he has no official endorsation at all from any of these institutions to which he has referred and' to which the association's advertisement applies.


Charles A. Stewart: I followed
very closely the press despatches at the time this visit was made to western Canada. I saw no statement in the western newspapers that what was contained in the telegram from Sir John Willison was not true. I have no direct communications from the boards of trade or these various institutions I have mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend does not catch my question. I asked him if he had the endorsation, as referred to in this propaganda, of the Imperial government, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian government

never mind the telegram at all or the board of trade-these important official bodies upon which my hon. friend places so much importance and which he introduces in justification of his scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the direct written endorsation of those individuals. I did not think it was necessary. Surely my hon. friend did not expect that, before an organization of this sort was started by private individuals, with the names of the gentlemen that I have mentioned as sponsors for it, they would require the written endorsation of every organization to which they gave an explanation of their scheme.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister will persist in bringing in every organization. I limited my question to the official bodies and I will repeat them-the Imperial government, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, and the provincial governments. My hon. friend says he has no endorsations from these bodies.


Charles A. Stewart: I will say, dealing with the Imperial government particularly, that they have written saying that the scheme as outlined appealed to them, but of course they did not deal directly with private organizations, and before accepting and supporting fully a scheme of this character it would require to be endorsed by the federal government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Permit me to read to my hon. friend a portion of this propaganda. In the official statement of this association I find the following.
The Imperial government will assume a legal share of the cost of the welfare work.

Supply-Immigration
And so on; inferring in this propaganda that the Imperial government, as my hon. friend's suggestion would infer, the Canadian Pacific and the other organizations, would assume part of the financial responsibility. Now apparently there is no such responsibility assumed by these bodies at all.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not sure whether the report brought back by Mr. Brown was confirmed by letter or not. However, one should speak carefully about matters of this kind. I am not sure whether the amount of $100,000, which was mentioned as a contribution for the purpose of welfare work to be carried on amongst settlers who have come from the Old Country, was mentioned in the letter or not. All I am sure is that we have a letter of the character I have mentioned from Colonel Amery, then head of the Overseas Settlement Board, saying that the scheme appealed to them, but of course it would require to have the endorsation of the federal government. With that, I will leave it. I will be very glad to examine my correspondence, to see just exactly what was said about that matter. Of course I am not responsible in every particular for all that may have appeared in that advertisement, nor do I wish to be held responsible. In the main, I think, perhaps, it is correct. I have tried to make myself clear with respect to the railways and with respect to the other individuals who were backing a scheme of this character.
I believe that my hon. friend asked the amount of money subscribed and paid up. I think practically one million and a quarter were subscribed, and so far, $150,000 of that amount has been paid up and used by this corporation, and that they will continue to subscribe, and that they are continuing to receive subscriptions, I am assured.


William Alves Boys: How much was paid up?


Charles A. Stewart: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars is the amount mentioned in the report I got from this association. So far as I am concerned, I will try to throw around the attempt, at all events, to settle the land and settle it successfully, carefully and economically, all the safeguards that are humanly possible to be placed around it. For years the organization known as the Salvation Army have been given a grant as my hon. friend well knows, of $25,000. No investigation has been held into the affairs of the army. I was one of the members of this House who voted that sum of money last year, but I would be unable to say just how that money is used. I believe it is used well. I believe they can
make good use of that $25,000. They do a splendid work, and I am again recommending that $25,000 be given to them. I have heard repeatedly commendation of the giving of this sum of money to this organization to engage in immigration work. So that the giving of a grant to the organization is not a new thing for the government which preceded us, nor for this government. This is in a somewhat larger way, and I say that I have not heard criticism of the grant to that organization. True they are religious. They are engaged to some extent in the land settlement scheme.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are not getting a
ten per cent commission.


Charles A. Stewart: No, they are not getting a commission; that is true and that is the reason of all my hon. friend's criticisms.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not all.


Charles A. Stewart: And full assurance is given that this money will not be taken in the way of profit. Let me say that if an arrangement is made with the association, an accounting of the disposition of funds will be made monthly. My hon. friend will say that is no particular protection, but I wish to impress upon the committee that every means of protection humanly possible will be adopted to prevent people being mulcted of their funds, or cheated in their settlement, and I hope that nothing of that kind will happen. My hon. friend will say that that is a pious hope and will not materialize.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.	.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I can see, I think this scheme has many advantages. It will help to settle a very difficult problem, because without it I fear we will have the same disjointed policy with respect to settling these lands and the same disappointment that we have had in the past. I have endeavoured to enlist every organization in immigration that was possible for me to enlist, hoping by the co-operation of all the people who are interested in this problem in Canada to work out a scheme of co-operation and co-ordination the effect of which would be advantageous to the people and government of that country. I stated the other day that any wide scheme of settlement involving hugii expenditures of money would not be warranted at this time, and I am of the same opinion today. In the light of the discussion we have had, I sometimes wonder whether it would not have been well to have gone very slow. It would have been a great disappointment to certain people in Canada had we done so.
Supply-Immigration

We have . gone moderately with this thing; we have endeavoured to evolve a scheme that will embrace every phase of settlement, bringing in people where they are required in urban centres, where a demand appears to exist for them and endeavouring to prevent unemployment during the long winter months, because we have to face in Canada the problem of seasonal employment with those six months of winter. I have sought to avoid the pitfalls of the past, first, by careful selection, second, by careful placing, in order to give those whom we bring into this country an opportunity to succeed.
As regards emigration, so far as we are able to get substantial returns, these would indicate that it is not so much the people who come to this country who are leaving it- and people are not leaving the country in such large numbers from western Canada as from eastern Canada-but rather our own sons and daughters, born and reared in Canada, who are going to the United States. Therefore, it behooves us that we be more careful than ever; that we exercise due care in selecting those whom we bring amongst us, because I do not see that we can entirely stop that flow to the United States, much as we would do so.
In conclusion, so far as possible in carrying out this scheme of immigration, every aspect of it, I will endeavour to exercise due care, first, in selection and, second, in placing, in order that we may have a well-balanced colonization scheme for the whole of Canada, including the area in northern Ontario about which my hon. friend has complained. We stand ready at any moment to co-operate with any provincial government on any scheme that will appeal to the federal authorities for the settlement of any area in any province, more particularly along the area served by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway through the older provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We welcome co-operation, and we will co-operate and work hand in hand in any scheme. In saying this, I am speaking largely on behalf of myself, but that would be my recommendation to the government.
I think I have covered all the phases in connection with this matter as regards the Canada Colonization Association. I shall be glad to have further light on immigration matters, and if possible so to adjust them as to meet with the approval of all hon. members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended to take any part in this debate; but the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) brought my name into the discus-

sion, and he rather intimated that the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) had taken upon himself to settle the entire question of the government's relation to the Canada Colonization Association, and that the matter had not	carefully considered by
the government as a whole. I just want to assure the House that co-operation in this matter was not lightly undertaken by the government but that it did receive the most careful consideration in Cabinet Council, before the minister finally decided to give the approval which he gave as to a limited measure of governmental assistance towards this Canada Colonization scheme.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the responsibility which the government had in this matter. A government has to accept responsibility, not only for what it does, but for what it refuses or fails to do. In the matter of immigration, as members of the House well know, there is nothing that, perhaps, counts for so much as an effective organization, an organization that will bring together large bodies of influence that may have means and methods which even a government itself could not possibly have of helping to bring about the result desired. When we came into office, we found that our predecessors had done little or nothing with respect to immigration, in the months immediately preceding their going out of office. As a matter of fact, the whole immigration work of the government had been practically stopped. There was a demand, very naturally and properly, from all parts of Canada, that efforts should be made to stimulate immigration; that advantage should be taken of every possible agency towards that end. We found an organization which was already in existence, an organization, let me say at once, not composed of friends of the government. I think almost every name identified with it was that of a gentleman who had not been associated, so far as I am aware, with the administration; but the names were for the most part those of men who rank high in public confidence in this country. We found that organization in existence, and it was represented to us that it had been able to bring together certain of the large financial interests, the large transportation companies, and to a considerable extent the entire press of the country, as a combined agency to help to further it in its purpose, which was asserted to be the patriotic one of assisting, in getting settlers for the vacant lands of this country.
I ask hon. members: With an association of that kind in existence, representing to the

Supply-Immigration
government that our co-operation was required in order that they might get assistance from Great Britain under the British Empire settlement scheme, what position would the government have been in had it refused to countenance, in the slight degree in which we have countenanced it, this organization, and refused to agree to assist it in its welfare work?
I venture to say that hon. gentlemen who are condemning us to-day for some of the features of this organization which do not appeal to them, would have been the first and loudest in their denunciation of the government, had we at that time said: "We will not have anything to' do with this particular organization." And what would have been said? The reason would have been very speedily alleged or the motive asserted that the government had declined its co-operation because the gentlemen who for the most part composed the company, were not of the same political persuasibn as members of the administration.
I confess that when the whole plan was put before the government, I felt it was a serious matter for the government to lend assistance to an association as vast as this. On the other hand, considering the responsibility of refusing, and what a refusal might involve, namely, a possible complete crippling of the organization, and the destroying of the possibility of its securing assistance from the British government in connection with its work, I felt, on examining the personnel and above all having regard for the then president of the association, that the government was justified in lending the countenance it did to the association. I had interviews with Sir John Willison. The minister and myself met Sir John Willison and other members of the board at Toronto, and they outlined their plans very fully to us. The matter was thoroughly discussed in Council, and such assistance as we were giving, was given on the same basis as the British Empire Association was to give its assistance, and on a parity with what the organisation itself was also to give for its welfare work.
Let me again read this communication, because in a way it sums up the endorsation which the government felt it had from the different parties concerned. The minister has read it, but I shall refer to it again. The telegram was sent to me by Sir John Willison from Winnipeg after conversations we had had together on the subject, and after I had intimated in the clearest possible way to Sir John Willison that unless the government had the assurance that this scheme was
one which appealed to the western governments, and that it was a plan which was likely to meet with the general approval of parliament, irrespective altogether of the groups of which it was composed, we could not undertake to lend our co-operation to what it was proposing to do. On September 30th Sir John Willison sent me this telegram:
Have just completed tour of West. Have had conferences with four western governments and with grain growers and held many public meetings. Interviews with all governments most satisfactory and all meetings warmly sympathetic.
Now, I submit that no one who knows Sir John Willison and is aware of his standing, not only in this country, but throughout the British Empire, would suggest that a statement of that kind from him to the government of Canada was not equivalent to an endorsation of this plan on the part of the western governments and the people of the West generally. The telegram continues:
At Winnipeg meeting five hundred representative citizens called by James Stewart adopted with enthusiasm resolution offering plan Canada Colonization Association. Everywhere we emphasized action government in uniting all forces for immigration and settlement.
That was the strong point urged upon us by this association. It was pointed out by Sir John Willison and his associates that they had succeeded in bringing together into one organization agencies which were prepared to co-operate and which were so essential to bring immigrants to Canada, namely, the transportation agencies, the financial backing that was necessary, and the press of the country-three powerful and mighty influences, all ready to work together for the settlement of the unsettled areas. That was the note which Sir John Willison sounded, not only in conversation with the government, but publicly wherever he spoke on the subject.
Beatty has appointed Col. Dennis to represent Canadian Pacific on operating committee association,-
My hon. friend asks whether we have the endorsation of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I ask, in reply, what better form of endorsation could be given by this corporation than that which is implied in this statement, that its president had appointed Colonel Dennis to represent the Canadian Pacific Railway on the operating committee of the association. Then my hon. friend asks, have we any endorsation from any other source. What is the next statement in the telegram:
-and Chipman of Grain Growers Guide with approval Crtrar has agreed represent western farmers.
These are all names that are held in respect in this House and that carry weight with the government and with the country. I submit



Supply-Immigration
that with the class of representations that are contained in that telegram which were made to the government in regard to this association, had we refused to have anything to do With the organization, or to assist it to the small extent that we are-because in view of the fact that the organization has a subscribed capital of over a million dollars, $100,000 is relatively small when it covers everything for which we are obligated and which we have con" ditionally promised-our responsibility, in refusing to have anything to do with the organization would have been infinitely greater than the obligation which we have assumed in endeavouring to give the organization a start on its way,, and to help it successfully carry out the large purposes for which it is intended.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Warren Porter.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of May Elizabeth Meng.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill No. 78 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maud Vera Butler.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 79 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Black.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 80 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Elizabeth	McDonald.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gretta Melville.-Mr. Ryckman.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Immigration-outside service-salaries, $700,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE. KING: When the committee rose at six o'clock I had been speaking of the responsibility of the government in the matter of lending the assistance which it promised to the Western Canada Colonization Association, and the still greater responsibility we would have assumed had we refused to have anything to do with that organization. 1 hope I made it plain that in promising a limited measure of assistance for the welfare work of the Association, the government was influenced by the importance of the work, the personnel of the association, and the large and

responsible interests represented by those gentlemen in this country.
I would like to say quite frankly that among the names that helped to inspire confidence so far as I personally was concerned was that of Sir John Willison, as president of the organization. I felt that Sir John Willison would not have associated himself as president with the Western Canada Colonization Association if its purpose was, as has been suggested in this debate that of some realty scheme, a land profits scheme of some kind or another, an agency other than of a patriotic and public-spirited character. Believing that the purpose of the organization was of a patriotic and public-spirited character, the government felt that it would justly incur a measure of disapproval, if it failed to encourage to the extent it did, an undertaking as vast as this, and which gave promise of such profitable results, possibly not all in a day, but in the course of time, by way of settling people on large tracts of land in this country.
When Sir John Willison retired from the presidency of the company, I confess that the members of the government felt a moment of concern with respect to the assistance that should be continued towards the organization, and we hesitated somewhat in oUr further relations with it. I remember particularly in the interviews I had with one or two members of the organization mentioning that we had gone into this matter to the extent we had, from purely public reasons, that if we had been governed by party considerations in any way, we would probably, as I indicated before recess, have had nothing whatever to do with the organization, as most of its personnel were gentlemen who were known to be opposed to the government. I stated that we had sought to take what we believed to be a broad patriotic stand and on this basis had recognized the association which our predecessors in office had been prepared to have dealings with. I pointed out that with the change that had come about as a consequence of Sir John Willison's resignation, it would be necessary for the company to give the government some further assurance of the confidence which it held in the minds of the people of the country. I spoke particularly of the complexion of the House of Commons and of the necessity in any great undertaking of this kind, of the government having the co-operation of the groups which were opposed to it. I pointed out that we had no desire whatever to deal with the immigration question on party lines; that we wished to have a policy broader than that of party and that we hoped and believed

Supply-Immigration
we could count upon the co-operation of hon. members in this House, in an endeavour to deal with this all important question, probably the most important we have, in a statesmanlike way. I received the assurance of the officers of the company that they had been in conference with the leaders of the groups opposite, and that the leaders were of the opinion that the government should give their support to the organization notwithstanding the change which had taken place in the presidency. I said that I would like to have some substantial evidence of that, and in the course of a short time I was presented with one or two letters which I shall read to the House, and I shall ask hon. members to consider from a reading of them whether the government was not right in believing that it was justified in continuing the co-operation which it had promised.
The first is a letter from the Right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), dated at Ottawa, Ontario, as recently as February 5, 1923. It is addressed to Mr. M. A. Brown, Vice-President of the Western Canada Colonization Association, Ottawa, Ontario. It was given to me by Mr. Brown with the statement that he had the permission of the right hon. leader of the Opposition to give this letter to the government. It reads as follows: Dear Mr. Brown,
Western Canada Colonization Association
You have asked me to give you my view as to the above Association.
When your organization was under way, the Honourable Mr. J. A. Calder, who was at that time Minister of Immigration and Colonization, looked with favour upon the establishment of a voluntary non-profit sharing company designed to serve as a colonizing agency of western farm lands, and as such to help to place and take care of immigrants who were to be intending settlers upon such lands.
Mr. Calder's attitude in this regard, which I believe was put in the form of a letter to the Association, was in harmony with the attitude of the government of the time.
I regarded such an Association as having a useful purpose to serve and could see then as I see now, no reason why it should not succeed.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Meighen.
At the same time I was handed by Mr. Brown a letter from my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), and I may say that I had the same assurance from Mr. Brown at the time this letter was received by me, that it had been written with the expectation that the government would not hesitate to use it, if circumstances seemed to warrant its introduction into any of the debates. It reads as follows:
Ottawa, February 3, 1923.
Dear Mr. Brown,
Having taken into consideration the policy of the Canada Colonization Association, which is planned to
85i
effect the settlement of the vacant lands of the railway lines in Canada, I have no hesitation in endorsing the scheme so well suited to the requirements of the country. The need of new immigrants to settle our vacant lands is great and would tend to solve some of the problems that are now before us.
I am therefore of opinion that the government should do all in its power to assist the Association in this important enterprise.
Yours very sincerely,
Robert Forke.
That communication is in entire accord with the speech which the hon. leader of the Pro-, gressive group made in this House a night or two ago.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these two communications are to all intents and purposes an endorsation of the Western Canada Colonization Association, an endorsation given in the same spirit and with the same knowledge of the organization, as the government had. I think hon. gentlemen opposite who have given these communications to the Western Canada Colonization Association have done so with precisely the same motive as the government had, in giving such endorsation as it gave, in promising co-operation with the British Empire Settlement Association in its immigration scheme. May I say that I think that had all hon. members of this House the knowledge of this association, and the purpose of its work, and the information concerning what it has accomplished in bringing together the different elements whose co-operation are so essential to success in immigration, their view of its possible service would have been precisely what the view of the government has been and the view expressed also in the two communications from the respective leaders of the groups opposite., which I have read to the House.
If, as a matter of fact, it should now appear that in any particular the Western Canada Colonization Association is not fulfilling the spirit as well as the intent of the letter of the representations and the undertakings they gave to the government, that would be a good and sufficient reason for the government to consider at this time whether further assistance should be given to the organization. I submit that at the present time-
Robert Forke: May I interrupt for a moment? I understood just before we rose at six o'clock that there was another letter to which the Prime Minister had referred. It may not be proper to read that letter without the permission of the writer, but I understood there was another letter whieh the Premier would probably read to-night. If the Premier thinks it better not to read that letter I will not press the request.
Supply-Immigration


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that I saw my hon. friend as I was going out of the House at 6 o'clock, and I mentioned to him that I intended this evening to read his communication to Mr. Brown, and that I had another communication from the leader of the Opposition. Those were the two communications which I referred to, they are the two which I have just read. Probably I read the one from the leader of the Opposition before my hon. friend came in. Is not that the communication to which he refers?


Robert Forke: No, that was not the one I refer to. However, I prefer to leave the matter where it is for the present. I think the Premier has another letter; he probably understands the one I mean.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am not aware of any other.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us have them all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would be glad if my hon. friend would mention the communication to which he refers; I have no knowledge of it. The only communications I spoke of to my hon. friend were the two which I have in my hand at the moment, and possibly the telegram from Sir John Willison. I did not refer to any other.


Robert Forke: It is all right; I am quite satisfied.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend recalls the conversation I had with him, he will recollect that I simply mentioned to him that I intended to read his communication, and also a communication from the right hon. leader of the Opposition, each of which had been given to me by Mr. Brown, and given on the understanding that they were to be regarded as public communications.
Now, all that I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, is this: I submit that the government, in the action which it took at the outset, was justified in lending the co-operation it did to this organization, from the representations that were made concerning its oppo tunities of service, from the nature of the orga lization itself, and the personnel of those wl o were responsible for its affairs. I submit further, that such changes as have taken plat 5 since would be a reason for the government coving with increased caution in the matter if any assistance it might give the association; that having taken the precautions that the government has taken to ascertain from the leaders of the groups opposite how far they also had confidence in this organization, and having before it the communications which I have just read, the government has, in this
[Mr. Forke. 1
matter, acted in a manner which is best serving the interests of the country. But if it should now appear that this organization has in any way departed from its original purpose, if in any way it is departing from the representations which it made to the government- and on the basis of which such co-operation as we have given was given-then there would be good and sufficient reason why we should consider whether that co-operation should be extended any further. I confess, having regard to all of the circumstances, to the fact that the immigration problem is par excellence the great problem concerning this country at the present time, having regard to the fact that this association has brought together the different interests that should work in a coordinated fashion in the matter of immigration, that there would be a very great responsibility in the government declining at this stage to have anything further to do with the organization. But if hon. members have not confidence in it, if there is any reason to mistrust the organization at this particular stage, then I would say quite frankly that the government is prepared to consider just how much further, if at all, it should extend the co-operation which it has already promised in good faith, and in what it believes to be the best interests of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I had not the privilege of hearing the Prime Minister until the commencement of his reading of the letter addressed by myself to the Secretary of the Canada Colonization Association, nor had I, indeed, intimation from the Prime Minister that any letter of mine was to be read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say to my right hon. friend at once, if he will permit me that it was on the merest chance that when the House adjourned I saw the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I would have read the letter before six o'clock if there had been time. My right hon. friend was not in the House when I was speaking before dinner. Had he been I would have extended the same courtesy to him that I did to the hon. member for Brandon; I would have mentioned that I had received his letter and intended to read it.


Arthur Meighen: I am not making the
least complaint. I did not write the letter with any idea of secrecy at all, and I stand by the terms of that letter to the last period. When the late government was in office the Western Canada Colonization Association, as it was then called, was formed. It was formed on the basis of a voluntary association to assist in the settlement of near railway western

Supply-Immigration
lands, supported by the voluntary contribution of those who desired those lands settled, and particularly by those who had a special interest in that settlement. The late government made no proposal, nor did it receive favourably any suggestion, looking to exerting its own immigration activities through the instrumentality of the organization. The late government merely looked with favour upon the formation of a voluntary non-profit sharing organization. That position we took then, that position I reiterated without hesitation in the letter that was read; but just as we looked with favour upon the organization of a nonprofit sharing company for this work, just as we took that view of it we took, as well, the view that there should not be any system of assistance on the part of the administration, nor any system of inter-responsibility as between the Immigration department, the government of Canada and any land selling organization. That responsibility we declined to take; and my letter is not only entirely consistent with that position but emphasizes it from beginning to end. I do not favour any assistance by the government;
I do not favour any inter-locking responsibility as between the government of Canada and any land organization whatsoever;
I did not favour it at the time; I do not favour it now. That is the purport of the letter I wrote, and if the government feels that it can rest on any letter of mine as endorsing the policy that now is presented to this House, I am afraid it rests on a broken reed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask my right hon. friend whether, in his mind, the circumstance that his letter is headed "Western Canada Colonization Association", underlined and dated February 5, implies that he is referring to the Western Canada Association, as it was at that date.


Arthur Meighen: That association was organized as a non-profit sharing, voluntary organization. As such it was looked on with favour; but assistance, by the government, and any system of inter-locking responsibility of the government with it was refused. Presented in the character it was then, for the purposes it then had, by itself and without any responsibility on the govern-' ment's part and without any assistance from the government, it was favoured. In that sense I favoured it then; I have not changed my position in regard to the matter at all. But to say that because one does look with favour on the activities of a voluntary company, resting on its own feet, not asking to be supported by the state, not asking that
the state share the responsibility of its work -favouring a company on that basis is one thing, the government policy is something. else altogether. There is no word in my letter binding me, or intimating in the least degree that I favoured assistance by the government of Canada or that I favoured the gpvernment of Canada entering into some arrangement with this organization whereby government officers would assume a share of the responsibility for the work of the organization in the selling of lands, or in the purchase of lands by immigrants-nothing in the world in my letter favoured any such policy. I am quite prepared, I say, to stand by what I said then, because it is no doubt what we said when we were in power. But what we did when we were in power is wholly different from this proposal; and what I said at that time is wholly different from what is said by the Prime Minister.
Now, I have not had the advantage of hearing anything else from the Prime Minister himself, but in the course of the debate I have heard it said that nothing was done by the late administration in the way of immigration, and that there were great calls for immigration activities in the time of the late administration. Well, there were calls for many things during the time of the late administration. It was a time of calls all over the Dominion, but the only thing that was not called for was immigration. I do not remember ever hearing the call from anybody for special activities in immigration at that time. Here, as in every country in the world, the volume of unemployment was great-great in almost all classes of employment-and there was considerable suffering as a result. It is true we had the least unemployment relatively of any country in the world. It is true we had less unemployment even than the great republic to the south of us though one would expect that in the reaction and the relapse from the war we would suffer more than the great republic.. Up to the end of 1921 our share of unemployment was less than theirs, but that is not the case to-day. Our share of unemployment now is much more than theirs relatively to population. Still we had large numbers out of work and there was no pressure for great immigration effort.
Immigration at that time though was not dead. Immigration at that time was all it could be expected to be so soon after the war. We had some 117,000 people come to this country in the year that succeeded the war; that is to say in the first fiscal year after the war. We had some 140,000 people in the succeeding year, and last year, part of it
Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: I do not know whether 1 can make myself plain in any fewer words than the right hon. leader of the Opposition has taken to state his position. I have no apologies for anything I have done. I have not changed my mind in any particular. I wrote that letter in perfect good faith and I think I could write it with a clear conscience to-day. I had no idea at that time as to what the government was going to do, and understood nothing of the relations which existed between the government and the Western Canada Colonization Association. I do not 
know whether I drew my letter just as closely as the right hon. leader of the Opposition did, but I am certain the intention I had was the same as his intention. We had no difference in our idea, which was to convey to the people at large that we thought there was merit in the scheme. I think so yet. I may be wrong. I think I said when speaking in the beginning of the debate, that if the scheme could not stand criticism and investigation by all means condemn it, but what I had to find fault with, and do find fault with to-day, i3 that the scheme had been condemned without trial or investigation in any quarter. We know something about the scheme and understand something about its workings, and, as with every other scheme, unless the personnel of the men who are connected with it and who are carrying out its working is what it ought to be, then perhaps the scheme will fall down. I am quite prepared to stand on what I said in that letter. It had nothing to do with the arrangement proposed by the government at the present time. That will have to stand on its own merits, and in that con-nectioh it might be thought that there was something mysterious about the question I was asking the Premier about another letter. I know that Mr. Brown had two or three hundred letters from most of the prominent people in this country. It is part of the stock in trade in launching any scheme to get the endorsation of men whose opinions are worth having, and I thought perhaps the Premier would read another letter which I had in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no other letter.


Robert Forke: It makes no difference. I do not think the writer would have objected to it, but I think perhaps it is better not to read it when the gentleman is not here.
I have said all I wish to say on this particular question, and I will simply repeat the words of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that I have nothing to be ashamed of, or to apologize for, and I have nothing to take back from what I wrote.


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: The debate has
centred recently around the question of the ^Western Canada Colonization Association. I do not desire to say very much with regard to that company, as I think there has been a great deal of criticism offered. I must protest against the government subsidizing any private company of this character. It seems to me that, with the Soldier Settlement Board in existence, with the government agents throughout this country and the United States

S apply-lmmigratio n
and Europe, we ought to have sufficient machinery to do the work that is required to be done along these lines, and we ought not to commit ourselves to any private company that undoubtedly has, in one form or another, profit and gain in view. The Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) referred to the fact that the Salvation Army is receiving funds for which no accounting is required. It seems to me if this is so it is rather a thing in itself to be inquired into. We do not need to condemn any organization, the Salvation Army or any other, but we say there ought to be a strict accounting for every dollar that is spent by this parliament, and we ought to know exactly the purpose to which it is being applied.
In considering this matter we shall require to go a great deal more deeply into the question than simply dealing with one particular company. I cannot agree with the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his statement that the drying up of the stream of immigration must be laid at the door of the present government. I take it that there are larger economic and social forces at work, and that, whatever government was in power at the present time, we would have very similar results. Personally, I am not opposed to immigration as such. The member for Springfield	(Mr.	Hoey)	told	us	theother day of the very great resources we had in Winnipeg and the western country. I	think	we all	agree	on	that.Any man who has lived in the West is fully cognizant of the almost unparalleled resources that exist in that western country, and I think we all recognize that with those resources we have room for millions of people in the West. No one disputes that; but that is not the point that we are arguing at the present time. The question before us is whether we should adopt an active immigration policy in face of existing conditions at home. It seems to me that the first duty of this parliament is to safeguard the interests of those already in the country. It is not that some of us are opposed to immigration that we oppose such a policy as this; but we say:	"Why go on with this policy when
there are other alternatives that we might adopt?" We have been told that we ought to pump immigrants in. We, who question the policy are on the ground of common sense when we say that it is more essential to Btop the leaks than to keep pumping people in. It might be all very well to pump them in if we proceed at the same time to stop the leaks; but it would seem the part of good, sound common sense to stop the leaks first. It is not good policy to continue to expend
large sums of money while people are leaking out faster than we can pump them in.
We might clarify our thinking if we should ask who is really to benefit by this immigration policy. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)) took rather high moral grounds when he said that we have no exclusive claim to this country, and that we ought to admit people who, perhaps, are in inferior positions in other lands. I am quite willing to admit that that is true, although I notice that the hon. member for North Waterloo was rather inclined to think we white people had exclusive claims to this country. I do not know how he reconciles that	with the broader idea; but I
do not think we can contend that we alone have exclusive claim to the northern half of this American continent. It is, however, laid upon us who are here to see to it that large floods of immigrants are not permitted to destroy or to lower permanently the standard of living of the people in this country.
Although we protest that we are doing this for the sake of the immigrant, again and again in those self-same speeches, we come back to the point that we are doing this in order that we may get more people to carry our load. Let us be frank and say that we are asking for more immigrants in order that they may help us in this country and assist this country. I am not sure that that is not a very good reason, for the adoption of such a policy; but let us be frank and say that we are looking after ourselves in this regard. That raises a still further question whether all people or all classes of people in Canada are to be benfited by such immigration, or whether we are benefitting only certain classes. It seems rather peculiar that the great masses of the labour people of this country and of the farming people of the western part of Canada should be opposed to bringing in immigrants. Under these circumstances we should ask ourselves whether the incoming of immigrants at the present time would not tend to benefit simply a few. Undoubtedly the transportation systems would benefit .very largely, and I fancy from the telegram which was read twice to-day and which was emphasized, that the transportation interests and the financial interests have been exercising a very strong pressure upon the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) and upon the government in this regard. It is two or three years ago since Lord Shaughnessy first told us that we ought again to adopt a progressive immigration policy, and about two years ago now, Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific, came out very definitely with this
Supply-Immigration

policy which we are being urged to adopt. Mr. Beatty said:
The most urgent and essential need to-day is increase in population, not only to provide traffic for the railways, but also to help pay our enormous national indebtedness.
He said further:
In reference to the 300,000 Ukrainians in western Canada, in which it is stated that these people of sturdy farming stock from central Europe have four large educational institutes.
And so on. He claims that these are the people whom we ought to bring in-the sturdy peasants from Central Europe. Still further, not satisfied with this, Mr. Beatty urges:
. What progress can Canadian industry make if the skilled mechanic is to be practically shut out? And Without Canadian industry where are we to find exports for the Canadian Merchant Marine?
I would like to ask: What attitude are these transportation interests themselves taking in this matter of retaining the people in this country and building up our Canadian industry? I have received a communication from a union of mechanics from my own city of Winnipeg, which states:
The Manitoba Free Press of Friday the second of February carried a despatch stating that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had let contracts in the States for the construction of sixteen locomotives, and that in the meantime their own plants were working to capacity, whilst as a matter of fact at that very time the Angus shops were closed down, and its working staff on the streets.
This organization passed the following resolution which was forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock):
Whereas, continual attacks are being made upon the earnings of railway workers and,
Whereas, the shopmen employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been on continuous short time for the past two years, and,
Whereas, the highest possible earnings of a skilled mechanic working every hour the shops were open during the last two years have averaged only $24.61 per week, and the highest possible earnings of a mechanic's helper have averaged only $16.90 per week, and,
Whereas, according to published statements the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have during the last crop movement had the largest earnings in the history of the road, and notwithstanding, have kept the mechanical staff on short time and periodically closed the shops,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that this mass meeting of Canadian Pacific shopmen strongly protest this action of the company, and demand that the transportation industry of the country be organized upon a basis that will ensure a decent standard of living for the permanent staff engaged in it.
If we turn from the West to the East, T have also from the International Association of Machinists in Montreal, a resolution along somewhat similar lines:
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
We understand that contracts for some forty-eight lake freighters have recently been contracted for, by companies operating on our lakes and rivers, with firms outside the country and it would appear to us that such business methods are not in the best interests of the citizens of this country. The shipyard workers of this country have demonstrated their ability to build good ships and the boats they produced are, in their particular class, amongst the finest, in point of workmanship, to be found oh the waters of the globe. Thousands of these workmen have been thrown out of employment, or have been forced to accept temporary work in other lines, through the closing down of our shipyards and this condition obtains, to a great extent, because of the failure on the part of shipping companies, operating in Canada, to patronize Canadian shipyards. It is also a fact that many of our best shipyard mechanics have left the country in search of employment in that line and, undoubtedly, many others will be compelled to do likewise, unless some action is taken to prevent it.


Mr. MURDOCK:: What is the date of
that letter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: January 30, 1923. That was sent to me with a request that the matter be brought before parliament at the first opportunity. Now, when we have men in the employ of these transportation com-*panies, both in the East and in the West, bringing in resolutions along this line, outlining facts that show a condition of affairs in which large numbers of our own Canadian citizens find it impossible to obtain a decent living in this country, it seems to me that there is something to be attended to before there is adopted any policy looking to the bringing in of more people. In my constituency of Centre Winnipeg, I think there have been thousands of people during the past year who have been forced to go south of the line in order to get work. Among these people there were the very best mechanics to be found in this country, and to such an extent has this emigration taken place that we are now told there may be a shortage. There is not yet, however, any shortage in Canada in this direction.
I might refer to the different classes of immigrants that we have had brought into Canada in the past. Roughly speaking, during the fifteen years in which our immigration was at full tide, one-third of the immigrants came from the United States, one-third from Great Britain, and one-third from the various countries of Europe. Undoubtedly those who have come to us from the western states have been amongst our very best citizens, from the standpoint of the farming industry. A very considerable number of them sold out their holdings in the United States at high prices and invested in our Canadian lands, which they were able to purchase comparatively cheap. A good many of them brought considerable equipment with them, and from

Supply-Immigration
the material point of view at least their incoming meant a great deal, especially to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those, however, who know these provinces and have experience of them in more recent-years, know that very many of these American citizens are already travelling back over the boundary. Some of them are selling out their lands in this country because they want to get back to the homeland south of the line. A good many, of course, are remaining. But it would seem as though tliere are a sufficient number of people in the leading western states who now know of the opportunities offered by western Canada that, if our taxation could be brought down and implements could be put within reach of the farmers at reasonable prices, there would not be the slightest doubt that we should gain steadily a stream of immigration from the western states.
The second group of people to whom I referred came from Great Britain. These were of two classes: first of all, those who came from the rural districts. And we have never had a very large immigration from rural England; a larger number have come from rural Scotland. But I would suggest that those who come from rural England, if we can get any, are not going to solve our problems in western Canada; for I would remind my Progressive friends here that a good many of these people are accustomed to standards of living much superior to those which a large percentage of our farmers can afford to give them in this country. I would remind my hon. friends that these people, too, are accustomed to membership in unions of agricultural labourers, that they have worked much shorter hours than they would be required to work in this country, and have been used to very much better accommodation than can be found on a great many of our western farms. And I know that a good many of my farmer friends in the West feel that agricultural workers from England are rather a difficult class to handle to-day under present conditions.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: What about their Scotch whiskey?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, in the dry territories that may be a very serious matter, too. There is another thing which I think a good many of our farmers are realizing more and more clearly. In the older days when immigration was flowing freely to this country and when there was a steady movement from eastern Canada to the West, it was comparatively easy for the western farmer to secure
hired men for a short period. Young fellows without the encumbrances of a family were eager to get a start in the new land and were willing to be hired for a few months at a time; then if they so desired they could take up homesteads for themselves. To-day the farmers on the prairies are having to compete more and more with the manufacturers in the city for hired labour; and the labour men in the cities are accustomed to shorter hours than those customary on the farm. A good many of them have families and expect that provision shall be made for themselves and their families where they are expected to reside. In this way, we shall have to recognize that the problem of agricultural labour in western Canada is bound to be a very serious one in the days to come. We cannot depend upon a steady supply of transient labour which we can use for a few months and then get rid of. In the older countries farming has become fully self-supporting; it should be in no sense parasitic.
Now, although in my judgment at least the manufacturers and the trans-
9 p.m. portation companies of this country have exploited the farmer, at the same time I think that in a great many ways our farmers have existed at all only by exploiting their hired help and their own wives and children. If I understand the temper of these western farmers, they are beginning to take the stand that they are not going indefinitely to exploit their wives and children. A great many of the farm labourers, too, are beginning to realize that they have a right to expect that if they are going to work on farms they must have the assurance that they shall work for twelve months in the year and, as my hon. friend (Mr. Hoey) implied, that some arrangement must be made to provide them with permanent homes. In some way we shall have to overcome the difficulty in connection with seasonal labour.
Anyone who has come into close contact with the immigration from the Old Land recognizes that a large proportion of our English immigration has come to us from the cities. It is quite true that a certain number of these immigrants declared that they were going to work on the farms; but again and again they have drifted back into the cities. The mere fact that they declare their destination to be the farm does not in any way bind them to stay there. Some of us who have lived in the cities for years, and who have had to do with the welfare work in those centres of our population, know perfectly well that a large proportion of the people with whom we have to deal are Old Country im-


Mr. SALES:: Will the hon. member explain how they were "driven" from the lands?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be very glad to do so. They were brought here on the express understanding that they should be allowed certain privileges, should be given the right to practise their own religious beliefs and to live in communities. It was against their religion to take the oath of allegiance; they were what might be called Eastern Quakers. For a time they lived in Saskatchewan, building up considerable communities there. Then there came into office another Minister of the Interior who insisted that they should register, each man for his own property, and should take the oath of allegiance. This was opposed to their ideals and to the understanding that they had with the government when they come to this country. The great majority of them, rather than give up their religious beliefs and their peculiar ideals, gave up their lands, valued, I think, at some $10,000,000, and, for the most part, went further west and purchased lands at the junction of the Columbia and Kootenay rivers. In this connection I want to suggest to the committee that certain problems were introduced into the country by the emigration of these peculiar peoples from other lands. We still have the Doukhobors in British Columbia, and w7e still have their peculiar religious and moral ideas to deal with. By importing large numbers of these sectaries and

Supply-1mm igration
[DOT]others we may increase our exports for the time being, but sooner or later we shall have to face the problem of absorbing them into our Canadian citizenship.
Take another group, also a peculiar people, the Mennonites. Of Holland or German extraction, these people had lived for a good many years in Russia. About forty years ago they came to this country and settled in southern Manitoba. They were among our very best settlers. From Manitoba they colonized certain sections of Saskatchewan. Then there came the question of the public schools, which became acute at the time of the war; and the action of the Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments on that question has driven thousands of these people away down into Mexico where they are seeking freedom in the exercise of their religious beliefs. Very recently the business men of Winnipeg, realizing the financial loss involved, got together in an effort to induce the government to change its policy so that these Mennonite colonies might be retained in Manitoba. I am not sure that we can gain a great deal by allowing tens of thousands of Mennonites who have been here for forty years to go to another country and then bring in fresh streams of Poles from another country. It may be quite true that Mennonites are a brand of Protestant while Poles are a brand of Roman Catholic. In other words, we have a change of religious belief, but we have the same European peasant to deal with; aiid that is a difficulty that we face throughout western Canada.
Take the Ukrainians, the largest group we have. I am not one who thinks that the Ukrainian people are undesirable settlers. There are some 300,000 of them in the West, and they have on the whole made good, especially when they were settled on anything like decent land. There are some of them in Manitoba on poor lands, but on the whole they came in with very little capital; they worked hard and now most of them have their lands with very little debt. They had low standards of living, but. they persisted and a great many of them to-day own their own homes. During the war it began to dawn upon us in Canada, as it did in the United States, that this talk about all these people going into the melting pot was a lot of nonsense. As they said in the States, they may be put into the melting pot, but they refuse to melt; and unless we are careful in this country we shall have a Balkanized Canada. Down in eastern Canada you have had some trouble in the past, I understand, as between French-speaking and English-speaking people.
Mr. MARLER; When did we have any trouble between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people in the province of Quebec?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I speak largely from hearsay, but I live in the West and there has never been an election when I have not heard of considerable strain and stress between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people of eastern Canada.
Mr. MARLER; If the hon. member is referring to the province of Quebec, I absolutely deny any such charge. There is the best of feeling between the French and English in the province of Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon. member has misunderstood me. I am not speaking of the province of Quebec. I spoke of eastern Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I did, then I withdraw. I had not thought of the province of Quebec. I was thinking of eastern Canada when I spoke.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is the hon. member referring to Nova Scotia? If he can point to any trouble that has occurred between the French and the English in the province of Nova Scotia, it is more than I can.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not speaking of the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. MARLER:: What province is the hon. member speaking of? Let us know exactly where we are.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was speaking of eastern Canada.


Mr. LEGER:: There has never been any trouble between the French and English in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: I hope the hon. member is not referring to Prince Edward Island?


Jacques Bureau: You must have a bad press out West.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think anyone who understands anything of the problems of Canada will recognize that sometimes at least in this country there has been in eastern Canada-I am thinking of central, eastern Canada- considerable strain between the French-speaking people and the English-speaking people.


Jacques Bureau: In what province?


Samuel William Jacobs: That was in the days of Wolfe and Montcalm.
Supply-Immigration


James Shaver Woodsworth: I for one am glad to think that we have had a decided effort to promote something of a better feeling- and I think the effort has been very largely successful-between these two great races in Canada, so that we may sit here to-day in absolute friendship. But I would like to suggest that there are problems-religious, racial, and linguistic-that we must have in the West if we continue to import large numbers of people from all the countries of Europe. That is the point I wish to make, and we have to be careful on that particular score.
There is another matter to which reference should be made, and that is the relationship which exists between the people in the city and the people in the country. Here in eastern Canada-I hope I will not have to say whether it is in Ontario or Quebec-but generally speaking in eastern Canada, the farmers have stayed more largely on the farms than they have on the prairies. Out in the West there is a continual drifting backward and forward between the cities and the country. A very considerable number of people who have tried to homestead in western Canada have drifted back into our cities. I was in a little town in northern Manitoba a few years ago and discovered that no less than seventy Ukrainian farmers were living in that little town, bankrupt. They had gone out on a homestead, had tried to make a living, had failed, and had drifted back into this little town.
A few years ago in the city of Winnipeg we had a very careful investigation with regard to some hundreds of foreigners who were being more or less kept by the city. If my memory serves me, no less than ninety-four per cent of these foreigners had come to this country with the full intention of farming but had stayed for a little while in the city in order to get together a little ready cash. They had been induced to purchase homes in the city, to invest in real estate and that kind of thing, and had been diverted from their original purpose. Now it is all very well to suggest that it is comparatively easy for a man to start without capital on the western prairies. I know some of the pioneers have done that. I know some of them endured great hardships, and that some of them are to-day fairly well to do, and some people are inclined to say: What I did, others may do. But there are not nearly such good opportunities to-day in western Canada for starting to farm without capital as there were thirty or forty years ago. In the first place,at that time land could be got absolutely free or very cheap. I remember when 
you could buy land for three or four or five dollars an acre. That land to-day costs from $15 to $25 an acre. In the old days there was more or less of a local market, but today buying and selling has been so thoroughly organized into a great commercial machine that as soon as a man steps off his own farm he comes into the grip of that great machine, and it is not easy for him to make his own way independently. Further than that, in the old days it was comparatively easy for a man to work at something else until he could get a start on his farm. Many worked as section men and many worked as hired men for a few years. That work is becoming more and more difficult to get, and so it is not easy for a man to go out at the present time and make a start with a small capital. The Acting Minister of Immigration has suggested that the men with $1,500 or $2,000 might make a start. I may say that a committee that looked into this thing from a very practical standpoint in Winnipeg a few years ago came to the conclusion that a man could not make a start in this country on less than $5,000 or thereabouts, and maintain a decent standard of living, and keep clear of debt. A man must have his living for a year or two before his farm will begin to produce. We have heard some glowing words from the province of Manitoba. I have here a paper which came to my hand the other day. It is the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of Manitoba, and in a resolution on the order paper I notice this statement:
And whereas owing to financial conditions existing in this province, more than one hundred and fifty of our elementary schools are closed at the present time, and children deprived of elementary education-
It is quite true, as the hon. member for Springfield said, that we have a magnificent parliament building in the city of Winnipeg, but we have also one hundred and fifty schools in the province closed, for lack of financial support. This is a serious thing when you consider the welfare of the next generation of Canadians.
Here is an extract from a letter which came to me the other day from one of the best informed social workers in the city of Montreal. He says:
Why is it said to be so easy to find suitable foster homes for children imported from England, when every day of every year children already in Canada, many of them born Canadians, are being huddled like so many chickens into human chicken houses.
I have been studying the history of the English poor law very closely this term, and I have become quite convinced that for both economic and social reasons the Dominion government will sooner or later have to establish a statistical department to collect information as to the extent and the nature of public and private assistance being given throughout the

Supply-Immigration
Dominion. If it is not done we are going to wake up some day and find that a very considerable portion of our population is always dependent, and then we shall wonder how and why it all happened.
I have a resolution here from an organization of the workers, also in the city of Montreal, which reads:
Be it resolved that we condemn the policy of inducing people to immigrate to this country whilst thousands of our citizens are unable to secure employment and are receiving no assistance from the governments, and that we take steps to notify the workers of Great Britain and Europe of the conditions they will be faced with if they come to Canada at this time.
I may say that I also have similar resolutions from the West, and I would like to inform the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization that there is to-day an active propaganda being carried on in the newspapers in the Old Country by the working people of this country to offset the proposed immigration policy of Canada. Further than that, I may say that on the floor of the House of Commons in Great Britain the opposition, which as you all know is the Labour party, is definitely opposed to this policy of overseas settlements and in particular to the scheme of taking Old Country children and shipping them out to the dominions.
Now, what are the prospects of the future. A good deal has been said about this policy being fostered by the financial interests and by the transportation companies. As to that I should like to quote a few lines from a statement by Sir Edmund Walker in the Financial Post of February 9.
We both wish to discriminate as to the class of immigrants we permit to land on our shores, and we surely should do so but our salvation throughout all North America depends upon a reasonably free supply of unskilled labour.
We must produce cheaper and we must produce more.
Again:
We cannot pretend that we did not know that because of war debts we must for a generation or more work harder for longer hours, and with more intense application not only because of the vast debt but because we have lost the labour of those who fell in order that we should live.
And again:
We are lucky among the nations who created war debts in owing ours mostly to ourselves.
And perhaps it is quite in line with that last statement when Sir Edmund Walker states in the annual report of the Bank of Commerce :
A domestic debt merely means the transfer by a tax of so-called money from one citizen to another.
Which is, as I understand it, that we must allow immigrants to come in here to help us to pay our debts. But we pay them to ourselves-rone set of people, through the medium of money, pay to another set of people
here in Canada. We have been told again and again that prosperity is just round the corner. We have been told that ever since the war stopped, and yet there are very few gentlemen who have come forward to tell us how that prosperity is going to come about, or what the basis is on which they found their predictions. It is said that in order to secure prosperity we must have larger markets. But where are those markets? It is said that we must be willing to compete. I would like to suggest to the farmers here that they may find it extremely difficult to compete with the Argentine, and with Russia and Roumania when those countries have begun to produce again. In order to compete we must rid ourselves of the loads with which we are now burdened.
. The fact is that the time demands constructive measures, the time demands radical changes in our whole system, and the difficulty is that our government, and our governing classes, are, as the Americans say "standing pat," or they are trying to encourage us with the old slogans. Twenty years ago we were told that immigration was going to solve our problems, and it did to a very considerable extent help in opening up this country. But my question is: Are we going to be able to repeat what took place twenty years ago? The conditions are altogether different to-day. At that time we had a country largely undeveloped; at that time we were drawing our funds from Europe in order to build our railroads; at that time we were building every little village into a town, and every town into a city-there were all sorts of opportunities. To-day our railways are built; we have more mileage by many thousands of miles- than we need. To-day our factories are built and many of them are standing idle. To-day our cities are built up; we say that we have altogether too large an urban population. It was because of this incoming of large financial resources, as well as of the incoming of large numbers of people, that at that time we had a chance to make such rapid development. But the whole world situation is changed. At that time we had markets which are absolutely closed to us at the present day. At that time we had a comparatively light load to carry; to-day we are overburdened with debt. Again I should like to ask, if in the West our vei"1' best English speaking people-many of them Canadians with farm training,-are not able to make things go, how in the name of common sense can we expect untrained Britishers to come over here without capital and make things go where the Canadian born have to a large extent failed.
Supply-Immigration

Some of us-and I think I may say that in this regard I represent a very considerable section of workers across the country

suggest that there are other alternatives than those proposed by the government. The Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization says that we have to back up a colonization company in order to get rid of our unsold and unused lands. I would like to suggest that there is another policy altogether. The fact is that our land policy in this country has been largely a failure. Those who first outlined that policy had the hope that in Canada we would have large numbers of people, each man living on his own land. That was the idea of the homestead-each man would be a freeholder. What is the situation to-day? A very considerable percentage of the farms are mortgaged; our farmers are not freeholders. The dream of those who founded these regulations has not been realized and worse than that-to those who would today come into this country we cannot offer the free lands that were offered years ago. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether we should not say that these great areas of agricultural land should be for the people who are actually going to live on them and proceed to do one of two things-either expropriate them, or else tax them so heavily that they would be forced into use. It is because we have been looking at this thing from the standpoint of the investor rather than from the standpoint of the settler that we have not achieved the success we should have achieved. I remember going a few years ago-it must be ten years now-to the then Premier of one of the western provinces and talking with him over a scheme for bringing settlement a little bit closer, and placing certain social opportunities within the reach of the settlers in the various districts. "Yes," he said, "this is very desirable. It would mean that the children would all get an education. It would mean that the women would have opportunity of having a doctor when they were ill. It would mean they would have some neighbours near them, and it would mean a great, deal more production in the country." But he asked "How are you going to finance it?"
I suggested that a few cents more per acre added to the wild lands tax would finance the whole proposition. Throwing up his hands he said, "You could never do that, the American investors are already protesting against the wild lands tax."


Robert Forke: Surely the hon. member is aware of the situation around Winnipeg, where no man will hold land to-day and pay taxes 
very long, if he can get rid of it. The hon. member knows that very well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know there are tens of thousands of acres being held to-day all over western Canada by men who are not using these lands, and if they were taxed heavily enough those people would be forced to get rid of them, and I would say that the duty of any government that is attempting to solve this problem-


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member says that if those lands were taxed heavily enough, you would get rid of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I would like to know who would be found to buy them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Mr. MacKELVIE:: On two occasions in the last few days the minister (Mr. Stewart) who has charge of this very important Department of Immigration, has laid his policy before the House, and I am sure that it has been listened to with a great deal of interest by members here assembled, and that throughout the country a considerable degree of attention has been paid to his announcement. I do not care to level any particular degree of criticism against the special point raised this afternoon so effectively by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Perhaps enough regarding that particular aspect of the question has been said for the present. I may remark, however, in passing, that it seemed to require the united efforts of the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to refute some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and even then they did not cover them with any degree of finality; leaving entirely untouched the question raised by that hon. member regarding the tremendous amount in commissions which would be paid
Supply-Immigration

out by this government if they tied themselves up to this scheme, and the very large profits which would accrue to the Western Canada Colonization Association by means of the very liberal commissions which they would receive.
I wish to pass on to say a word or two regarding the general nature of the minister's policy. I do not find it pleasant work to criticise any hon. gentleman in a severe manner, and I do not fear that I shall transgress beyond the bounds of courtesy in dealing with this subject. But I must confess that I have been considerably disappointed by the announcement made, after a great deal of eager expectation on the part of the country, by the minister, who, I presume, has given very careful and studious consideration to one of the largest and most momentous problems which confronts this country at the present time. I do not think any person would, perhaps, be justly blamed for saying that "the mountain had laboured"-and hon. members know the rest of the proverb. However, much criticism may be levelled against the minister's policy, or lack of policy, from this quarter of the House, I do not expect any more severe strictures will be hurled at his head than those which have already come from members of the party sitting behind him. Very frank, very outspoken, and I might almost say, very bitter, were some of the criticisms advanced by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), who, in the frankest possible way, informed the minister that he was permitting the railways of this country to bleed the people white; that he was responsible to a large degree for the emigration of those Canadian citizens who have sought homes in the United States, from the fact that he and his government had not adhered to their pre-election pledges brought forward in such a forceful way through their election platform of 1919, and thus, after deceiving the people, had brought them to a state worse than their former condition had been. Then, following up that very acrimonious dissertation by the hon. member for Pontiac, came one couched m, perhaps, smoother language, but none the less with a barb concealed in it, or, perhaps, I should not say "concealed," for it really was very apparent, when the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) arose and also raked over the minister for several r*ins of omission and commission. So, per-liaps, I am not altogether wrong in saying that however much criticism may be advanced against the policy of the Immigration department from this end of the chamber, nothing more severe is likely to be said during 
this debate than that which has already emanated from his friends.
What I am, however, particularly exercised about as regards this policy, lies in a point touched upon by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), who said that unfortunately-and I desire very heartily to concur in his adverb-during the last few years, immigration to this country from Europe has proceeded, not from the northern section of that continent, not from the British Isles, but from the southern and central portions of Europe. I do not consider that the present policy of the minister in this respect is altogether a wise one. If one sifts it right down, it amounts to this. He has permitted Australia and South Africa to skim off the cream from the British Isles of the immigration which we might expect to flow to this country, if proper efforts had been put forth in time to bring it here, and now lie has recourse, through his agents in central and eastern Europe, to endeavouring to bring immigrants here from Hungary and Poland.
There is another, broader and more important aspect by far, to my mind, from which this question of immigration should be viewed by the people of Canada. We are building for the future; we must consider what is going to happen to this country of ours if we allow a very large section in the middle of it to be filled up by immigration which has been brought into the prairies for the past number of years. We in British Columbia have previously informed this House of our grievance as regards oriental immigration. Our principal, our vital objections to that class of immigration are that by no manner of means can it be made to assimilate into our population and become in any true sense of the word Canadian. I greatly fear that there is in the prairie sections of this Dominion, a very large element which it will be found very difficult to absorb into our Canadian population and to imbue with any true national spirit. Seventy-five or eighty or, perhaps, more languages are spoken by these people, and the greatest mistake we have made, possibly-


Charles A. Stewart: I thought, perhaps, the hon. member would be referring to the subject again, but apparently he is leaving it. I hope the hon. gentleman has not taken from my remarks the inference that I was making it easy for the people of the Continent to get into Canada in preference to people from the British Isles. If he got that impression, I am sorry, for I never intended to convey any such idea.

Supply-Immigration


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I think it is only fair to say that that inference might very readily have been drawn from what the minister told the House, but I am glad to hear the statement which he has made now. Even so, the fact remains that he informed the House that he was endeavouring to procure immigration from Hungary and Poland, and that so far he has not apparently become enamoured of the idea of exerting any great amount of energy or of expending what might be called a comparatively large sum of money in encouraging immigration from the British Isles.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to put my hon. friend right. There are twelve agencies continually working in the British Isles. Moreover, we have been putting on a propaganda that up to date has been bringing results. Within the past few days a very considerable number have been landed from the British Isles. There is no continental movement at the moment, and I want to add that there is no restriction on the people coming from the British Isles, while we have a restriction on those from the Continent.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I should be very much surprised indeed if any minister in this House did inform this assembly that there were restrictions to be placed on the people from the British Isles while freer measures were to be accorded those from other countries. I am quite aware of the fact the minister states. What I did say, however, was that the minister frankly admitted this afternoon that Australia and South Africa had got into the British Isles before this country and had diverted to themselves a large stream of British immigration; and that up to the present very few results have apparently come from any system of encouragement which the minister has been giving to immigration from that source. I very cordially endorse what was said the other night by the member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) who spoke of the sources from which we should seek immigration. We should secure all the people whom we can get from Great Britain, France, Hungary and the Scandinavian countries including Iceland, and we should gladly welcome them. But going further than that into southern or eastern Europe, I should say that we have no room for immigration from these places. We have now in this country too many of these people whom we cannot properly assimilate. The United States has discovered to its cost what it meant to open its doors wide to southern and central Europe. That country has been called the melting pot of nations, and one of its humorous writers, Mr. George Ade, in an 88 '
article which I read some time ago, said that this idea of the United States having become the melting pot of nations must be forever cast aside. It was, he said, more properly designated a churn. I think there is perhaps more force in that remark than some of us may imagine at first. At any rate, when you pour into a melting pot metals of various kinds you can hardly expect that they will fuse and that the product will be refined gold or anything of great value. .
I am honestly concerned in the question as to the future of our Canadian West. I would gladly support any system that would possibly keep intact as much as possible in their purity of blood the two great races of this northern portion of the American continent. If we could retain as far as possible the purity of the French race, the race descended from the British stock and the people of northern Europe, we should be doing a great service to the future of this country. But if we allow, as has been done in the past, immigration to come in from among people who will not readily adapt themselves to our habits and customs, people whose racial peculiarities are, to say the least, not ours, I fear the time may come when we shall deplore the fact that we have been so generous in that respect in our immigration laws.
I have listened throughout this debate with no very great degree of pleasure, I must confess, to the somewhat doleful strains that have come from the members from the western provinces regarding the situation there. Now, I ought to have a very great amount of sympathy for the farming element in the West, for I suppose, unless I am mistaken, that I was in that country as a settler probably earlier than any man in this House. At all events, I was in Calgary in the spring of 1883, before the railroad reached that country, and I saw the first rush of settlers arrive in Alberta. I took up land there myself and attempted for two or three years to make a success of farming. However, whether through my own fault, or otherwise, I did not attain any degree of success in that province, and it was not long until I sought what I thought were conditions, climatic and otherwise, that would better suit me, and moved across the Rockies to British Columbia. And I have not greatly regretted that change. But I should sympathize with the difficulties which the prairie provinces have gone through; and I was glad to note that, after some distressing tales had been placed before the House by several members of that section of the country, a more optimistic and cheerful note was struck by the

134S
Supply-Immigration

member for Springfield and others who followed him. I am not one of those who views with any great deal of apprehension the future of that country. I come from a section of British Columbia where we have had great difficulties and passed through times of stress and strain, and the people are now suffering from severe depression. But hops springs high among them and there is a steady tendency to courage and optimism; and I know they would not thank me if in this House I gave expression to any particular apprehension regarding the future which awaits them in that really favoured section of the country. I believe therefore that we are justified in bidding our friends from the prairies to be of good cheer and hope. Times are mending, I believe, and much may be done for them and for other sections of the Dominion by the pursuit of a sane, sound and reasonable policy of immigration.
Taxation of course bears heavily on every portion of Canada. In addition to the very serious and, as some may say, alarming burden of national debt, every province is hampered with a very heavy burden of internal taxation. Municipal taxes are high; they are now higher perhaps by one hundred per cent than they were ten or fifteen years ago in most parts of Canada. So that the burden of taxation presses heavily on the shoulders of all. Now, in order to increase 10 p.m. our wealth and lessen that burden it seems to me it is absolutely necessary to have further production; and to bring about increased production it is equally necessary to increase our population. Our railways carry a heavy burden of debt and deficit which bears heavily on the finances of the Dominion, and we know that the only way that burden can be relieved is by giving the railways increased business; and, in turn, the only way that increased business can be secured is through an increased population. I confess that we are almost on the horns of a dilemma in this regard. When we consider the question of unemployment, which is assuming large proportions in several parts of the country, to bring in indiscriminate additions to the population might be to increase that evil considerably. But after weighing everything as well as one may in the balance, we must be forced to one conclusion or the other; and the conclusion I have reached is that the time is now come to begin a more vigorous policy of itamigration into this country than hitherto has been in force. I believe in my province. It is a province that has wonderful resources in the way of timber and mines and it has a vast 
coastal fisheries development, in connection with which more labour could be employed than is at present at work. I believe that in the industrial centres at least the time has come when more labour will be demanded; and I am sure that in all sections of Canada the time is here when more settlers can be found for the land.
I have no particular desire to protract the debate, which has already extended over a considerable time. But any time devoted to the discussion of this subject is, I think, well spent, for no more important question could engage the attention of parliament this session. While I cannot honestly congratulate the -minister upon all the details of the policy he has brought down before the House, I will give him credit for having made an attempt to solve the problem with which he is faced.
I am sure he has given the matter earnest consideration, and possibly before his estimates are passed he will revise some of his decisions, which, he has candidly told us, are not as inflexible as the laws of the Medes and Persians. The discussion this afternoon has given him, no doubt, occasion to pause and consider whether to go ahead with the policy he has outlined or to proceed along different lines. Speaking only for myself, I am in favour of a more generous measure of immigration than has hitherto been .effective in this country. The time has come when some of the restrictions which have been imposed may with safety be relaxed. We need more people on our land: in fact I believe that in nearly every sphere of activity more people will very shortly be required. I sincerely trust that before this discussion is concluded the minister will give serious consideration to some of the representations that have been made.


Mr. KELLNER:: Mr. Chairman, the government went to a good deal of trouble this afternoon to justify the Western Canada Colonization Association and the stand they have taken behind it. But I do not believe that is the crux of the situation at all; what we should justly consider to-day is whether or not we should bring more people into Canada while those already here are having such a hard time to make a living. I do not think that the good faith of the government has been called into question, especially by the group of which I form a part. However, before entering upon a discussion of the question of immigration I would like to make a few remarks in regard to some statements that have been made by previous speakers-not with any intention of criticising them, but simply

Supply-Immigration
because they left the wrong impression upon the committee.
The other afternoon our colleague the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) dwelt largely upon the over-institutionalized condition of the western country. That condition may exist in Winnipeg, but it does not exist in many portions of the West. The hon. member spoke about the fine, big parliament buildings in Winnipeg. Of these I know very little, and I would not like to tell what I do know. Then he told about their schools and their churches. According to his story they have plenty of room, there being very few scholars in each room of their schools. That is not the condition further west. The member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) also referred to the schools, and he made it plain that in Saskatchewan, school room was not quite as abundant as it was in Manitoba. I could not help wondering if that was a progressive broadening out, starting in the east and increasing as it went west, because I assure the committee that by the time you get to Edmonton the schools are very much cramped. I am advised that there are 15,000 school children in that city, in 64 rooms, an average of 51 in each room. There are 17 rooms in the high school, with 933 students, an average of 54 in each room. Twenty-five of these rooms are contained in basements. I mention this simply -to show that if there is a large influx of people from outside, our provincial and municipal governments will have to spend considerable sums in order to provide the necessary facilities for them.
One hon. member made a remark about our scratching the ground out in the West. That is a very familiar remark; almost every speaker who does not know much about farming will fall into the same error. However, in this section of the House we could man quite a number of farms and put an experienced farmer on each one, and we could also man the pulpits of several churches and put an experienced preacher in each of those pulpits. But I doubt very much whether we would be well advised to start our farmers in the pulpits or to accept our preachers as authorities on agriculture. The West has proven itself time and again. We have produced big crops year after year-I am speaking of the West as a whole. I do not believe that the country can be criticised, or that the farmer can be criticised. During war years, when we were called upon for a large production, we furnished a production that surprised the world. The hon. member ended up with the statement that if we brought in other farmers to co-operate with us we would enjoy 861
greater prosperity than any other part of the country. About the time he was saying that, our special committee on Agriculture was taking evidence and a sworn witness was stating that flour was being shipped from the United States to England at a lower price than from Canada to England, and further that it was the intention of the transportation companies to raise the rate on cattle. I think it is now $20 and they anticipate putting it up to $25. A good deal of other evidence of a similar character was given. We shall never be a prosperous community so long as things are so arranged that when the price of grain goes up the elevator companies will take advantage of it and when the price of cattle goes up some transportation company will increase its charges and the farmer will get no benefit from the advance in price. If that is the prosperity that we nope to enjoy in Canada, it is of very doubtful quality indeed.
I would like also to make a few comments upon some of the statements made by the minister when he was explaining to the committee his colonization undertaking. Speaking the other afternoon, he said that conditions were worse now than they were in 1892. Well, I do not see how it is possible to compare conditions now with those prevailing at that time; things have changed very considerably since then. For instance, in 1892 there was only a small amount of debt in the world, and that was particularly true of this country. It was a simple matter for everyone to make a living in those days. Your necessary expenditure was very low, and if a man was out of employment for several months or for any considerable time, he would not get greatly involved. To-day it is wholly different; when you get up in the morning you know that you must make several dollars before night in order to pay essential expenses. If for any reason a man's income is suspended for a little while, his overhead expenses will rapidly eat up a considerable amount of money. The minister further stated that twenty-five to thirty per cent of the settlers will be able to establish themselves when they come to this country. I am very sorry that he did not tell us from what country those settlers were coming. I do not believe you could point to any of the European countries at least that is sending out settlers who will be able to establish themselves when they get here.
His next statement was that from fifteen to twenty-five per cent of our western farmers were already in bankruptcy, that from fifteen to twenty-five per cent more are in a serious condition, and that many more are not on
Supply-Immigration

Easy street. Well, I would suggest that that probably means that in his estimation about half of the farmers are in bankruptcy or very close to it. Now it requires a long stretch of the imagination to think that these farmers the minister is going to bring out from Europe, who are unacquainted with farming conditions in our western country, who have little or no money save the SI,500 or $2,000 which I think was the amount he suggested, could establish themselves on, can go on the farms which our experienced farmers have gone into bankruptcy trying to operate, and make good. I ask you, hon. gentlemen, is there any prospect in this world of them making good?
Then he stressed the fact that three months ago the only workers we could consider bringing into this country were those who would engage in agriculture. But to-day that policy is changed, and we can admit some other classes. However, he advanced no argument whatever to show that conditions had bettered in Canada in the meantime, only that conditions had bettered in the United States, and that they had drawn part of our population there, and we could bring in others to take their place.
The question was asked, why the government always advertised the prairie lands. Why did they not leave some immigrants down through old Ontario and Quebec? The minister very frankly stated that it was because the natural resources of the prairie provinces were still held by the Dominion government, and they had been exploiting the western lands. I wonder if the government ever think that the day is not liable to come when an accounting will have to be given for these western lands which they have been exploiting. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) speaking the other night made the statement that this government had spent about $30,000,000 in bringing immigrants into Canada, and that they had not an immigrant to show for it. The Prime Minister has spoken since that time, the Acting Minister of Immigration and several members of the government, but not one of them has attempted to refute that statement. Personally, I should like to know whether it is true or not. If it is not true, I should think it was up to the government to disprove it. We who sit in this portion of the House have been frankly criticised as calamity howlers. They tell us that we are stressing this condition, that we are over-drawing it. I do not think that we are worse than the rest. I have in my hand here a paper called The Mirror. I understand it is a new paper starting out on a very youthful career. On the
[Mr. Kellner. 1
front page is a picture of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). It is a very fine picture too, surrounded with a border of maple leaves.


Mr. CALDWELL:: It looks like a mourning band.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It is a picture his supporters may well be proud of. In fact, I expect to see it framed and hung probably in their offices in this building. On page 2 of that paper.I find this statement:
One farmer who in 1919 had a surplus of $28,000 without liabilities was now offering to sell his equity for $1,000 to secure enough money to leave the country	 Some grain shipped by the carload did not pay the freight.
I am very sorry the last speaker has left the chamber. He was one of those who stressed our calamity howling, but I do not think we have ever made it stronger than that. There is no question but that these conditions do exist, and it would be foolish to deceive ourselves and try to make out that they do not. If that statement I have read proves anything it simply proves this, that western Canada is a country where achievement and advancement can be made if we have a chance; else that man would not have had the $28,000. It also proves that certain well established arrangements have been made to separate him from any surplus money he gets from the opportunities he has.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask where this gentleman's farm is located that is mentioned in that interesting paper?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I shall be very glad to see that the minister gets a copy of the paper. I think the address is given, but I am not quite sure.
In my opinion there is not a member of this House who is opposed to immigration under favourable conditions, but we would do well to seriously consider whom we are liable to get if we embark on a policy of immigration at the present time. Most assuredly if we get the immigrant whom England and the European countries would like to see us get, we would get the present inhabitant of the bread line. That is the class they would like to send to us. We would also get the man who has probably been broken by the war, or the man who has found his occupation ruined by the war. He is more or less of a misfit. Another thing we will find when he comes to this country, undoubtedly he will have a lot more dependents than the like number of immigrants coming to this country ever had before. Most assuredly in a war where the

Supply-Immigration
t
majority of the young and strong men have been lost, those who are not able to work for a living will depend upon the remainder to work for them, and if we bring them out to this country we can expect their dependents to come with them. One thing we can be sure of and that is that the adventurous, the strong young man, the man who used to be our ideal immigrant, will not come in very large numbers at this time.
Probably the next matter for our consideration is what shall we do with him when we get him here? I understand that if this government policy goes through, it will be their aim to put these people on the land at considerable expense, and they will keep them there for a while. After a while, when men find out that they are up against a hopeless proposition, they will leave the farms. Some will go to the cities, and some will probably migrate to some other country. It is evidently the policy of this government to have an ever changing farm population. We will have one group of men from time to time moving off the farms, and we will be going over to Europe to get another group to come and take their places. There can be no stability whatever in agriculture under those conditions.
I think we might well stop and consider the spirit of these immigrants who are leaving our country. Let me picture to you what, to my mind might take place in some of those homes. The husband and the wife no doubt will meet in consultation. For months they have been considering ways and means which might enable them to keep going. Hope is fast sinking and finally it disappears. All this time the children have been eager listeners to their conversation. They leave our country and probably go to a foreign land. They make new friends and new acquaintances, and when these new acquaintances come to visit them and find that they have come from Canada, undoubtedly the conversation will again revert to this Dominion, and those children who were bom upon our land and were in their early youth citizens of mu' country, will once more hear reproaches heaped upon this Dominion which gave them birth. I ask you, in all sincerity, do you think it is fitting that we should allow our people to leave our country and our young people especially to receive such lessons as that?
I think there are unquestionably two immigration policies before the people of Canada to-day. One is a policy which declares, although agriculture is in an impoverished condition: We will establish a certain number of farmers and we will keep them on those farms as long as we can; and when the task
becomes hopeless they will leave and we will get another group to take their place. Ever changing and ever shifting we will go from one strata of society to another until eventually we will reach the lowest. The other policy contemplates a prosperous farming community, and that is what the group that sits in this corner of the chamber considers we are entitled to. We are convinced that if a man works ten, twenty, thirty or forty years on a farm and saves his money he should, at least, be entitled to a home to live in and a few hundred dollars besides.
In any other line but fanning, when production exceeds the demand it is always considered good business to limit that production. For instance, out in the province where I live we produce a large amount of coal, and it is not an unusual thing at all to see a newspaper editorial advising the coal mine operators that the mines have the capacity of producing far more coal than there is any prospect of the market consuming. So the editorial would say "It would be a matter of good business for you operators to get together and decide on the amount of your production, because if you go ahead and produce without any regard to markets you will stall the thing and you are bound to lose money". That ought to be a good business policy for agriculture also. On the other hand they say to the farmers "You go out and produce every bushel that you can, raise every hoof that you can, and the Lord, in some unseen way, will provide a market for you". If I am any judge of conditions I would very seriously recommend that we go slowly in increasing our production at the present time. I would like any advocate of increased production to show me what country is in a position to buy our goods unless we are prepared to take the goods which they produce. Most assuredly there is no European country to-day that can afford to buy largely from us unless we are in a position to re-buy from them. And what do we do? We erect a good big tariff wall around our country and keep their goods out. It is a hopeless proposition: If we will not let their goods in most assuredly they cannot buy ours.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to this government that instead of spending this money trying to induce people to come here they would be justified in making an earnest effort to first put our people who are now engaged in agriculture on their feet, and there is a real opportunity to accomplish something along this line at the present time. I do not think there ever was a time in the history of the country when the agriculturists
i
Supply-Immigration

had the entire sympathy of the rest of the Dominion to the extent they have to-day. I believe that if the government would take the money it is proposed to grant to the Western Canada Colonization Association and with it go out and try to organize some form of marketing societies, that would look after the home market at any rate, they could do a real service. It seems to me, let me say here, the height of folly that the price of the wheat that we use in producing flour in Canada should be set in Liverpool. I never could quite understand why, if a miller somewhere in Ontario wished to buy a carload of western wheat he had to cable to Liverpool to find out how much that wheat was worth. I do not think there is any question but that au effort of the kind I have indicated would at least stabilize our home market. I have in my office a little booklet called, I think, Four thousand facts about Canada which states that 80 per cent of our production is used at home. I am not sure that that proportion is right, but it would not surprise me at all if it were. However, whether that proportion be right or not there is a large volume of it used here in Canada. It has been sold away under the cost of production; and if this government had the welfare of the farmers at heart they would be well advised to seriously considering something that would stabilize the home market.
In discussing this immigration policy the arguments which have been advanced so far in favour of bringing in immigrants, I think, to say the least, are very heartless. One of them-I do not know whether an hon. member actually said it or whether it just occurred , to me-was that, "Misery loves company." I think it probably is the most impressive argument of all. The next one, and probably the one which is the most advanced, is that it is going to build up our railroads. I believe it is the first time any country, that claims agriculture as its basic industry has made the statement that agriculture should be made subservient to industry. If farming is our basic industry most assuredly it should not be made subservient to the railroads or to any other industry. Then we are told that a vigorous immigration policy and the bringing in of more people will help us to pay our debts; and over in Europe they say "If we could only get rid of our surplus population our debts would not bother us so much." This argument is identical with that upon which the tariff policy is based; I do not think it is necessary to stress it at all.
In conclusion I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the policy which has been laid down by the government is very
I Mr. Kellner.]
similar, in many ways, to the old policy which was in force down in the southern states about half a century or more ago. They tell us that they will bring in immigrants and put them on the farms mortgaged to the hilt. For the next thirty-two years-we can say forty years because they will have four or five failures in that time-they will be busy paying the interest and trying to keep out of debt and in the meantime we will have the Soldier Settlement Board supervising their operations and keeping watch over them. Mr. Chairman, is it not very similar to what they did in slavery days in the south? It is true the system is gone; they no longer buy and sell human beings. Yes, the slave is gone, the black snake is gone, but the spirit is there-the spirit of slavery; and I do not believe, if you bring these people in and load them down with a debt such as is proposed, that there is any prospect whatever of their ever getting out of debt in forty years' time: Think of the attractive life which is before them. Every morning when they wake up they will know that through that day they will have to toil In order to get sufficient to pay the interest on their debts. I think it is the most hopeless outlook that any people could be asked to accept. For my part, I intend to vote against the resolution, and I hope this government will yet change its intention and decide on something at least a little more human.


Mr. McTAGGART:: In rising to state my tale of woe in connection with this debate, I want to say I have followed the speeches delivered by hon. members from the beginning with much interest. My impression is that some of the speeches delivered here have been far-fetched, yes, almost weird. In this connection I recall the speecch delivered by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), when he said that if Canada was to have free trade, the East must die. We heard the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie;, who told us about the streams of gold going to the United States and contended that the tariff should be placed higher and yet higher. We also heard the viewpoint of labour as expressed by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine), who told us that he was not in sympathy with bringing immigrants into Canada so long as there were many unemployed in our cities. If these statements mean anything, they mean that these hon. gentlemen advocate the continuance of a policy of exploitation, the same policy we have had in Canada for forty years, a policy the monumental stupidity of which has placed

S upply-I mmigration
a blight upon Canadian agriculture and has retarded national development.
But, Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to deal with tariff or streams of gold or unemployment. To my mind the question of immigration must go hand in hand with the land policy of the Dominion. I believe that experience has demonstrated that the whole question of immigration is closely related to that of land settlement. That is the particular question I wish to deal with this evening. It is my intention to endeavour to make a survey of immigration and Dominion land policies in the past, to endeavour, if possible, to point out the mistakes that have been made, to suggest how these mistakes may be corrected, and to express the hope that we may benefit by this knowledge in laying down our immmigration and land policies for the future. We heard about the prosperity of the province of Manitoba, and I was very glad to hear it, but I recall in studying the early history of Manitoba, that previous to the eighties and nineties the industry of agriculture in Manitoba was in a very precarious condition indeed. As a matter of fact, western agriculture never was put on a proper basis until the discovery of the summer-fallow system of tillage. The discovery of the summer-fallow system of tillage was the signal for a tremendous improvement in the prosperity of western Canada, generally, but particularly the province of Manitoba and the eastern part of the province of Saskatchewan. The soil of the province of Manitoba and the soil of eastern Saskatchewan was found admirably adapted to the summer-fallow method, and as a result of that there came the development of agriculture to the westward.
In those days there were many millions of acres of Dominion lands in western Canada. Prior to 1908 I believe 32,000,000 acres of land were given in grants to the railway companies, and about 32,000,000 acres homesteaded. About the year 1908 the government changed their policy in regard to Dominion lands in western Canada. It was decided about that time to discontinue the policy of making grants of lands to railway companies, and because the Hudson Bay railway was then in contemplation it was decided to sell certain lands in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, in order to realize enough money to push that road through to Hudson bay. During those years the progress of our railway development was to the westward; as the branch lines extended to the westward, settlement followed the railways. We find that the railways selected in the main the choice land. They did not at that time select much land in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan or southern Alberta. The lands were selected along the northern section, and settlement followed the railways. About the time the Dominion Lands Act was passed in 1908 an area was set aside in southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, consisting of approximately 28,000,000 acres. Whether it was because of the fact that the railway companies had not selected lands within that area or not, I am not prepared to say, but at any rate there was a general feeling at that time that southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta were not adapted to the industry of agriculture. Stock raising was encouraged in that district at that time. As a matter of fact, the stock raising industry gained considerable dimensions during those years. The Dominion Lands Act in 1908 was the signal for a tremendous inrush of settlement to the pre-emption area. Many of the settlers came from the Old Land and many also from the United States. In the years between 1908 and 1915 or 1916 many thousand immigrants came in from the United States and settled on those lands. Just here I would like to say, in connection with the question I am trying to deal with, that I have not gleaned my knowledge of it from reading departmental reports. I have passed through the experience of homesteading in that area, and in 1908 I also acquired a preemption.
At the time of the amendment of the Dominion Lands Act in 1908, the Hon. Frank Oliver, who was then Minister of the Interior, recognized the fact that within that area more land was necessary to constitute the average farm because of unfavourable climatic and soil conditions. In that country there is not as heavy an annual rainfall as there is in the province of Manitoba or in eastern Saskatchewan, and we find, if we look over the debates at the time of the passing of the Dominion Lands Act, that this was used as an argument why the pre-emption privilege should be extended to that area. There was one feature however which the Dominion Lands Act of 1908 did not recognize, and it was the fact that within that large area while there are many lands which are absolutely unsuited for tillage purposes, there are many thousands of acres of probably as choice land as you will find in the Dominion of Canada. I would say roughly that within that area the amount of choice land might be about 30 per cent. Then, perhaps, another 30 per cent of the land might be considered as fair, and probably 40 per cent of it might be considered as absolutely unsuited for tillage purposes. The latter lands have an-
Supply-Imviigra tion

other use, namely for grazing purposes, and some of them have been used in that way.
The great mistake of the Dominion Lands Act of 1908 was in failing to recognize that fact. The land, the good and the bad, was thrown open indiscriminately, and because of the inrush of immigrants at that time, and the demand for free lands, all those lands were taken up and settled. After 1908, and prior to possibly 1916 or 1917, there was a period of marked prosperity. The years 1917, 1918 and 1919 were very dry years, and it was not until those years that the fact became apparent that there were within that area many lands which were not adapted for tillage purposes. In 1920, the provincial government of Saskatchewan, which has ever been alive to the necessities of agriculture in that province, instituted an inquiry into the deplorable state of agriculture in that part of the province. The result of the inquiry was the appointment of a commission to investigate conditions generally, and it was found that the great mistake as regards that area was the throwing open for settlement of lands which should have been kept closed, that is, which should have been used entirely for grazing purposes.
Just at this point let me say that over 14,000,000 acres of land have been sold within that area as pre-emptions and purchased homesteads between 1908 and the present time. The total revenue received from the sale of such pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, within the pre-emption area up to the present time, is aproximately $19,000,000. In 1922, the total revenue received from the sale of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads within that area was but $350,000, notwithstanding the fact that outstanding obligations by virtue of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads within that area are approximately $12,000,000 at the present time. The situation which we have been faced with within that area since 1918 is this, that on those poorer areas which I mentioned, after the first crop or two, when the humus was removed from the soil, the soil commenced to drift, to blow, and consequently our people began to move out. The people were driven off those lands, and many of them went to the States. Also from the lands which I stated were good to fair, there is a movement of population as well. Many of the remaining settlers find it impossible or next to impossible to continue on those lands; but notwithstanding this, the department are demanding from them the full payment of their pre-emption obligations, in spite of the fact that most of those obligations have now been running from eight to ten years.
[Mr McTaggart.l
One of the recommendations of the commission which the Saskatchewan government appointed, was the establishment of community pastures within that area. It was their recommendation that the small rancher farmer should be encouraged. The growing of grain exclusively within that area, it is felt, will not be found profitable. The profitable farm in that area, in the future as in the past, will be that of the farmer who has access to grazing lands. If there is a section or a half section of grazing land near a settler's farm, and if he could have access to that land for grazing purposes for his stock, that would be of great advantage. Where there are grazing areas too . large for the private leaseholder, it is felt that such areas should be taken advantage of by settlers adjoining the area and used as community pastures. I hope the minister is familiar with the recommendations of the commission in that regard. As a matter of fact, I believe the department is familial with the recommendations because, as I understand the matter, any large leaseholds which are to be thrown open in the near future in that district, are to be leased to the provincial government, in the expectation that the latter government will re-lease to associations of settlers, so that they may form community pastures.
As regards the exodus from that area, the figures which I have and which were brought down in the House, I believe, about two weeks ago, go to show that during 1922, 842 quarter sections, pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, were either cancelled or abandoned. So, we see from that the process of depopulation which is going on. The situation as we see it is that the department is forced from time to time to try to collect overdue obligations on those pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, and in this way the department is actually acting the part of driving those people out of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not insisting and have not, since I have been in office, insisted on the settlement of payments on pre-emptions, hoping to give the individual every opportunity. But I would like to point out to my hon. friend that $16,000,000 have been paid in on pre-emptions, and the situation is a rather difficult one, inasmuch as all the pre-emptions which represent the payment of $16,000,000 have been paid for in full. To adopt a policy now to begin to readjust payments on pre-emptions would not be fair to those who are paid up. We are not, however, pressing for payment.

Supply-Immigration


Neil Haman McTaggart: I desire to thank the minister for the explanation. As a matter of fact, I was aware that of recent months there have not been as many letters going to holders of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads. The situation is one that we must face in the near future. What is to be done? Those payments have been running along now for many years, and although the extensions from time to time help us to stave off the day when this situation will have to be met, yet I feel that a complete survey of conditions there is very necessary, so that we may be able to clear up the unfortunate situation which exists in that area.
Some reference has been made to the blacklisting of this particular area. The area has been blacklisted to a certain extent. I believe some of the settlers in that area have been as much responsible as anyone else for that blacklisting; but as a matter of fact, the Department of the Interior have recognized that certain sections within that area are of an inferior quality, for they have withdrawn certain sections entirely from homestead entry. There are other areas within which restrictions have been placed upon homestead entry.
Now, the lesson which I think we might learn from the unfortunate situation in the southwest is that there should be, in the case of free lands thrown open for settlement, a classification of lands with a view to setting aside those areas not considered fit for agricultural purposes. And while I am not familiar with the areas of free lands which we have left in Canada, yet I am inclined to believe that we may have a situation similar to that which existed in the southwest. I feel confident to-day that had there been in 1908 a classification of lands in southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, and had those areas which were thought not fit for tillage purposes been set aside and withdrawn from entry, we should not have the unfortunate conditions which we have in the southwest at the present time. The result has been a hardship on the settlers on the good soil within that area; because when the settlers on the poorer soils were compelled to move out they left a burden of taxation in the shape of school and municipal taxes, the gravity of which I am sure all hon. members will be able to understand. The people who departed left an indebtedness by virtue of school taxes, telephone taxes and municipal taxes, which are adding to the burden on those who are left.
We have heard something about the burdens which agriculture has had to bear. As I mentioned at the outset, I am of the opinion
that the tariff is one of the heaviest burdens which we have to bear now and in the past. But it is not the only burden. The burden of labour itself has borne very heavily on agriculture. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) told us this evening about how the farmers in the past had exploited labour. I am going to analyse this statement from the standpoint of the farmer. In 1905 I worked in the harvest fields at Indian Head in Saskatchewan, and at that time the average wage was $1.75 per day. The total cost of operating an average sized threshing machine in 1905, a machine with a capacity of say 2,000 bushels a day, was $62 per day; that is to say, the average labour cost, not taking into account repairs, or teams, or overhead, interest, depreciation, oil, fuel, or anything of that kind. I am referring entirely to direct labour cost. In 1915 I had an interest in a threshing machine in the district in which I live, so that I know whereof I speak, and in that year the wage had risen to $3.50 a day on the average in the harvest fields; while the total labour cost of the same sized machine as that I mentioned previously would be in 1915 approximately $95 per day. In 1922, I was still operating the same machine which I operated in 1915, and we find the labour cost in the year 1922 to be $160 a day, with wages from $6 to $7 a day. This certainly was not an exploitation of labour. Now, I want to know if any hon. member in this House will say that we do not need immigration of agricultural labourers into Canada. Since I have been in western Canada I have never known the time when there has been an over-supply of agricultural labourers. Perhaps at times in certain communities there has been a surplus, but to my knowledge, there has never been any time when there has been an over-supply of such labour.
We heard the statement the last day this subject was under discussion that one of the troubles with farming in western Canada was that the farms were too large. To me that statement is a very misleading one, because I fancy that after all the size of farms in any country must be controlled more or less by conditions of location, soil and climate. In this connection I wish to quote a few words from the report of the commission which the Saskatchewan government appointed in 1920 in regard to this matter, as applied to southwestern Saskatchewan. This is what the report says:
Indeed it seems to your commissioners that unless range is found in more or less extensive blocks for community grazing the size of the farms in the southwest
iS upply-Immigration

will have to be substantially larger than a half section in order to provide facilities for grazing.
Let me read in this connection the point of view of the Hon. Mr. Oliver himself as expressed in 1908 in reference to lands in the southwest. I quote from Hansard of 1908 at page 11142:
Now, we believe that would be a very great deterrent to settlement in that part of the country. We believe that the conditions there, being such as I have described, a 320 acre farm is one of fair average size and means should be offered to new settlers to acquire such a farm, He cannot acquire it from the railway company, because the railway company is not there; the lands are in the hands of the government to-day, and the government is the only person with whom the settler can deal.
Now, we have heard much preaching about patriotism and unity, both in and out of this House, and I think the time is ripe for us to get down to something practical in connection with these professions. I am going to relate to this House the case of an immigrant who came to Canada about the year 1912, a British boy from the Old Country about 21 or 22 years of age. This young fellow, Harry Dawes, filed a homestead and pre-emption in 1912 or 1913, in the territory of which I have spoken. In 1914 he was in my employ when the war broke out, and shortly after the declaration of hostilities this young Britisher, who was an energetic boy, joined the colours and went
11 p.m. overseas with the first contingent.
He went across to France and was killed in action on the 24th of May, 1915. He left a widowed mother in the Old Land and to this day she has not been able to dispose of that pre-emption in Saskatchewan. I have a letter from the administrator of the estate which came just a few weeks ago and I am going to read from it a paragraph or two. He says:
My point is this. The soldier who returned from the war was allowed to transfer his pre-emption to a soldier grant, meaning that he got it free. Surely the soldier who gave his life for this country earned equally as much as the returned man.
I took the question up with the department, but they could not do anything more than extend the time of the payment due on the pre-emption. I have no fault to find with the department; I wish to make that clear, but I feel that in this case injustice has been done.
As I stated at the beginning, I did not tell the story of, the southwest with the idea of enlisting the sympathy of parliament for that part of the country; my object was to ensure that we should derive from the mistakes of the past something that might be of benefit to us in developing the new lands we expect to settle in the future. I am in favour of

immigration of agricultural labour into Canada. I am in favour of the immigration of British and Scandinavian labour. I will try to sum up the observations I have made by offering the following recommendations:
1.	That encouragement be given the immigration of British and Scandinavian workers with the view of ensuring a steady flow of desirable agricultural labourers for the farms of Canada.
2.	That a thorough classification of all Dominion lands be undertaken by competent authority with a view of arranging for the disposition of these lands in a way which shall ensure the maximum of agricultural production, the greatest conservation of soil resources, and the utmost prosperity for the largest possible population.
3.	That the minister give earnest consideration to the advisability of cancelling outstanding pre-emption and purchased homestead obligations with a view of arresting the unfortunate exodus of settlers from the preemption area.
4.	That a thorough survey of the whole question of Crown land administration be carried out at an early date with a view of incorporating the recommendations of such survey in the long overdue revision of the Dominion Lands Act.
In conclusion, I have only this to say: if the minister earnestly desires to do some colonization work in Canada he might profitably turn his attention to the southwest, because in that district he could work in the way of correcting past mistakes that would be of great benefit not only to the West but to the whole of Canada.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, this question which has now been discussed for a considerable time, has been well presented to the committee by hon. members from this corner. When I first came to this House four years ago I presented the case of the agriculturists; on many occasions I stated that I did not think due consideration had been given on the floor of parliament to the agriculturists throughout the Dominion. I was the subject of criticism on the part of hon. members, on the ground that I was an alarmist, but to-day all will agree that if at that time I was a missionary sent down here I have since been followed by a goodly number of "alarmists" who have told the same story that I tried to tell in 1920 -the story of actual conditions pertaining to agriculture in our western country. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) know that the conditions outlined by speakers

Supply-Immigration
in this debate actually exist. I firmly believe that the Minister of Immigration is doing what he believes best, perhaps, for all of Canada, but I also believe that upon his own initiative he would not advance this proposal. I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as a criticism of the minister, for I sympathize greatly with him in his endeavour to arrive at a solution of this problem. But I doubt very much whether the solution is to be found through this western colonization scheme.
It has been stated on numerous occasions in this House that there is a leak in our immigration policy. Men and women leave our country after being brought here, and' if , money must be spent, it should be used to stop that leak. And what will stop it? Nothing more nor less than the making of conditions pertaining to agriculture what they should be. Speaking of the minister's attitude on this question, I have in my hand a reference which states:
Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior and Acting Minister of Immigration for Canada, in open frankness, speaking before the University Club at Ottawa, recently stated:
"The market at home is overstocked with, produce, which cannot be sold profitably because of the high overhead of those doing business. Thte is the result of deflation in some lines and not in others. Particularly affected by those conditions is the farmer. Extreme conditions of deflation in the farming communities of the West have resulted in the impossibility of making the farms pay there. What is the use of bringing people to this country if they cannot exist?"
No truer word has been spoken in this House or in any other assembly than those words uttered by the Acting Minister of Immigration. That, in my estimation, is the real thought that permeates the mind of the minister; he is so well advised regarding agricultural conditions in western Canada that he knows that an immigration policy based upon this principle cannot, of necessity, be successful. After thirty-two years' experience in western Canada I should know something about agricultural conditions there. I have seen many ups and downs in a national way; more have I seen from the individual standpoint. I recollect in the early days the possibility of a person going out, starting up and making headway. It is true that there were many evils in those days, but we fought them and persuaded the powers that be to legislate so that we could overcome them. In that connection I wish to compliment the minister in that he did, when connected with the government of Alberta, rectify many of the evils from which agriculturists suffered. I recall the days when we were not privileged to order a car to ship our grain but were obliged to shoot it through a hole in
the side of an elevator. These things, and the principle of co-operation, we have brought about by agitation and by getting the ear of the government. I state that here at this present time in this Dominion parliament we likewise who represent agriculture should have the ears of the government. We maintain that we who do understand agricultural conditions in the West have a right to be heard. We are just as good in the giving of evidence as the Western Canada Colonization Association. I maintain that these gentlemen who are so philanthropic might better go out themselves and demonstrate the possibilities of agriculture in the West, than ask this government to provide them with a percentage to carry on their work of bringing in immigrants. It does seem to me that we have a right to be heard. No one can doubt our sincerity. No one will accuse us of wilfully making statements that have not been corroborated by evidence submitted.
I wish to state- that I am in favour of immigration. I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as disapproving of immigration. But I do not believe in the principle of patrimony or patronage. I remember so well when I was a small boy my father migrating from Hampshire in England and bringing out his family and establishing them without a dollar of assistance in the county of Lambton in Ontario. As his boys grew up they moved westward, and I am proud to say that each and every one of them has made a very fair success. Conditions were better then, but I would point out that no patronage and no patrimony was given, and I think we were proud enough to say that if it had been offered we would not have accepted it. We were prepared and willing to take our chances, and we did take our chances and whatever we became, the credit can be given to ourselves and to our upbringing. Thousands of others went into western Canada who to-day after long years of experience and effort may have a little equity, but thousands and thousands who have come in later under different conditions are finding it absolutely impossible to make a start upon land. They simply cannot do it, and their hearts are broken in a very few years. That is what will happen when you bring in settlers under this immigration scheme. Three years will be a sufficient length of time to break the heart of the immigrant who comes in under this scheme, and the government will find thousands of immigrants coming into the country as a result of this policy. What are we going to do then? Will the government assume another burden of debt? Will these
135S
Supply-Immigration

lands be capitalized and another petition be made to the people of Canada, and another effort made to bring more immigrants into the country and settle on the land? I think that possibly that will be the only solution then.
If you will trace the history of governments at the present time in parts of the world where white people obtain and are engaged in agriculture, Australia, for instance, we find there that the people are lamenting, almost weeping because of the condition to which agriculture has been brought. In Great Britain we find that the same conditions obtain. Go to any civilized country in the world and you will find agriculture bleeding to death, the whole world over. Agriculture's successes are built on agriculture's failures. By that I mean that if we in this country have a good crop and some other country in the world has a poor crop, we have a proportionate advantage, and likewise the other country when conditions are the reverse. So agriculture's successes are based on agriculture's failures. We compete with the world. As Mr. J. J. Morrison says in an article:
Labour to-day has better homes, better wages while we are at a standstill. Every jail farm in the country is in direct competition with your industry, but you do not object.
Such is the case with agriculture. I do not presume to argue that this government has the means to legislate against such conditions as that. Moreover, I do not think that agriculture is asking for any patrimony or patronage. But I ask this on behalf of agriculture, that when all the interests of Canada, and I care not what institution it is, have through all these years been showing in their anunal returns a dividend-I demand the same privilege for agriculture. I am prepared to take a one per cent dividend on my capitalization if that is sufficient for these other interests, but when they declare a ten or a fifteen per cent dividend, I ask for the same privilege for agriculture. I am not prepared to accept the position that they year after year shall declare a dividend of ten or twelve or fifteen per cent, and just leave me what is left, because I have had a very interesting part in the production of the wealth upon which their dividends are declared. That is only a square deal to all concerned, and surely, in stressing that point we are not asking for too much.
I was particularly interested in the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Springfield in the address which he gave the other day, and I wish to make a few references to them. The hon. member pointed out that in Manitoba, of which he presumed to speak with authority, they were over-

institutionalized, which is very true. In fact, all the grievances he mentioned were of provincial origin, but I would point out respectfully that the things which he cited were an added burden to the things we are debating at this time. We know full well of the over-institutionalism that has taken place in the western provinces, but in this federal House of Commons we have other problems, and I think it was quite beside the argument for the hon. gentleman to make those statements. His solution of the problem was to place cottages at a valuation of 82,400 on farms. That seemed to me to be something that carried us further, placing on us another burden similar to that placed upon us by Kaiser Bill when he declared war in 1914. I have made a little calculation here, and as the hon. member for Springfield spoke for Manitoba, I shall leave that province to him and take Saskatchewan and Alberta. I find that we have in those two provinces approximately 280,000 farms, which at $2,400 for a cottage, would amount to $712,000,000. That is the solution the hon. member for Springfield has for conditions in the West. I would ask hon. gentlemen of this House if they do not think I have enterprise enough myself to build a necessary house or cottage on my farm if conditions warrant it, and if conditions warrant it, by what means and in what manner I choose to do it. Am I to be told to accept a loan and to place this building on my land? That is not a solution. It only exaggerates the problem, makes it worse. Bid what surprised me most of all was that the hon. gentleman had departed from the stand that he took a year ago, and in that connection I wish to quote a paragraph from his budget address of last year. First let me say in passing that no gentleman from this part of the House spoke as earnestly about the conditions of agriculture in the West or more truthfully than did the hon. member for Springfield last year, when he said:
So burden after burden was added until I am sometimes afraid, although I trust I am mistaken, that we have added the last straw so far as western Canada is concerned. I have no desire to be unduly pessimistic, but I wonder if we are not living in a fool's paradise when we speak of western Canada and its ability to come back, unless we have a complete reversal of policy in this country.
Those were his sentiments only last year, and I wonder what has brought about the change, so that when he took his seat the other day he sat down amid applause from the government side while the best sentiment in the Progressive group sat silent and sullen. The hon. gentleman spoke

Sivpply-Immigration
of prosperous conditions in Manitoba. He also said that he had been in this country fourteen years. I desire to state that I have been in Canada thirty-two years, and long before the hon.. member for Springfield was in Canada I trailed across the Riding mountains in a buckboard. I also forded rivers and streams and went into northern Manitoba looking out for suitable land. I stood upon that buckboard while it drifted down the stream but I got across eventually; there were no bridges in those days. I saw 500 of those immigrants who have been spoken of as successful to-day standing in the river stark naked bathing and washing. I went 300 miles further and I saw women hitched to the plough. I actually saw women drawing the plough in that territory in northern Manitoba. Those are the people the hon. gentleman described as being successful settlers. That is true, but the generations that have succeeded the people of those days are to-day in our agricultural colleges, and in our universities, and they are beating our own people in those institutions. But I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would ask the progeny of the members of this House- whether they live in the West or whether they live here-to go out there and compete with those people. I do not think, when you come down to realities, that we have got to work under such conditions to make agriculture a success. I do not believe, Sir, that those people could go into that same territory today and make a success of agriculture. Concerning the statements made by the hon. member it did seem to me that his whole argument was nothing but paternalism. I maintain that if conditions are right to-day that people can still go into our western country, with its potentialities, and make a success of farming. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) also discussed the problem and his solution was to have industrial centres in the West where our products could be absorbed. The argument recalled to me the days when I went to school and used to read the verse:
There's a good time coming boys,
A good time coming.
We may not live to see the day,
But earth shall glisten in the ray
Of the good time coming.
I want-after spending my life in an effort to produce something that I might leave to posterity, after spending my life working earnestly and vigorously-to see these good times arrive in my own lifetime. My father hoped to live to see them, I also hope to see them, and it is but a poor consolation for the hon. member to simply assure us that there
is a good time coming. We are going to have a good time some day. We will have it all the quicker, I honestly believe, if the members of the government, will only hearken to the members in this corner of the chamber who have spoken in this debate, and endeavour to do something to remedy the evils from which agriculture is suffering. Those evils are economic, there is no question about it; and they are contributed to by interests of a predatory kind. That is where the trouble lies, I believe. There are individuals back of the Canada Colonization scheme who desire to have more people located on the lands throughout the West in order that they may climb upon their backs. Apparently they are on the backs of the people at the present . time and we ask them to get off, rather than bring in more people so that they may continue their present operation. These may perhaps seem harsh words, but I am absolutely in earnest. I believe I know whereof I speak and when I believe a thing I have no hesitation in giving expression to that belief.
I have a few figures here that I wish to submit; I know them so well that I believe I could almost quote them from memory. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were formerly known as the Northwest Territories. In 1898 the population of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories was approximately 400,000 people; in 1922 approximately 2,000,000 people. In 1898 the wheat production in the area known as the Northwest Territories was 32,000,000 bushels. In 1922 the production of wheat in that same area amounted to 375,000,000 bushels. In the period from 1898 to 1922 the population increased five times in what is now our western provinces; whilst the production of wheat increased approximately eleven times. And yet the farmers to-day, taking man for man, are poorer than the settlers were in that early period, although the production of wheat is so vastly in excess of the increase in population. We may well ask what the reason is for the existing situation. When one looks at these figures, and they are official, one can readily understand why hon. members in this part of the chamber deem it incumbent upon them to state the facts.
It has occurred to me that if copies of Hansard for the past week were distributed throughout the countries from which we hope to draw immigrants it would be quite enlightening; particularly if an individual received the copies of Hansard at the same time as he received the publications issued by the Western Canada Colonization Association, or even the literature sent forward by the
Supply-Immigration

present and previous governments. It would certainly be illuminating and yet I doubt whether we would accept the statements appearing in Hansard as facts.
From whence do we hope to attract immigrants? There is a difference of opinion in Great Britain at the present time as to whether the number of unemployed is 1,300,000 or 1,500,000. Ex-Premier Lloyd George accepts the latter figure. A lot of unemployed people are in the Clyde district; they are ship-builders. We know that the British government have a fund for sending immigrants to this country and I believe this government anticipates accepting the opportunities afforded by the Imperial authorities in that respect. I have wondered whether it would not be the desire of the Imperial government to get rid of as many of the unemployed over there as possible. But would they be desirable citizens for this country even with the backing of the Canada Colonization Association? Even with the support of this government can we expect those people to come in here and make a success of farming? I do not think it is at all possible, and I believe that even if they did come their experience would be such that in a very short time they would leave this country again.
I might cite as an illustration of what I mean the following: When living at home and thinking that perhaps my neighbour across the road is not enjoying as good a meal as my own menu provides, I might perhaps invite him over and when he comes and sees my fare he turns up his nose. That has been the case with the immigrant coming to this country. He finds out that we have nothing better to offer him than he considers he has at home. The result is that he is discontented and leaves this country as quickly as he possibly can. He finds out that conditions here are not as they were portrayed to him or as he felt he had a right to expect.


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. I am sorry that he has got such an opinion of the proposed assistance that is provided for in the $600,000 that we are going to ask the committee to vote. No portion of that money will be expended except as the result of the nomination by people living in Canada of their friends, .or someone that they know in England, whom they desire to have settle here. We are not indiscriminately offering people the chance to come to Canada. I merely want to put my hon. friend right in that regard.


Oliver Robert Gould: I thank the minister for his explanation.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we abrogating the rule in regard to adjourning at 11 o'clock? I notice the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Gould) rose to speak at 11 o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As far as the government is concerned, our desire is to adjourn, if possible, every evening at 11 o'clock, but at present we are not making much progress with the business before the House. I really do not see why these speeches should be made just on the one particular item before us. We should make progress. If the hon. member for Assiniboia has much more to say, we might adjourn at the present time, but we should have it understood that when the committee meets again unless we can make progress with supply, we must continue sitting much later than we have been accustomed to sit. I think everything that it is necessary to say might be said and still permit the business of the House to proceed with a little more expedition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not for one minute object to sitting late. I just want to know where we are. If we are to depart from the 11 o'clock rule I think we should have notice of it. The Prime Minister has told us the next time this order is called we are to expect to sit late, and that progress will have to be made. We are not objecting to that at all. I assume, as no notice has been given of a late sitting to-night, the minister desires to report progress.


Oliver Robert Gould: I really did not know how long my remarks would take. I have some notes here yet that I might dwell on for some time, but if it is the wish of hon. members that we adjourn, I take pleasure in moving the adjournment of the debate.


Charles A. Stewart: We might adjourn now, and the hon. member could continue his remarks on some other occasion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

Questions
Wednesday, March 21, 1923