1923-03-23

LIVE STOCK ACTS AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KAY presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization, as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration Bill No. 10, to amend and consolidate the Acts Respecting Live Stock and have agreed to report the same with amendments.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I beg to lay on the Table of the
House the authentic texts of the Draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference (League of Nations) at its third session held in Geneva, Switzerland, October 25-November 19, 1921.
Under paragraph 5 of article 405 of the Treaties of Peace.
Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances ^to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the conference, bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation 01-other, action.
When the authentic texts of the Draft Conventions and Recommendations of the '1921 conference were received from the Secretary-General o.f the League of Nations they were referred to the Department of Justice for
International Labour

consideration of the question whether the proposals involved were to be regarded as within Dominion or provincial legislative competent The report, of the Minister of Justice on this subject was approved by order in council on June 27, 1922, and a copy of the order in council is attached to the texts of the Draft Conventions and Recommendations for the information of the House. It will be observed that most of the proposals were found to be within provincial jurisdiction. Copies of the order in council of June 27, 1922, and of the authentic texts of the Draft Conventions and Recommendations were transmitted subsequently to the different lieutenant-governors for the consideration of their respective governments with a view to such legislative or other action in line with the proposals involved as each provincial government might be advised to take. The obligations of the government of Canada under the Peace Treaties have thus been fulfilled in respect of the individual measures of the 1921 conference which were found to be within the provincial sphere.
With respect to those Draft Conventions and Recommendations which were found to be within federal legislative competence, the authentic texts are being brought before parliament in conformity with the requirements of paragraph 5 of article 405 of the Treaties of Peace and are being laid on the Table of the House. The questions involved in these latter Draft Conventions and Recommendations are also receiving the attention of the government. The Dominion government has proposed to the several provincial governments, that a Dominion-provincial conference should be held for the purpose of considering certain aspects of matters arising out of the relations between Canada and the International Labour Organization. Most of the provinces have already expressed their acquiescence in this suggestion and it is expected that the meeting will be held in the early part of next summer.
Referring to the inquiry which was made in the House yesterday by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), as to "when the House may' expect the report of the last meeting of the International Labour Conference," I find that the government has not as yet received either the printed report of the discussions of the conference or the authentic texts of the recommendations which were adopted by the conference.
As I mentioned yesterday, a report of the 1922 session of the International Labour Conference appeared in the December issue of the Labour Gazette, the official monthly Journal of the Department of Labour of Canada. I have pleasure in laying a copy of a re-print

of this article from the Labour Gazette on the Table of the House for the purposes of information.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: My information is that the report in the Gazette to which the hon. member referred yesterday and again to-day is not a complete report. It is only in part a report of the conference. Is that correct? I may not have caught what the hon. gentleman said, but I did not come to any clear understanding myself of his remarks as to why the report could be in the Gazette of December and the government not yet in receipt of the full report to lay on the Table of the House.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will note that I have only laid on the Table of the House the authentic text of the draft conventions adopted at the 1921 conference. The authentic text of what was done at the 1922 conference has not yet been received by the Department of Labour. It has not yet come to Canada. We hope to have it within the next few months; but there is always, I understand, great delay in sending forward the authentic text. The report that appeared in the issue of December last of the Labour Gazette was, it is believed, as full and complete as was necessary. I am going to send across the floor to my right hon. friend a copy so that he can peruse it.
On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: I observe in the press to-day an announcement that Mrs. James Carruthers of England, who formerly was Miss Violet Markham, has been selected to represent this government on the governing body of the International Labour Conference at its meeting in April. Is this correct, and if it is, what superior qualifications has she over Canadians to represent us on that body?


James Murdock: The report is correct, although I do not think it would be at all proper to intimate that Mrs. James Carruthers would have any superior qualifications over very many of our Canadian women. The circumstances are, however, that we received notice only very recently, as to the date of the next meeting of the governing body of the International Labour Office to be held on April 10 at Geneva, and with that notice a copy of the agenda of the matters to be dealt with. For the January meeting of the governing body, we received notice so late that it was regarded as inadvisable, under the circumstances,

Supply-Immigration
to endeavour to arrange for a substitute for the representative for Canada on the governing board for the January meeting. On this occasion, we undertook to secure representation hurriedly and by cable, endeavouring to secure a gentleman who, it was thought, would very ably represent Canada. That was found impossible; so Mrs. James Carruthers was asked to represent Canada and she very kindly consented to act. Mrs. Carruthers, although resident in England, has visited all parts of Canada, and is the author of a handbook on the Factory and Shop Acts of the British dominions, which was issued by the industrial sub-committee of the Victoria League. She is a member of the executive committee of the British National Relief Fund and of the Central Committee of Women's Employment, and was Deputy Director of the Women's section of the National Service Department in 1917, and was appointed a member of the British Industrial Court in 1920.


Arthur Meighen: Just to save time, will the hon. gentleman lay on the Table of the House to-morrow, if possible, the notification, with notification of its receipt, and- the other correspondence to which he has just referred? I may mention that there was one qualification which he forgot, namely that this lady was a Liberal candidate for Parliament at the last election; running against the Labour candidate.


James Murdock: I was uninformed as to that fact, if it is a fact.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	86	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Frederick Wesley Graham.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill	No.	87	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Catherine Gunyo Chatterson Odell. -Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill	No.	88	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Marietta Isabel Wilson.-Mr. Church.
Bill	No.	89	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Marian Eugenie MaeCordick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	90	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Elizabeth Frankland.-Mr. Church.
Bill	No.	91	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Arnold Carrington Burke.-Mr. Church.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Immigration-Chinese immigration-salaries and contingencies, $60,000.
Arthur Meighen: The minister certainly should explain this item, especially the increase of $25,000. He should also make clear to the committee just what this money is devoted to and how it fits in with the policy as to Chinese immigration, whatever policy it is that the government purposes adopting.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argen-teuil, Acting Minister of Imigration and Colonization):: One reason for the increase in this item is that now there are 28 employees charged to this appropriation, whereas, only 19 were charged to the appropriation last year, the other nine being charged to the general appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: What is the general appropriation?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Their salaries were charged to the vote for the outside service. They are now taken into the Immigration staff, and their salaries charged to the Immigration appropriation. I will give the list of names, as that is possibly the quickest way.
S. N. Reid, maximum	 $2,160
J. W. Speed, immigration inspector	 1,560
A. H. Jones, immigration inspector	 1,320
Miss H. G. Parkinson	 i,H0
A. F. Youngs, immigration inspector.. ..	1,335
Lee S. Yen, immigration interpreter	 1,200
Peter Coney, caretaker	 l ,080
John Earnshaw	 1,065
J. C. Kirk, clerk	 2,280
G.	A. Stevens, departmental accountant
general	*	
1,980W. C. Taylor, engineer	stationary heating..	1,800H.	S. Ferguson, filing clerk	
1,080A. E. Allen, clerk stenographer	
1,065C. E. Wilson, immigration inspector	
1,560Harold Crump, immigration inspector.. ..	1,320Paul Lung, immigration interpreter.. ..	1,260YiP Sing	
1200H. W. Wilson, inspector	
1,260Edmund Wilson, guard	
900A. J. Williams, guard	
900W. J. Lowe, caretaker	
1,080A. C. Green, elevator operator	
885H. Glover, immigration inspector Union Bay	900R. H. Banham	
900R. H. Halhed	
900
Lee Frank Hong, interpreter, Winnipeg,
Man	 200
Wong Ham, Montreal, interpreter	 200
A. Regimbal, immigration agent general, Montreal	 1 920
This gives a total of $34,540, the number of employees being 28 as against 19 last year. Included in this are the ordinary statutory increases which with the salaries of these extra nine amount to $12,555 over last year's vote. There is also an additional expenditure that has come up since the inception of the Narcotic Drugs Act. The Immigration department are virtually acting as policemen

Supply-Ivimigration

after convictions, and their work in this regard has added to the expenses of the Immigration Act. I shall have more to say in regard to these points later. There is a provision in the Immigration Act for registration, but I would prefer to discuss that later. These are items that make up the $25,000 additional.


Arthur Meighen: The salary list read by the minister totalled $34,000; then he says that there is $12,000 in the way of statutory increases this year to be added to that.


Charles A. Stewart: No; my hon. friend misunderstood me. The $12,555 is taken from the general immigration salaries-from the outside salaries-to pay these employees. In other words, this amount of $12,000 odd is included in the $34,000. The increase in the number of employees is nine and the $12,000 goes to pay their salaries.


Arthur Meighen: Then $34,000 is the total, inclusive of statutory increases?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And that $34,000 includes the salaries of nine persons who were not taken into account before. They were previously in the general vote which we discussed for some five days. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that the general vote was itself $25,000 over that of the year before. So that if the increase in this vote is caused by taking something out of the general vote as it stood last year, the actual increase in the general vote must be regarded as $50,000. Is that correct?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it would be the $25,000 of an increase as voted last night, plus the salaries of these nine men, amounting to $12,000.
Mr. MEIGHEN; The increase of the two votes, the $25,000 increase voted last night, together with this $12,000 and the other items to which the minister has just referred, amounts to $50,000. It makes no difference how you distribute it.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I had not followed him.


Arthur Meighen: The increase therefore is $50,000 all around. I do not understand what the money is to be applied to. These men are used in connection with Chinese immigration, chiefly I presume to prevent it, or at least to see that it complies with the minister's regulations. I should like him to tell us what those regulations are, and just what is the nature of this service as distinguished from the rest of his immigration service; and

as well to explain why the Chinese need an elevator man when they get to Canada. Where are they elevated to?


Charles A. Stewart: I take it that he has always been in the building; there is an elevator in the building.


Arthur Meighen: What building?


Charles A. Stewart: At Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: A special Chinese immigration building?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know that it is a special Chinese immigration building. I am not very familiar with it, but my recollection is that it was used largely in handling the 'Chinese at Vancouver. There are about ten persons engaged in the general immigration inspectional work in Vancouver and the ordinary port work, in addition to those whose names I have read as being engaged exclusively in Chinese work.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Who are these people?


Charles A. Stewart: They are: Mr. Joliffe, Commissioner of Immigration; F. W. Taylor, immigration investigating officer; H. W. Pickles, Miss B. Jeffers, clerk-stenographer; J. W. Randall, clerk; Miss E. Cooper, clerk-stenographer; D. E. Hyndman, immigration inspector; Thomas Elliott, im-migation inspector; Miss D. N. MacLean, and Luen Song.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the duties of these gentlemen?


Charles A. Stewart: They are engaged on inspectional work, checking out any Chinese leaving the country, investigating each newcomer, taking care of deports, and a thousand and one other things in connection with the fairly numerous Chinese population of British Columbia. Frequent trips have to be taken inland in search of Chinese who have entered illegally, and this involves a considerable expenditure. My hon. friends from the coast are continually complaining of laxity on the part of our officials in prosecuting these cases, and I am free to say that I get a great many complaints. I do not think the staff is overmanned for the work that has to be done. True, if the bill which we will be discussing in a day or two is enacted into law practically only merchants and students will be allowed to enter. The work of our officials will then be confined to protecting the population against any

Supply-Immigration
Chinese who come in illegally. Of course, I do not want to imply that that will be the sole business of the staff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister can tell us how many men he has on this work altogether. [DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: Twenty-five.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
Chinese came in last year?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the figures before me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So I see.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not expect to be asked that question.


Mr. MARTELL:: What alteration has been made in the old regulations as a matter of fact?


Charles A. Stewart: At the moment we are admitting only merchants and students. Labourers will not be admitted. The bill proposes the abolition of the head tax. Hut that does not mean very .much as no labourers will be coming in. Students come in simply for educational purposes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What meaning does my hon. friend attach to the word "merchant"?


Charles A. Stewart: We have found it very diflScult to define who is a merchant, but I have a proposal to make when the bill comes down that I hope will meet with the approval of the House.


Mr. LUCAS:: How many Chinese came into Canada during the past year as compared with the year before?


Charles A. Stewart: For the fiscal year 1921-22 there were 1,459 admissions subject to and 287 admissions exempt from head tax. For the eleven months of this fiscal year there were 617 admissions.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Including children?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Children coming to join their parents here?


Charles A. Stewart: Those figures give the total admissions in both cases.


William Garland McQuarrie: Doc:( the minister know whether the figures are correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I am giving
the figures as they are given to me.


William Garland McQuarrie: Of course, I do not doubt the minister's statement at all, but I understand that every boat reaching Yancouver from China carries quite a large number of Chinese children. This is another way in which the Chinese evade the regulations. We all know that the greater proportion of Chinese who seek admission claim to be merchants, and I think the minister will have a great deal of difficulty in defining a merchant in his bill, because the wily Chinese always finds a way to get around any restrictive regulations. The minister should be very careful in framing his definition. It will be a mistake if under his proposed bill merchants are allowed to enter to carry on business here permanently. Chinese merchants might be given permits to come in and carry on business temporarily, but we shall be faced with a very grave danger if we allow them to remain here permanently. ,1 would suggest to the minister that Chinese merchants who desire to live here permanently should be excluded, for if you allow a Chinaman to enter as a merchant you at once lose control over him and he can engage in any occupation that appeals to him. I think also the minister should insert a provision in his bill to deport students who remain in the country after they have finished their university courses. As the law now stands it appears that once a Chinese is admitted as a student he can engage in any occupation he chooses to take up and it is impossible to deport him. A Chinaman is supposed to have several wives, and we can readily believe this when we see so many Chinese children sent to this country to join their supposed parents here. I should like to hear from the minister what investigation is made in reference to such children and whether the department is able to ascertain beyond question that the large number ' who are now entering Canada are really the children of Chinese already resident here.


Charles A. Stewart: I think perhaps my hon. friend knows more about the difficulties of controlling Chinese immigration than I do. I had a very bright Chinese boy in my office the other night, in fact as bright a Chinese lad as I have ever seen. He is here on permit, and his case has been under investigation for four weeks. A Chinaman here swears that he is the boy's father; and the boy swears that he is the son of the Chinaman.


An hon. MEMBER:: How can he swear that?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, the boy is under twelve years of age, so perhaps it is not proper to say that he swears to the fact. But he alleges that he is the son of a Chinaman in Toronto. A number of Chi-
Supply-Immigration

nese people in Toronto say they were in China at the date of the birth of this boy, and that he is really the son of the Chinaman referred to. We do not think he is. There is certain contradictory evidence which would indicate that perhaps this is a case where the complaint of my hon. friend is justified. I merely mention this incident to show the difficulties we are confronted with. Taking it by and large my hon. friend is right as to the large number of Chinese children being sent to this country. Once it became known that the bill I have referred to would be introduced a lot of Chinese nationals resident in Canada attempted to bring in their children from China before the bill became law, and frankly we are suspicious that many of these children are not really the offspring of the men who are endeavouring -to get them into this country.


Mr. STANSELL:: Has the minister investigated the merits of the blood test in this connection?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
not resorted to any blood tests.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do you take evidence on oath?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: How are these Chinese sworn? The Chinese take two or three kinds of oaths in our courts. One is by breaking a saucer, another by burning a paper. The Chinaman writes his name on a piece of paper, sets fire to it, and then asks that his soul may burn up in hell as this paper is burning if he is not telling the truth. But neither of these oaths seems to tie the Chinaman down strictly to the truth. When you wish to be pretty certain that a Chinaman is coming very nearly to telling the truth, you insist that he be sworn by cutting off a chicken's head. What manner of oath is required by the department?


Charles A. Stewart: We use
them all.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The chicken's head oath might be tried on members who ask too many questions!


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not joking at all.


Charles A. Stewart: When the proposed bill is under consideration all phases of examination and everything else connected with Chinese immigration will be discussed.


Mr. McBRIDE:: If the Chinese were completely stopped from entering Canada, could not this item be struck out altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: With the
Chinese population we already have in British Columbia we shall always have investigations and other work to attend to, otherwise the allegations of many hon. members from British Columbia cannot be well-founded. These allegations are mainly to the effect that more Chinese enter British Columbia without permission than with permission.


Thomas George McBride: Is not the greater portion of this item to cover expenditure in connection' with Chinese immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but a very considerable portion of this expenditure -has to do with looking after Chinese leaving Canada either temporarily or for good.


William Garland McQuarrie: What precautions are taken by the department to see that Chinese do not enter illegally?


Charles A. Stewart: Whenever a complaint is made our officers are prepared to make an investigation to see whether the Chinaman complained of is here illegally or not.


William Garland McQuarrie: But there is no one in the department charged with the duty of investigating before any complaint is made of illegal entries?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not say that that is true in all cases, but I cannot tell what is the percentage. Our officials are maintained at the ports of entry, and naturally if a Chinaman gets in he will move back into the country without delay and we would not be likely to keep track of him. However, the bill provides for registration.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the department also take care of deportations of drug addicts?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: How many drug addicts were deported last year?


Charles A. Stewart: The accountant tells me he thinks the figure is somewhere in the neighbourhood of twenty.


William Garland McQuarrie: How many other deportations were there?


Charles A. Stewart: They do not come under this item. You mean deportations for being illegally in the country?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.

Supply-lmmigra tion


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice that in 1921 this service cost $32,000; there was an increase last year, and a substantial increase this year. What is the reason?


Charles A. Stewart: I covered this item. I will give it to my hon. friend again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You gave us $12,550. Where is the balance?


Charles A. Stewart: We have the balance for the purpose of looking after registration under the proposed legislation, supposing we cannot make a better arrangement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is to look after registration under the new act.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister had the complaints of the Chinese Consul regarding the condition of the immigration sheds at Vancouver brought to his attention?


Charles A. Stewart: Nothing
beyond what I have seen in the press reports of the speeches of Dr. Tsur. I visited the immigration shed at Vancouver, and although it is not by any means a palatial hotel, I think a man could be comfortable there provided he had his own bedding, which nearly all these immigrants carry.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are the Chinese and Japanese kept in this same shed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose the minister has seen the accounts of the Japanese breaking out of the shed.


Charles A. Stewart: My answer was not quite correct. They are not kept in the same quarters, but their quarters are in the same building.


William Garland McQuarrie: Have any precautions been taken to prevent similar escapes in the future?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I understand there is some sort of international agreement between Great Britain and Japan. Would the minister consent to bringing that down so that we may have an opportunity of perusing it? I understand that the agreement allows certain concessions to Japan, and I should like to know what are the special considerations in regard to that country. I understand that it is not on account of any arrangement that we
make, but on account of an arrangement made between the Mother Country and the Japanese Empire.
Mr: MACKENZIE KING: With respect to the arrangement with Japan, it was arrived at by a representative of this country in conference with Japanese representatives, but I think the formal signatures were by ministers of the Departments of Foreign Affairs. The negotiation of the agreement, however, was entirely in the hands of the Honourable the Speaker of this House in conference with the Foreign Office of Japan. The agreement has been considered a secret agreement, and I doubt very much if the government could undertake to bring down the agreement without altering the understanding between the two governments. The understanding was that it would be kept secret. I might further say that negotiations have been continued within the last year and this year between the Japanese government and our own with a view of modifying the terms of that agreement. These negotiations are not yet finally consummated, and until they are,, it would be inadvisable to make any public statement regarding them.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have every confidence in my right hon. leader, but I should like to know what can be brought down for public guidance in the matter. I am not asking for any confidential information at all, but can we have what has been reduced in writing and has been signed, and what is permitted to be made public.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think that
is all printed in the form of a state paper.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is no particular secret about that. If my hon. friend wants the information I can give it to him.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I wish you would.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Japanese Consul General was kind enough to send me a memorandum of the Japanese views, and I suppose copies have been sent to other members of the House. In that memorandum the details of this alleged gentlemen's agreement are set out. It is stated in the memorandum that the arrangement was to the effect that no more than four hundred Japanese labourers should be admitted in any one year. That is the effect of the famous Lemieux agreement as set out in the memorandum.
Supply-Immigration


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Four hundred coming direct from Japan, was it not?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


Charles Marcil: It did not cover Japanese coming from other countries.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is no secret
about it. I do not see why we should have any secret arrangements of this kind. Surely if we are going to have an agreement with any foreign government as to the number of its citizens that should be admitted to Canada the public are entitled to know what the agreement is. I personally am very much opposed to that kind of secret agreement. I am opposed in the first place, to the agreement itself, and I am opposed also to any secrecy regarding it. There should not be any secrecy about it. We have received the memorandum from the Japanese Consul General as to what the arrangement is with Japan, and further, while the matter is still secret here so far as the minister is concerned, we have received a statement from the Chinese Consul General as to the treaty with China. They do not seem to treat these matters as secret, and I do not see why there should be so much secrecy on the part of this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to what my hon. friend has said about secrecy, probably the best answer to that are the figures themselves. Our government has kept a record year by year of the number of Japanese that have come into the country for the last fifteen or twenty years. These figures are all published, and I think for the last ten years or more they will show that the number of Japanese labourers entering in one year was under four hundred, with the possible exception of one year.
In regard to what my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has said as to the agreement not applying to Japanese coming from other countries than Japan,
4 p.m. my impression is, and I think I am right in it, that our government will not permit any Japanese to enter unless he comes with a passport from Japan, signed by the Japanese Foreign Office. These passports are not given to Japanese who come other than direct from Japan, so under the present arrangement the Japanese of the restricted class who does not come direct from Japan is excluded.


William Garland McQuarrie: But the trouble is this. It may be quite true, as the Prime Minister says, that the Japanese government officially

has kept the terms of this agreement, but the Japanese people themselves have not done so. I think the Minister of Immigration will agree with me when I make the statement that more Japanese have come into this country illegally than have come in legally.
I asked the minister just a moment ago what . precautions had been taken to prevent illegal entry of Chinese, and that would apply equally well to Japanese. I was thinking of the case that occurred the other day in Vancouver. A Japanese freighter came in with twenty-nine Japanese stowaways on board. The reason we heard anything about that was that the crew of the Japanese freighter had mutinied and taken possession of the ship, and the captain had wirelessed to the police at Vancouver to meet the boat. When she arrived at Vancouver the captain of the ship said that there were eighteen Japanese stowaways on board. The police endeavoured to locate them, and after a great deal of difficulty eventually found not eighteen, but twenty-nine Japanese in the coal bunkers. There you have the case of a Japanese freighter that is not supposed to carry passengers at all bringing in twenty-nine Japanese. If the crew had not mutinied, no doubt these men would have come into the country and later on have become citizens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one point that I think in all fairness my hon. friend ought to state in regard to this situation. The Canadian authorities, if I am rightly informed, were told about these Japanese in virtue of a wireless that was sent by the captain of the ship, who was himself a Japanese. It was the Japanese that brought the matter to the attention of the authorities in this country.


William Garland McQuarrie: That was after the mutiny. According to the press despatches, these Japanese stowaways stated that they had come on board ship under an arrangement with certain people in Japan, that they had paid for the? privilege of coming to Canada, and they complained bitterly of their treatment in this country, and of the fact that they were not allowed to land. There is no doubt in the world that that has been going on for years, and that incident illustrates what has been happening, and explains why we have so many Japanese in this country;


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I wish to make is that what my hon. friend says in regard to Japanese coming in surreptitiously does not affect the agreement, or in

Supply-Immigration
any way what is accomplished or prevented under the agreement. That would take place, I assume, regardless of any arrangement. All I want to have clearly understood is that, as far as the agreement itself is concerned, the government has every reason to believe that the Japanese government has lived faithfully up to its letter. The agreement has been carried out in good faith by both parties.


William Garland McQuarrie: But if this kind of thing is allowed to go on, should not the Japanese-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend suggest that no Japanese ship shall be allowed to land in Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: No that is not what I am arguing. The Prime Minister has said that the Japanese have carried out the gentlemen's agreement and lived up to it ever since it was entered into. The important point is that the Japanese government is not preventing Japanese leaving Japan to come to Canada.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING' Does the hon. member mean to say that the Japanese government is responsible for the Japanese who came in surreptitiously?


William Garland McQuarrie: I say they are not taking any precautions to stop the emigration of Japanese citizens to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed exactly the opposite-that they are doing all in their power to see that the agreement is lived up to. Cases may arise which are beyond the control of the government. Japanese may come in surreptitiously. That is beyond the control of the Japanese government. I think it is due to the government of Japan to say that it has been made very clear, so far as this government is concerned, that the government of Japan is doing its utmost to keep faith in the matter of the agreement. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) who is present, and who had to do with immigration previously, will agree with what I say, that during his term of office he had every reason to believe that the Japanese government were living up to the agreement in good faith.


Arthur Meighen: I was never in charge of immigration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the right hon. member was Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but never in charge of immigration. That was a separate matter and I was not in charge of that. Under
the terms of that contract, each government undertook to limit immigration to Canada. Did the contract by the Japanese government say that not more than so many-referred to yesterday as 400-Japanese labourers should land in Canada? Was that a covenant on the part of the Japanese government? Or does the contract read in this way, that Canada is justified in preventing more than 400 Japanese landing in this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might answer by saying that the first agreement that was made was in the nature of a treaty in regard to trade matters between Japan and Great Britain, to which this country became a party. One of the terms of that treaty, to which this parliament was a party or of which it approved, was that the subjects of Japan were to have free entrance into Canada. The treaty guaranteed-


Arthur Meighen: That is the Anglo-Japan-ese treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Full right was given to the Japanese to 'come into this country under that treaty. It is open to parliament, if its members so desire, to denounce that treaty, to cease to be a party to it, and to lose the benefit to this country in trade matters which the treaty has helped us to secure. That conceivably might be the effect of eliminating the clause giving to the Japanese as citizens of Japan the right to come freely into this country. It was pointed out at the time that this right of entry would not be satisfactory to the people of Canada, that possibly the treaty might have to be denounced if that right was to be maintained. The Japanese government offered itself to restrict the number of persons coming into the country in accordance with arrangements which might be made between the government of Canada.^nd' the government of Japan. It was a matter, I think, mostly of national pride with the Japanese. They desired to preserve, in the face of the world at all events, the right of their citizens to go anywhere, and I say quite frankly to hon. gentlemen opposite that if this- parliament, and particularly our friends from British Columbia, prefer to end any agreement, so far as trade is concerned, between Japan and Canada, which may affect immigration, they have only to say so, they have only to insist that such rights as are secured by treaty shall be ended, and we can very soon settle in that way, if that way will settle it, the whole question of Japanese im- -migration to Canada. If, on the other hand, this country wishes to preserve trade with the Orient, we shall have to have some regard
Supply-Immigration

for matters which with respect to their citizens the governments of the Orient regard as all important. If the government of Japan is agreeable to making an arrangement with this country which will preserve to the government of Japan such rights as it regards as essential to its citizens, and at the same time avoid as effectively as any other method possibly can, the immigration of labour from Japan to this country, I think it will be infinitely better for all to adopt the latter course.


Arthur Meighen: I now wish to say a word of two on the matter of the covenants of the government. I want to say that while in office it was never represented to me, nor have I any reason to say now, that the Japanese government have not complied with, or endeavoured faithfully to comply with, the covenant. I never saw the terms of it, and never had occasion to review the terms, but if the terms are such as the Prime Minister states, that the Japanese government undertook to prevent more than 400 coming to this country, and then if more than 400 come, it means the government has not complied with the treaty, although Japan may have endeavoured to comply with it. It may be that in regard to a binding contract with Japan, that country has found itself unable to comply with it. If that is the case, is not the government in a position to charge against the 400, or whatever the number is, any number that come in surreptitiously or in any way whatever? So that no more than 400 can come in, and no more will be allowed to enter, no matter how they come in.
The other matter is before the House today but I do not subscribe to the belief for a minute that we must abandon all trade with Japan, if we assert control over our own immigration and assert it to whatever extent we desire. The matter of trade is not a one-sided matter. It is a matter that is important to Canada and important to Japan. The Japanese are just as wise as we are. The Japanese control their immigration and we can control ours, and I am one of those who believe that we can control it just as absolutely as we desire, and whatever the consequences may be, they will not be any more disastrous to us than to the other country. In a word, they will not come in.


Mr. NEILL:: I think if the Premier is alluding to the trade treaty of 1913, he will recall that in that treaty, which was ratified by Canada there was this stipulation:
This treaty shall be subject to all the terms of the Immigration Act.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
A division of opinion has arisen since then, as to whether the words "Immigration Act" in that treaty refer to the immigration act of that day or also cover any immigration act that might be subsequently passed, but it is abundantly plain that it did cover the im-migation act of that day.
Now that trade treaty between Japan and Canada was made or passed in 1913, and the revised or consolidated Immigration Act of 1912 contained provisions dating back some years, which gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to exclude Asiatics under a general provision, something like that in the bill I endeavoured to bring down the other day. It says:
The Minister of Immigration can reject the nationals of a people or a race whose national conditions-
Or some words to that effect.
-and whose habits and whose climatic conditions r where they come from, render them unsuitable to assimilate with the people of Canada.
The provision is quite broad, and under it, in the year 1912, or prior to that, the Minister of Immigration had that power. Then, this trade treaty of 1913 undoubtedly reserved the provisions of that Immigration Act, so that, 1 submit, it will be possible to do away with the gentlemen's agreement to-day and totally to exclude Japanese or other Asiatics under the provisions of the Immigration Act as it was subsequently reenacted more forcibly, without interfering with the right and privilege of trading with Japan. Trading with Japan is a matter in which we are vitally interested, and it is of as vital interest to Japan as it is to us. But under the terms of the provision which I have mentioned, it is not necessary to do away with the trade treaty if we wish to do away with the gentlemen's agreement.
Another matter in connection with the gentlemen's agreement has not been mentioned in this House. In addition to the 400 who are allowed into Canada every year, there is also what is called some land settlement scheme by which every Japanese owning a hundred acres of land can bring in ten Japs. Apparently, however, there is no restriction as to time; if he has 100 acres of land, he can bring in ten Japs to-day and ten next month. There is no provision as to how often he can bring in those ten Japs.


Arthur Meighen: Under what?


Alan Webster Neill: Under the gentlemen's agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. gentleman is misinformed as to that. Any

Supply-Immigration
restriction as to numbers of labourers coming in will apply to such labourers as may be brought in for the very purpose to which he refers.


Alan Webster Neill: It may be that I am unable to read the gentlemen's agreement correctly, for I must say that the gentlemen's agreement, as I have seen it, is one of the most abstruse documents 1 have ever put my eyes on, and I may have interpreted it incorrectly. According to my understanding, the number was limited to 400 labourers per annum, plus the number allowed in as labourers on Jap farms. I will, however, accept the Prime Minister's interpretation.
Another thing that we might well notice under the gentlemen's agreement in connection with this matter is this, and it actually occurred three years ago. The Minister of Immigration in times of unusual unemployment has the power-and he exercised it three years ago-to prohibit any immigration into Canada of British subjects whatever, of unskilled or skilled labour, and he did so exercise that power. But he was unable under this gentlemen's agreement to prohibit the entry of those 400 Japanese. Thus, we had the wonderful situation of these orientals coming in at the rate of 400 a year, whereas, owing to unusual labour conditions in this country, our own British subjects were unable to enter Canada.
As regards the shipment of Japanese to which the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. McQuarrie) referred, I think he stated the case correctly; but he omitted one feature of it as it was worked out in the press. It is much more difficult, I might say in passing, to prohibit the entry of Japanese than Chinamen. The Chinese come in our own Canadian Pacific boats, owned and manned by white men and these boats tie up at our wharf. The immigration officers visit and search the ship and keep a watchman on the wharf, whilst the ship is in port, so that it is practically very difficult for Chinamen to enter in that way illegally. But the Jap has his own line of steamships with not one white man on board. He pulls into the wharf and goes through the customs inspection. Then there is only a guard on the wharf at night, perhaps a sleepy old man, walking up and down. What is to prevent, with the full connivance of the officers, all of whom are Japanese, a boat or a launch coming on the other side of the ship, away from this sleepy watchman and taking off a small or moderate number, for a Jap never overplays his hand; he will only bring in twenty or thirty every ship-load.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How would an exclusion law prevent that sort of thing?


Alan Webster Neill: I will come to that in a
minute. I suggest that that is a way in which they are put ashore, and in some measure that accounts for the extraordinary difference between the number of those coming in legally and those who are now here. As regards this particular case, it would appear that these 29 stowaways had paid a sum of money to be taken over to Canada, and on the way over, through some misapprehension or misunderstanding, they found they were going, not as they thought, to San Francisco, for which they had apparently paid their good money, but to Vancouver. It was not altogether a mutiny of the crew that took place; it was a mutiny of those stowaways, backed by some of the crew. They swarmed up on board and practically took possession of the ship, saying: "We will not go to Vancouver; we will sail to where we paid our money to go," and it was that that led the captain of the boat to wireless in for assistance when he came into the harbour. The boat did not pull into the wharf; it anchored out in the harbour. The police came aboard and arrested, I think, one or two of the crew. There were no stowaways visible; but as soon as the police boat went away-there were just one or two immigration officers in it,- those stowaways came up again, and they compelled that boat to get up steam and come into the wharf. They appeared to be ignorant of the fact that there was a wireless apparatus aboard or how it was used, and the captain again sent a wireless message for assistance. When the boat docked, a swarm of policemen rushed aboard and arrested those who were making the trouble. Then they began to look for the Japanese stowaways, and they could not find any. The hon. member for New Westminister said that they were in the coal bunkers. That apparently would be a simple place to find them. The men found that apparently there was nothing but coal in the bunkers, and they could not get at the stowaways without removing three or four hundred_tons of coal. They knew that the men were there, but they did not know how to get at them. Some man, with more than usual ingenuity- and the minister should promote him-conceived the idea of boring holes through the deck; they put down long rods until they came to a place where, there was no coal, and presently they came to what apparently was Asiatic flesh. The Japs were lying in a heap in a concealed chamber in the coal, and they removed enough coal to get at them. This

Supply-Immigration
was a cunningly concealed place that the average man would not find at all. This was not done, and could not be done, without the full knowledge and consent of the Japanese line of boats. I have no doubt the Japanese government kept its agreement; but these are the nationals, and this is the way in which they act. As the hon. member for New Westminster says, had it not been for this untoward incident of their being scheduled to the wrong port, nothing would have been heard about the matter. That goes on, more or less, all the time.
To come to the Prime Minister's query as to how this can be prevented, I would say that a total exclusion act would not prevent that in any degree whatever; it would still go on. The remedy is to have a measure of exclusion, coupled with what, I think, the minister provides for as regards Chinamen to some extent, namely, a system of registration. When Mr. Jap or Mr. Chinaman-this is the case at present as regards Chinamen- comes in, he has a registration certificate given him, practically as we had in the war. In years to come, when any of those men get into trouble or travel, they can be asked by an official to produce their registration cards, and if they cannot produce them or give some explanation of their loss or so on, then they are liable to deportation. That is the case under the new act as regards Chinamen, and that is the remedy for evasions of the act.
I made it my business to have a talk with some of the prominent officials of the Department of Immigration as regards Chinamen. What they told me was this, that there was no definition, no rule, no formula, yet devised by their department-and they had been very strenuous in the matter-which had yet worked successfully, because the minute the Chinamen understood the rule, they sat down and evaded it. They told me how they evaded the rule in regard to Chinamen coming in as sons. Men who had not been out of Canada for thirty years would bring in boys of eighteen as their sons. The way the thing was worked was this. These would have to be the sons of a* merchant. What was a merchant? A merchant was one actively engaged in some city of Canada with a certain sum invested. They got up bogus companies. Supposing I am a Chinese parent, and working at tailoring in Montreal, for some of this occurred in Montreal. I go down to a regular firm which makes a business of this. Supposing this is a firm of exporters or importers; I put S500 cash into the business; I get a job there as porter or some
[Mr. Neill.)
job I am fitted for, for a month or two. I then claim that the boy coming in is my son, and the immigration officials, who appear to have been very zealous on the job, make inquiries and even send a man down to ascertain whether I am really working there busy. Thej'' find that I am at work and they look up the books and discover that everything is straight, and that as a matter of fact I did put $500 into the business. After a great deal of consideration they may grant my claim or they may not; and when they go back to the same firm a month afterwards and inquire about another man they find that I have taken my $500 out of the business and gone back to my tailoring or laundering in the next street. Now, these are not hypothetical cases; they are actual occurrences as these officials told them to me.
As regards the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie) that we should be cautious in defining a merchant-I believe he said we should be very definite-I may inform the committee that the officials of the department are of the opinion that we should leave this matter to their discretion, and I am inclined to support them in this view. So that instead of having a clear-cut definition of what constitutes a merchant, it is my opinion that it should be left as flexible as possible and within the judgment of the officials; because the moment you make the definition rigid these people will find some way of getting round it. On the other hand, if you made the definition broad, and left some room for the exercise of judgment on the part of the officials, they would be in a better position to see that the provision was not evaded. Last year eight merchants came in under that category, and my informant told me of a case where a merchant wanted to bring a boy in who was really his son. He was a wealthy man in the ladies' tailoring business out West, but they refused to let this immigrant in because they claimed that the father was not a merchant according to their interpretation of the act. The Chinaman asked them what they considered a merchant to be, and they replied, "We regard as a merchant only anyone who is dealing in Chinese goods, importing or exporting direct, and carrying on a traffic with China." So that this man, although he has two or three stores and is wealthy, could not prove that he was a merchant and his son was rejected. For that reason therefore it is advisable not to define too strictly the term "merchant". The hon. member suggested that we should exclude merchants; not, I suggest, however, if the matter is left in that broad way; because I

Supply-Immigration
tliink we do want to do trade with China and Japan, and so long as they are genuine bona fide merchants trading with the East I do not think there can be any objection to them.


William Garland McQuarrie: In the previous part of the discussion something was said about Chinese children coming into the country, and I might make a further statement in regard to Japanese. Not only do the Japanese bring their children in, but in some cases they furnish them with Canadian naturalization papers as soon as they land. That may ap-. pear to be a rash statement, but it is one that I can prove, because at one of the sittings of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission last year we had a witness who was the assistant secretary of the Japanese Fisheries Association of No. 2 District. I believe he gave evidence at Port Essington. That gentleman appeared before us and spoke English very well. He was well educated, and we found that he had attended the Columbian College in New Westminster. I asked him whether he was naturalized and he said he was. I inquired as to when he had got naturalized and ascertained that at the time of his naturalization he was eight years of age. I believe he was twenty-two when he gave evidence. I asked him how he had managed to get naturalization when only eight years of age and he replied, "My father arranged that for me." I asked him when that had been done and he said it had been arranged the year his father brought him from Japan. That evidence was given before the Fisheries Commission on oath, and of course it is available to any hon. gentleman who cares to see it.
I might refer to the last remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in reference to the trade treaty. The right hon. gentleman said that if the members from British Columbia so desired that treaty could be abrogated, and he seemed to hold this out as somewhat of a threat to' us. Now, my stand in regard to that treaty was made plain when I submitted my resolution in regard to the exclusion of oriental immigrants, and one of the things I sugested was that this government should request the Imperial government to give notice of the abrogation of the treaty so far as Canada was concerned. I am not afraid of" the loss of trade at all; I am not afraid that the Japanese will not do business with us if we keep them out of this country. The Japanese is a man who does business along business lines and buys his goods where it profits him most to buy them. He will buy our goods just so long as he thinks he is getting value for his money, and
when he realizes that he is not he will deal with someone else. If he does not come to us for the goods which he at present gets from us, where is he going to get them? He is not going to go to the United States, because the same reasons would apply there as apply in this country to the Japanese. The United States certainly does not wish the Japanese to go there, so where will he go to get the goods he receives from us? This trade treaty is a trade bogey and I am not at all afraid of it. So far as this particular member from British Columbia is concerned you can abrogate the treaty right away.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me make it clear to my hon. friend that I was not attempting to utter any threats; nothing would be further from my mind than to do anything of that kind. I merely desired to inform the House of the possible consequences that might ensue from certain acts as represented to me.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is something else of significance I would draw to the attention of the committee in connection with this treaty. It is provided that the citizens of Japan shall not be discriminated against in any way in this country. That has led to a restriction of the rights of the legislatures of the provinces. It is well known that in British Columbia we have from year to year, I do not know on how many different occasions, passed legislation which might be said to come within this class, and all that legislation has been disallowed as discriminating against the Japanese. We had an example of this last year when the British Columbia government passed an order in council providing that no orientals should be employed on timber lands leased from the Crown in the right of the province. Afterwards an act was passed validating that order in council, and the order in council and the act having been taken before the courts of our province, and the Supreme Court of Canada those courts held them to be invalid as conflicting with the Japanese treaty. What did this government do? I must take exception to the course that was followed on that occasion. This government disallowed the provincial enactment. It seems to me that that disallowance was unnecessary if the courts were right. But this government went out of its way to disallow that provincial enactment, as Liberal governments had been doing on a great many occasions. It seemed to be the policy of Conservative governments in British Columbia to pass legislation along these lines and of Liberal governments to disallow it. Anyway, this government went
Supply-Immigration

out of its way to disallow this provincial enactment. British Columbia took the case to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council, as I am advised by the press despatches, has held that the province was right in passing the act. So that this government disallowed an act which the government of British Columbia had a perfect right to pass.
I would like to ask the minister what investigation has been made in regard to the incident of the Japanese freighter? If the Japanese government are sincere they will investigate the matter over there, and if the statements made by the stowaways are correct they should be able to put their finger on the gang who are carrying on this illegitimate business. Here is something that should be investigated, and I would like to know what has been done in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that after that occurrence the Japanese consul called upon me of his own volition and referred to the matter. He intimated that the Japanese government were having it looked into.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Joliffe has gone to investigate, but we have not had a report from him up to the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions-salaries and expenses, $140,000.
Mr. TOLMIE:: What exhibitions is this money for, and is it the intention that Canada shall participate in the Empire exhibition to be held in 1924?


Charles A. Stewart: It is our intention to participate in that event. Mr. Tolmie has just returned from the Old Country, but we have not yet had a report from him. For the collection of exhibits we have an appropriation of $35,000. For exhibitions in Great Britain and the United States the amount appropriated is $70,000 and for permanent exhibitions in those countries another $8,000 is provided. The appropriations for exhibitions are heavier this year on account of the advertising, which we are extending; we hope to increase our participation in exhibitions because of the resulting advantage to Canada in the way of advertising. We have been represented at Tampa last year and this year, at considerable expense, but we think it pays thus to display our products.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to point out the necessity of making a showing in those countries from which we hope to get immigrants. When I was in England I attended the big Royal Show, and I found that the Canadian exhibit there was not nearly equal to that of South Africa. South African pro-

ducts and the capabilities of that country were all well represented and their comer was crowded, while Canada's exhibit attracted very little attention. I have no doubt the minister was trying to economize, but it struck me as a very poor kind of economy. If any important effect is to be produced we must make a showing at least as good as that put up by other countries.


Mr. GARDINER:: How much does it cost to collect exhibits for the purposes of these exhibitions? How many men are employed? What are their names, and are they employed the year round?


Mr. STEW  ART@Argenteuil: I have not the names of the persons employed, or the number. The item of $35,000 is to cover the 'purchase price of samples of grains, grasses, fruits, vegetables and mineral specimens, together with the expenses of the field men.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: I understand that these are special Canadian exhibits made at state fairs. What kind of exhibits are shown-natural products, manufactured articles, food stuffs, or what?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not seen any of these exhibitions, but I get very glowing reports confcerning them. For example, I have a letter from the Exhibition Association at Tampa asking that our space there be doubled. I do not think, however, that it would be wise to do that, because the cost would be considerable; I would rather try to cover a larger area and enable more people to see the exhibits. We are trying to attract agricultural people to our country; therefore our exhibits are largely of agricultural products.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They are
under the supervision of some government official?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, of Mr. Tolmie.


Robert Gardiner: I got a report from a person whom I can vouch for that there was an official in Winnipeg-I do not know whether he was employed temporarily or permanently-gathering samples of grain at the end of July. We all realize that in western Canada you cannot at that time of the year collect samples of grain that will be of any value for exhibition purposes. I see no reason why money should be wasted in that way.


Charles A. Stewart: I did see one of our exhibits at Chicago, and one of the difficulties experienced there resulted from a lack of the exercise of due care in

Supply-Immigration
the selection of the samples of wheat in head, with the result that it was over ripe. I do know that a Mr. Smith was temporarily employed on this work last year. I will, however, get the names for my hon. friend of all who were employed and the period at which they did their work.


Robert Gardiner: The minister will agree that the end of July is no time to collect samples of grain in the West. As I have said, I see no reason why money should be spent in a futile search of that kind. I have no objection to representatives of the department collecting the samples at the proper time, but it cannot be done at the end of July.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not seen the samples received this year and I cannot say where they came from, but I understand that Mr. Tolmie is highly pleased with them. The getting of good samples this year was not a difficult matter, owing to the extra good crop that was grown in western Canada, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I happen to know something with regard to the gathering of these samples in Manitoba. The work is done by one of the permanent employees of the Immigration department there; as I understand it, it is part of his regular duties. As to going out in July, I may say that part of his work is to gather samples of native and cultivated grasses, and that of course, has to be done in July.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the total expenditure under this vote last year, and what was the proportion spent in each country where there was an exhibition?


Charles A. Stewart: For the
eleven months of the last year the total expenditure was $121,998. That includes $12,000 in connection with the visit of Colonel Belcher to Canada on behalf of the British Empire Exhibition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have not the answer yet. We spent last year $121,000. In what different countries was the money spent, and in what proportions?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the figures here, but I will get them for my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We started out with this item in 1921-22 in the amount of $90,000; last year it was $115,000, and the appropriation this year is $140,000. I understand from the general remarks of the minister that the activities of the department are to be increased. We require to know what has been spent in the past and where, because we have the idea that in some instances the efforts of the department went in the wrong direction. That information ought to be given to the committee before the item passes. Then, there is the question of salaries. WTe have in the main vote an appropriation of $700,000 for salaries, and under the head of Chinese Immigration the amount for salaries is $34,000. How much of this vote is for salaries, and what was paid out under that head last year?


Charles A. Stewart: The accountant informs me that there is no increase in the number of employees. iThe details are as follows: A. W. Tolmie, Exhibition Commissioner, $4,320; A. W. Despard, Chief of Agriculture and Exhibit Division, $3,240; W. D. Dalglish, Chief of Mineral and Decorative division, $3,240; J. O. Turcotte, Chief of Designing and Decorative division, $3,240. Miss E. M. Livingston, clerk-stenographer, $1,080; A. Pereira, clerk-stenographer, $1,600; R. G. Brown, exhibit decorator, $1,305; O. O Joubame, caretaker, $1,080. There are eight permanent employees with salaries aggregating $19,105. The temporary staff is as follows : R. J. Beesley, carpenter and A. De Jausserand, $5.60 per day (or current rate); W. Bayard, painter, $5.20 per day; and four labourers at $3.60 per day. The total amount estimated for wages for temporary employees is $5,895, making the total amount for salaries $25,000.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have not yet got the information, which I submit is both pertinent and necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: The amount spent last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: An hon. gentleman to my left asked, what is the cost of getting together these exhibits? Secondly, who are the men that look after that activity and where are they employed? I have asked what amount was spent last year and where was it spent? I have learned that $121,998 was spent, but the minister is not in a position to tell us where it was spent so that we might know whether it was usefully spent. Reserving the right to have that information perhaps he can tell us where it is proposed to spend this $140,000.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not that information at the moment.
Item stands.
Supply-Immigration

Relief of distressed Canadians abroad, $10,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister could tell us what was spent last year and what the condition is as to stranded and distressed Canadians overseas?


Charles A. Stewart: Last year, for the seven months ending October 31, 1922, we spent $5,922.92. It is, of course, very difficult to foresee just what your expenses will be under this vote. It is to cover the expenses incurred chiefly through the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London for relief and assistance to bona-fide Canadians who may be stranded abroad and temporarily distressed financially. In cases where 5 p.m. the department affords assistance to the extent of supplying transportation back to Canada, an undertaking is got from the individual to refund the sums advanced, and the department undertakes to collect from him personally in the first place, or secondly from his immediate relatives or friends. The amount this year, $10,000, is considered a reasonable estimate for the purpose.
Mr. CHAPLIN-: The amount of the vote for 1921-1922 was $6,000. It grew last year, but it seems to me that now things are getting better we should not be saddled with such a large expense for the coming year.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Has the minister a list of the countries in which these distressed Canadians are located, and the number in each country?


Charles A. Stewart: This amount is spent largely through the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London, and by far the greater proportion of the cases would be in Great Britain.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I was thinking more of the United States. Has the minister a statement of the amount spent there for the relief of distressed Canadians?


Charles A. Stewart: There have not been more than three or four cases all told, in the United States.


Mr. KNOX:: What percentage of the money advanced in this way is paid back again?


Charles A. Stewart: About ten per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister could not tell us just what class of people he finds requiring assistance. At one time we had a great many soldiers who had taken their discharge and were in very 
necessitous circumstances in England, and had to be helped home. Has that class been entirely looked after?


Charles A. Stewart: Answering my hon. friend from Lincoln, the reason for the increase last year was that votes for a similar purpose in the other departments were cut off, and it was all included in one vote in the Immigration department. The Immigration department was performing the service to a very large extent, but formerly /the expense was distributed among other departments. This year we are providing the service and the money as well.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I noticed that the year before it was $6,000, and it seemed a big increase last year.


Charles A. Stewart: That was the reason. [DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister is quite right. At one time there were several votes for looking after the soldier who had taken his discharge and really ought to have been looked after in England. Has that class been completely looked after by this time, or are there still Canadian soldiers in distressful circumstances in London?


Charles A. Stewart: We have fewer applications for assistance, but cases of this kind are constantly arising, although I assume there will be fewer returned soldiers
seeking assistance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the minister tell us what the policy is? Does the stranded soldier over there get this aid as his right, or is it given in one case and refused in the other?


Charles A. Stewart: Not so far as I know. The High Commissioner makes a decision as to who should be sent back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he report?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that the
time has expired for bringing men back from the Old Country.


Charles A. Stewart: That is true, and yet it is not true. Canada could not afford to refuse to bring back a man who was stranded. While the vote applies to civilians, there is no particular vote for the soldier. Therefore he is brought back by the same vote as brings back the civilians. He is,

therefore, a distressed Canadian. There is not any special vote to provide for the returned soldier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John immigration buildings, $23,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us how that work stands. I am speaking from recollection, and I hope my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong. I think the improvements at St. John were to cost approximately $42,000.


Charles A. Stewart: It must be more than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the committee should have full details as to what is going on there, and how it is being spent.


Charles A. Stewart: The amount we are asking in the vote for 1923 is $23,000. The sum voted for 1922-23 was $25,000. Under an agreement entered into between the Department of Immigration and Colonization and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the department is bearing one half the cost of construction and maintenance of the following buildings necessary for the proper handling of immigrants arriving at the port of St.
Baggage shed, our	share	$88,048	28Detention quarters,	our share	
55,748	68Waiting room, our	share	
20,419	11Total cost to department	164*216	07
($5,748.68 extras total paid by department).


Henry Lumley Drayton: That $5,748.68 is for extras?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. That leaves the sum of $158,467.39. This sum is payable in ten yearly instalments plus interest at the rate of 5i per cent on outstanding balances at the end of each year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When do we start paying? How much has been paid?
STEWART (Argenteuil): We paid Sio.OOO last year.


James Dew Chaplin: In the previous year there was an amount of $43,000 for the same thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was $1,000 out. I said $42,000.


Mr. MacLAREN:: These buildings have been completed, have they not?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I know, they are now completed. This is the total cost of the building, $158,467.39. Was my hon. friend referring to two years ago when he spoke of $43,000.
Supply-Immigration
Mr.-CHAPLIN: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: The answer that the accountant gives me, although we have not the figures here, is that this will provide for the fourth payment. There was a payment of $43,000 which practically covered two payments, or a proportionate amount of them, I presume based on the date of construction. Last year we paid $25,000. This year we are paying $23,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the amounts will decrease?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what will be next year's payment?


Charles A. Stewart: The same, I suppose, less interest-based on ten annual payments.	*


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is for interest and how much for principal of this $23,000.	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: This information can easily be secured. We have not it before us. If the item is allowed to pass, we will bring the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister explains that we have to pay $158,467.39 in ten annual instalments. That would make the capital of each annual instalment $15,826.73. Nevertheless last year we paid $2o'-
000.	Of course it is plus interest. What rate of interest was charged?


Charles A. Stewart: I think that perhaps in addition there is caretaking, cleaning etc., and that would amount to a very considerable sum. My hon. friend is probably correct. Our principal payment is in the neighbourhood of $16,000, and the interest on the amount charged makes the balance up to $23,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What rate of
interest is charged?


Charles A. Stewart: Five and
one-half per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hardly think
it will run up to that figure.
Mr.. CHAPLIN:	What is the general
arrangement regarding the upkeep of this proposition and the cost of maintenance? I understand, as regards the building itself, we pay half the cost and the Canadian Pacific pay the other half. What about the care of it?
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. gentleman's question is as to maintenance, is it not?


James Dew Chaplin: Not only maintenance, but the cost of running, heating, caretaking.


Charles A. Stewart: Operation
of cleaning, 100 per cent; for construction of the building, 50 per cent, and subsequent, maintenance of the structure and seats, 50 per cent. I do not know why seats are included, unless, perhaps, they are permanent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
cost of cleaning?
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil):	I have not
the figures before me, but I will give the proportion. Electric lighting, 100 per cent; water supply, 100 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister give us the figure for the electric lighting?


Charles A. Stewart: Steam heating, wages and fuel-the Canadian Pacific pay that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We need not
bother about that.


Charles A. Stewart: Nursery
fittings and furniture.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who pays that?


Charles A. Stewart: The government. Toilet necessaries and supplies, 100 per cent.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON [DOT] Are the nursery fittings and the chairs not included in the total given by the minister as the capital cost? I think the sum was to include the construction and also the fitting up.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand, then, that we are to pay ten instalments, amounting to some $88,000, and another ten amounting to $70,000 odd. X understood the minister to say that the ten instalments covering the $70,000 were to commence in 1921. Is that not an error? Or do we pay both sets of instalments concurrently, in the same ten-year period? As I understood the reading of the agreement, the $80,000 payments came first.


Charles A. Stewart: Of the $164,216.08 the minister has already paid the sum of $5,748.69 leaving a balance of $158,467.39, which is to be paid as follows: $88,048.28 in ten equal annual instalments commencing January
Supply-Immigration
1,	1920, and $70,419.11 in ten equal annual instalments commencing January 1, 1921. Interest is to be paid on the first day of January in each year at the rate of 51 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, as I have said, we do start paying both sets of instalments now.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that we are paying approximately $15,000 a year.


Charles A. Stewart: The only difference is that we commenced paying in 1920 in the one case and in 1921 in the other.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is doing the work of cleaning, maintenance, etc?


Charles A. Stewart: It will be carried on under the supervision of the commissioner in charge. I cannot give my hon. friend accurate information as to whether one staff will do the work and a division of costs be made afterwards, or whether it will be done by two staffs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In some instances the burden is thrown on the company and in others on the government. I want to know what the department is really doing there. Take this particular item, for instance. How much of this is salaries, and how much is required for cleaning, etc?


Charles A. Stewart: None of the items I have mentioned are for the purposes of cleaning. This is merely to cover interest on principal and re-payment on the building fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If this is merely an item of interest, and re-payment on the building fund it cannot possibly amount to $23,000.


Mr. CAHILL:: Why not? The agreement shows payments of $15,000 and $8,000 respectively, or $23,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman has not been following the committee. We have been told that $43,000 of the capital has been paid. If it is paid it is no longer subject to the 5\ per cent. We were told also that $25,000 was paid last year. These two sums amount to $68,000 and that reduces the capital to below $100,000. Now, $5,500 is 5J per cent on $100,000. In other words we do not know where we are. I will ask the min-ister*if that is true. I understood that in the first place, $43,000 has been paid on this account. It that true?

Supply-Immigration


Frank S. Cahill: According to the agreement the minister read, $8,000 was to be paid in 1920 and $8,000 plus $7,000 in 1921. So that it is impossible to have paid $60,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not discussing the possibility of its having been paid; I am asking the minister whether it is true that these amounts have been paid. Maybe the information we got before was wrong; I do not know. It was said that a sum, which of course includes interest, of $43,000 was paid on account of this claim in 1922. Now, I am asking the minister whether that information is correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I scarcely think it can be correct in the light of the agreement. This is 1923; 1921 was the date from which the interest was to be charged in one case, and 1920 in the other. We have not the figures before us and we cannot give them accurately, and I think therefore that the best thing that we can do is to get the correct figures dealing with the whole situation from its inception.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that the item stands?


James Dew Chaplin: Does the city of St. John retain any interest or title in the land on which the building stands?


Charles A. Stewart: It would appear from the agreement that they still retain the ownership in the land.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems a most extraordinary thing that the Canadian Pacific Railway should put up a building on a piece of land owned by another corporation. They are not in the habit of doing that.


Charles A. Stewart: All I know about the matter is what is in the agreement. One of the provisions of the agreement is this:	.
Whereas, pursuant to an understanding between the parties, the company has constructed a baggage shed and other works hereinafter referred to upon land belonging to the city of St. John, with the consent of the said city, etc.


James Dew Chaplin: That is what I understood the minister to read. It seems a most extraordinary arrangement.


Charles A. Stewart: Another
provision reads:	.
The company hereby assigns to the minister the right granted by the city of St. John, etc.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me a fnost
extraordinary thing that a building of this magnitude, half owmed by the government
'Sir Henry Drayton.]
and half by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, should be placed upon land owned by the city of St. John.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the city gave the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway the right to erect the building there.


James Dew Chaplin: It does not say so.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister himself does not know how this matter stands. I think his first figures were all wrong.


Mr. DUFF:: Who signed the agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: I signed it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not blame the minister for signing the agreement, all I want is to get the facts. I think it will be found that the city has given an absolute right for the maintenance of this property and that we are to get the use of the land free of cost. I am not finding fault with that. All we want to know is what we are voting, and what it is for. The minister has himself given us certain figures which apparently are wrong.


Frank S. Cahill: The amount was not paid on principal alone, but on principal and interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend, but we were told to the contrary.


Charles A. Stewart: After a
careful reading of the agreement I think that possibly the statement is not correct. Those sums of money were not paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think you are right. I think there is an error there.


Charles A. Stewart: We will get that information.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the idea of calling an item "carried" when the minister himself admits a mistake has been made in the figures. Either the committee has or has not a right to know what it is voting for. If it has that right the item must stand; if it has not that right we will discuss the point.

Supply-/ mmigration


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
engaging in any discussion as to whether the item shall stand or not. I have promised the hon. gentleman this information and I will get it for him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is no good to us after the item is passed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: And no wrong either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be, I do not know. The hon. minister says he is not in a position to-day to give the committee this information. If the Chair desires a discussion upon the right of the committee to get the information, I am quite prepared to take it up.


Mr. CANNON:: My hon. friend seems to have new scruples. I remember when he was sitting on this side, and I was sitting on the other side, whenever I wanted information, and the minister did not happen to have it at hand, he would say: "Let the item pass and I will get you the information afterwards." I am quite sure that the hon. minister will supply the information promised. My hon. friend and most of his colleagues did the same thing. I may recall to his memory the hon. gentleman who was Minister of Railways. He had quite a habit of inviting us to go to his office to get information. I do not think the hon. gentleman need have such keen scruples. This is nothing new.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it is nothing new. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is thought that I have a right to the information or not. I do not recollect any particular instance that the hon. gentleman is complaining about. I should like him to tell me when I refused to give him any information he was entitled to. I should also like to know, when I was on the other side of the House, whether I ever got an item through on the pretence of giving information afterwards and failing to do so.


Lucien Cannon: That is not what I meant, and I never so stated. I said it very often happened that when the hon. gentleman was minister he would say "Let the item pass and I wjll give the information to my hon. friend when I have it." Very often this was done by the hon. gentleman and by most of his colleagues.


Frank S. Cahill: It has always been done.
Mr.STEWART (Argenteuil): The accountant thinks he can get this information immediately after dinner, when we can close out the item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We can deal with it this evening.
Item stands.
To provide assistance by advances or grants to immigrants under agreement to be made with the Imperial government under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and to hereby authorize the Governor in Council to make such agreement as he may deem expedient thereunder, and to expend the moneys hereby voted in such manner and subject to such regulations as he may prescribe, 4600,000.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to make a few remarks with regard to immigration. I restrained myself last night because I thought the minister was anxious to pass the item we were then discussing, and also because my remarks might have been out of order like those of a good many other members who spoke yesterday. I never like to speak very long, so I am glad to see the clock says twenty minutes to six. I intend to close within twenty minutes.
I think it is my duty at the outset to express my views on immigration in order to offset some of the views presented by members from western Canada, especially from the prairie provinces. My sympathies are with the acting-Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart). I think it is evident from the amount of information that he could not give us today that he is overworked and is not able to keep in touch with every branch of his department. Therefore I would very strongly recommend that the government appoint a minister to take sole charge of immigration, which is one of the most important questions we have to deal with. My sympathy for the minister is also aroused because of certain statements that have been made from his own side of the House as well as from this side.
I wish to express my appreciation of my honoured leader from Brandon (Mr. Forke) on his stand in regard to immigration. Wherever he has spoken in the Dominion he has said that what we wanted were more people of the right type, and I agree with him. I also wish to congratulate the member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) on his contribution to the debate, although he had the temerity to say that probably some of us farmers in Manitoba tried to scratch too much land. However, I quite agree that this is so in many cases. In fact I have myself tried to scratch too much land.
I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that no member from the province of Manitoba defamed his province. I think it is a credit to my colleagues from Manitoba. We know we have hard conditions in western Canada; indeed, there is not a member of this House outside the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) more hard up than myself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do you
know?

Supply-Immigration


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And if the resolution of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) had carried I would have been even more hard up. But here let me make a statement of a personal character. I left the province of Quebec forty-one years ago next month.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: How old were you?


Mr. ROBB:: You were brought up in a good province.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I left as a baby and have lived in the province of Manitoba on the banks of the Red river since 1882. I have travelled throughout the whole of western Canada right to the coast and know it about as well as the average man in this country. And I might state right here that one of the biggest troubles in this House is that we do not know our own country sufficiently well. I want to extend an invitation to hon. members from eastern Canada to come out to the West and see our country.


Mr. POWER:: The climate is too dry.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I may tell the hon. member for Quebec South that we are going to have a vote on that question in Manitoba next June. So you see that I have a fair knowledge of the province of Manitoba, and to that province I wish chiefly to refer. No one has more faith in western Canada than I have; no one has more faith in Manitoba than I have. We are hard up, but we are hopeful. In Manitoba we have more and better land prepared than has been the case at any other time in the history of the province. This question of immigration is a peculiar one in some respects. Mr. C. H. Burnell, president of the United Farmers of Manitoba, stated that the question of immigration came down to this: do we want neighbours? We want them in Manitoba. Do we want more children to fill our schools? We do want them. Do we want more people to patronize our railways? We do. If my hon. friends in Alberta do not want immigrants, I may tell the minister that he may send to Manitoba those he has allotted to Alberta, and we will give them a good welcome.
I would like to point out also that through a short-sighted policy-at least I think so; I may be wrong-on the part of our late provincial government, the Mennonites are leaving the province and going to Mexico. I have great respect for them; they are good farmers. They are leaving some of the best lands we have in Manitoba, and to-day those lands, with buildings in good condition, can

be had at reasonable prices. So that there is quite an advantage available to people who come to our part of the country. I would advise the minister, however, to endeavour to get men who have a little capital, because to have money is a great advantage and to be without it is a serious handicap. The question arises, where are we going to get immigrants? I suggest that if the minister devoted all his energy to getting back the Canadians who have gone from our country to the United States, he would be doing something well worth while. There are millions of Canadians over there whose hearts are still with Canada. If the minister would endeavour to bring back a lot of the French Canadians, those families where the stork comes round about once a year, he would not have to give his attention to child immigration from older countries. And there are not only French Canadians; there are good Scotch Canadians in those eastern states-and I know how good the Scotch are, because I have a Scotch wife. Then there are the Irish Canadians-and I am standing beside an Irishman right here. These are the people we should try to bring into the country, people who have a certain amount of money. I am not in favour of going to Europe to get immigrants. I have nothing against the European people; I think a lot of them. But under present conditions in Europe you cannot get immigrants from there who have any money and it is going to be hard for anyone who comes here without it. I know from conversations I have had and from inquiries I have received that there are many people in the eastern states that are willing to come to Canada and assume their share in the task of building up our country. I would, therefore, strongly advise the minister to use his best efforts to get immigrants from there.
Under this item of $600,000 I do not know exactly what the proposal of the minister is. but it seems to me that it is going to be more or less in the nature of assistance to steamship companies. I may be wrong, and I hope I am. But I do think that'if that $600,000 were used to carry on a propaganda in the United States with a view to bringing back our own good Canadians the result would be more beneficial than any payments out for steamship fares. In Manitoba, within a comparatively short distance of the city of Winnipeg, we have all kinds of wheat lands that are unoccupied and that can be bought at a small sum per acre. If you bring immigrants to Manitoba you do not immediately have to start to build branch line railways; they are there already and those who come

Private Bills
to our province can all settle within a reasonable distance of railway facilities, which is no small advantage for any immigrant. Then Manitoba being the oldest province in the West, we have far more institutions than they have in the other provinces; in fact, as the member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) quite correctly said the other day, we are over-institutionalized. I think the minister should certainly do all he can to give Manitoba a large share of immigrants.
I stated, Sir, that I wished to conclude my remarks within twenty minutes, and I shall not detain the committee longer. But I did not want to let this debate go by without expressing my views on the questions before the committee and without expressing my faith in Canada. I am Canadian born and I am proud of it. I repeat that no one has more faith in this country than I have and, at the same time, less money in his pocket.
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. 4, respecting certain patents of Leonard Clayton Ridge.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 33, respecting The Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 35, respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
Bill No. 39, respecting The Rutland and Noyan Railway Company.-Mr. Tobin.
Bill No. 40, respecting a certain patent of Henry Matthew Wells and James Edward Southcombe.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Bill No. 46, respecting The Community, General Hospital, Alms House, and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 47, respecting a certain patent of Clarence P. Landreth.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Bill No. 48, respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. McMurray.
Bill No. 49, respecting a patent of Robert A. Campbell.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 50, to incorporate The Protestant Federation of Patriotic Women of Canada.- Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 51, respecting a certain patent of James M. Richardson.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 55, (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Moran-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 56, (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Lillian Duncan.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill	No.	57,	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Florence Mary Ramsden.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill	No.	58,	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Ross John Craig.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 59, (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Dodds.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill	No.	60,	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Blanche Hilton.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 61 (from the Senate), for the relief of May Woodbridge.-Mr. Harris.
Bill	No.	62	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Alice May Smith.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Ernest Mould.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill	No.	64	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Winifred Rose Foster.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate), for the relief of Emily May Small.-Mr. Garland (Carlt-ton).
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate), for the relief of Irene Herdsman.-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
Bill	No.	67	(from	the	Senate),	for	therelief	of John	Frederick	King Hall.-Mr. McMaster.Bill	No.	68	(from	the	Senate),	for	tne
relief of Herbert Martin.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick John Saunders.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert Archibald Logan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No, 71 (from the Senate), for the rebel of Violet Marie Finn.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 73 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harriet Ethelwyn Kingsley.-Mr. Rankin.
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.
Supply-Immigration

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. S3, respecting Canadian Press Limited.
On section 1-Change of name and rights saved.	,
Frank S. Cahill: I would like some explanation of the meaning of this bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not charge of the bill but I am familiar with it. I think the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is very familiar with this subject. It is merely a company which looks after the collection and dissemination of newspaper news. They are changing their name, and turning the company from an ordinary share company to a company which will have no stock issue at all. The different newspapers will have a representative in that company. Those representatives are called shareholders, although as a matter of fact they will have no money in it. The management will look after the collection and distribution of news particularly for the newspapers interested in it. They change from a share company into one without money shares and one that is to be without profit.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it not pretty much a mohopoly in regard to news items? Will the bringing of this company under Dominion legislation have any effect in regard to any person suing the company?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a provision in the bill reserving all rights in that regard. As to monopolies, I think my hon. friend is looking after all monopolies this year, even in the newspapers.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is there anything in the bill to prevent any newspaper that may be subsequently established from going into the association?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think so.


Mr. BOYS:: I might say, in the absence of the hon. member in charge of the bill, that this measure has two purposes. One is that the word "limited" now existing shall be dropped. The company is now known as the Canadian Press Limited and the word "limited" will be dropped. The purpose of the bill is to convert the company from one with share capital to a corporation without share capital and with no participation in profits by anyone, and there is a clause in the bill which provides that if there is any money made it cannot be distributed as dividends.
Section agreed . to.
(Mr. Beaubien.]
On section 5-Provisions of Companies Act not applicable to corporation.


Mr. COPP:: This clause exempts the company from the operation of certain clauses of the Companies Act.


William Alves Boys: These clauses are not applicable to a company with share capital.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committe of Supply.
To provide assistance under Empire Settlement Act, 1922, 3600,000.
Mr. FORKE:: On behalf of the members in this part of the House, I would ask that this item stand and that the minister be requested to bring it down in itemized form. The item reads:
To provide assistance by advances or grants to immigrants under agreement to be made with the Imperial government under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and to hereby authorize the Governor in Council to make such agreement as he may deem expedient thereunder, and to expend the moneys hereby voted in such manner and subject to such regulations as he may prescribe, $600,000.
Item 53 I desire also to be brought down itemized. It is as follows:
Immigration contingencies and general expenses, including grants to immigration or colonization societies, or associations, as may be authorized by the Governor General in Council, $1,850,000.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Why do you want them itemized?


Robert Forke: Because we want to know what they mean.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps,
then, I might give the information in regard to item 58 for which hon. members have asked.	,
Item stands.
St. John immigration buildings, $23,000.


Charles A. Stewart: The amount paid for the fiscal year 1920-21 was $8,804.83; the amount paid for the fiscal year 1921-22 was $37,194.06; and for the fiscal year 1922-23 $22,610. These are interest and principal payments to date.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That does not give us the information we want. It does not show how much we have paid for principal, how much for interest and how much towards upkeep. We have not got that yet.

Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: We shall have to have more time to get that.
Item stands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend has information in regard to item 55, which also was allowed to stand.
Exhibitions-salaries and expenses, $140,000.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) asked who was in charge of the collection of exhibits in the West. The answer is: Mr. Oakley, assisted by Mr. John Hoey and Mr. W. C. Carson at Winnipeg. Mr. Despard and Mr. Dalgleish, respectively are in charge of the preparation of the fruit and mineral exhibits at Ottawa.


William Alves Boys: I observe that for 1920-21 this vote was $80,000; for 1921-22, $90,000; for 1922-23, $15,000; and for 1923-24 we are now considering an expenditure of $140,000. As far as I know immigration and colonization has not been on the increase in recent years, on the contrary, it has declined, but for some ireason the item itself is increasing very rapidly from year to year. What is the explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: I gave the
explanation before dinner. I promised to give my hon. friend a list of places where fairs are held; I have not been able to get the expenditure in each case. We are spending more money on exhibitions, believing that attractive exhibits of the products of Canada, particularly at fairs in the United States, is money well spent. We are concentrating our efforts there, although we spent $25,000 for the same purpose in Great Britain last year. This is the list of the places in the United States where we have exhibited our products :
Davenport, Iowa; Hartford, Conn.; Springfield, Mass.: Brockton, Mass.; Waterbury, Vermont; Poland, Maine; Manchester, N.H.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Atlanta, Georgia; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit, Mich,; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Indianapolis, Indiana; Louisville, Ky.; Memphis, Tenn.; Sedalia, Mo.; Dallas, Texas; Waco, Texas; Sioux City, Iowa; Des Moines, Iowa; Waterloo, Iowa; Mason City, Iowa; Oskaloosa, Iowa; Minneapolis, Minn.; Milwaukee, Minn.; Fargo, N.D.; Haron, N.D.; Lincoln, Neb.; Spokane, Wash.; Salem, Oregon; Chicago, 111. (International).
These are all fairly large fairs and it requires a considerable expenditure to set up our exhibits.


Mr. GOOD:: Is the purpose of these exhibits to attract rettlers?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Does this item merely cover salaries in connection with these exhibits?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The
$140,000 I am asking for covers the total expense for the United States. In addition we have two cars on the road in Great Britain for exhibition purposes accompanied by lecturers. This expense is taken care of in the larger vote for immigration contingencies.


William Alves Boys: Are we getting results from this expenditure?


Charles A. Stewart: I am pleased to tell my hon. friend that the immigration returns for February are 50 per cent higher than for the same month of last year. So we are getting some results for our expenditure.


James Dew Chaplin: How long has the exhibition been running at Atlanta, for instance?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry I cannot answer my hon. friend's question. I got the list of fairs from Mr. Tolmie.
Mr, CHAPLIN: Is Atlanta a good point at which to exhibit our products?


Charles A. Stewart: I think there might be some doubt about Tampa, Florida, but a great many people go down from the central states to spend the winter in the South, and they have a very fine fair at Atlanta. Our people think they secure good results. They get a great number of inquiries about Canada from visitors to the fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is Palm Beach overlooked?


Mr. GRAHAM:: There is a show there
every minute.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood the minister to say that the object of advertising at Atlanta or Tampa was because a lot of Canadians go down there every winter, and thus they get an opportunity to see our exhibits.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry
my hon. friend misunderstood me. I said people from the central states go down South in the winter time.


William Alves Boys: It is just at the fairs you do the exhibiting?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I think the best city in the
South for this purpose would be St. Peters-
Supply-I mmigration

burg. It has a much larger population than the other places mentioned and you will find a tremendous number of visitors there in January and February.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But they are all wealthy people and play golf.


William Charles Good: How many settlers have we secured as a result of this expenditure on fairs in the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: I stood at the International in Chicago for a few hours and saw a great many people from various parts of the United States discussing our exhibits with our agents and taking our advertising pamphlets, but it would be very difficult to say how many settlers came here as a result.


William Charles Good: I presume we have some record of the number of immigrants from the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we have; but what proportion would come as a result of having seen our exhibits it would be very difficult to say. I think my hon. friend will agree that if we will not spend any money to attract immigrants we cannot expect very many to come here.


William Charles Good: Are we getting results from this particular kind of advertising at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I believe it is the best form of advertising we can engage in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give us his own views on this subject? Everyone appreciates that it is a first-rate idea to advertise our farms in places where there is a reasonable chance of getting immigrants. For example, the central West and further west, in climates which are at least not tropical. But does the minister really think it is wise to spend money upon exhibits at winter resorts attended by pleasure seekers-golfers, bathers, and so on from all over the continent, people who certainly are not thinking of migrating? Is the idea to give a first rate winter holiday to some of our officials? If so, and if the minister thinks we should spend money in that way, the idea is a good one. Does the minister honestly think he is going to get immigrants from Tampa, Florida, or from Georgia?


Charles A. Stewart: I know' of at least six or seven who came from Ohio into western Canada and who had been at Tampa. Henry Ford has made it possible for farmers
(.Mr. Bovs.l
to travel great distances these days. I am told that as many as six or seven hundred farmers with motor cars visited that fair in the winter season. I may say I had the same view that my hon. friend holds in the matter and I made some investigation as to who attended these fairs. I was under the impression that they were patronized by rich men who were there spending the winter and seeking recreation. We set up exactly the same exhibit at Tampa that we show at Chicago and at Des Moines. These people seem to wander around a good deal; they travel immense distances in their own cars. My hon. friend will agree, from the list I have read of the fairs in which we are interested, that we are not spending a very large amount of money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be too small and too finely spread to do any good.


Charles A. Stewart: The bulk of our people come from central and western United States. The eastern circuit I have mentioned is given attention largely to induce people to come into eastern Canada. In my opinion this money is well spent; it is better than newspaper advertising. The people see the exhibits and learn exactly what can be done in Canada. In fact, I think the expenditure is one we might increase to dur advantage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So long as it was made where it would be some good. How much money is spent on these exhibits in the southern states and in the semi-tropical zone?


Charles A. Stewart: The same as at Iowa, for example. It is the same exhibit.


Mr. HANSON:: What is the average cost for each exhibit?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give that information, but it cannot run very high. The goods are in charge of experts; they are moved from place to place, and the cost is reduced to a minimum.


William Alves Boys: What is the proportion for
salaries?	-


Charles A. Stewart: The amount is $25,000.	'


William Alves Boys: If you divide the balance by the number of fairs in which we participate, you would get the cost, I assume, of each exhibit?


Charles A. Stewart: Practically.

Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: How many years has the minister been spending money at Tampa for these purposes?


Charles A. Stewart: 9 p.m. Three.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At
how many places in Great Britain do we exhibit and how long have we been doing so?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give that information. That work is in charge of Mr. Obed Smith. Most of these exhibits are permanent in their character; an exception, of course, is the travelling car I have mentioned.


William Alves Boys: These exhibits do not form part of this item?


Charles A. Stewart: No, except as regards the collection of exhibits.


Mr. LADNER:: Are any of these exhibits made on the occasion of international expositions at centres like Brussels and Paris?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I know, those places are not visited by our exhibits. We are sending a commercial exhibit to France this year that will travel in a train of motor lorries.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I understand that the government received an invitation to send an exhibit to the Brussels Fair of last year. Did the government participate in that fair for trade purposes?


Charles A. Stewart: Not our department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are now spending, according to the minister, $90,000 in the States and $25,000 in Great Britain. There is an increase of $25,000. Where is that increase to go?


Charles A. Stewart: It will go to both Great Britain and the United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will there be any extensions down in Georgia?


Charles A. Stewart: There will be no extension in Florida or Georgia, so far as I know. My hon. friend does not think it is good business to send our exhibits down there ?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly do
not.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say that I am only going on the reports in the department. I promise my hon. friend that I will make careful inquiries and if it is not profitable to. go down there I will cut the
expenditure out. We are spending a largely increased amount on advertising this year and I am keying every advertisement in order to be able to give full information as to the value we are receiving for our money. It is my intention to do the same thing in connection with the fairs. Of course, my hon. friend will understand how difficult it is to know just what you are getting in the way of direct returns from a fair, but the farmers are interested in fairs; they go to them and enjoy them, and it is the farmers we are trying to attract.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are there any moneys
spent along this line in Oregon and Washington, and if so, in what counties?


Charles A. Stewart: Spokane is
the only point we visit with the fair.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What amount was
spent in Great Britain under this heading last year? The amount this year is $25,000.


Charles A. Stewart: No. I will give my hon. friend the amount we estimate for exhibitions in Great Britain this year, although it does not come under this item. We propose to spend in Great Britain $302,000, and in the United ^States $370,000. That is in advertising, and in just this kind of work. We exhibit the different products at these exhibitions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are these products our
natural resources or manufactured products?


Charles A. Stewart: The exhibits I am speaking of now are all agricultural products?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do they include timber
from British Columbia, Douglas fir, for instance, fruit or anything of that kind?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I saw that in London in the British Columbia office. As a matter of fact, the immigration offices of this government are in the same building at the moment.


Thomas George McBride: I would just like to say a word in connection with these fairs. I think it was in 1910 that the World's Fair was held at Seattle. Canada had an exhibit down there. I have always thought a good deal of Canada, but never felt as proud of Canada as I did when I looked at our exhibition in Seattle. I happened to go down there twice, and on the second occasion I had some friends with me who had come out from the Old Country, and they were amazed at the exhibition. All the people I talked to admitted that Canada's exhibit was the best there. I think a little
Supply

Immigration

money spent in this way is the best advertisement Canada can get, and I do not think the committee should hold up this estimate any longer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am glad that the Minister of Finance is in his seat at the present time. I just want to make a general observation as to the estimates, about something which I have always felt was wrong. My hon. friend knows how hard it is to get things changed. I want to draw not only the attention of this House but his attention in particular to this matter.
One of the great defects in our method of book-keeping and the presentation of our estimates at the present time is that no one can very well find out what the cost of anything is to the country. Just to illustrate. Civil government is supposed to carry the salary lists of the country. It is supposed to have segregated there the salaries having regard to the different activities of the country, but it does not by any manner of means include them all. We have a way of putting in salaries here, and there, and the other place. We have a switch of salaries this year from one vote to another vote. I am not saying it is wrong, except that the whole principle is absolutely wrong, because by doing that any method of comparison disappears. There ought to be one account for the salaries. Take, for example, the Department of Immigration and Colonization. We have in the first instance a civil government list amounting to $272,000. That is all salaries. Then in vote No. 52 we have for the outside service, salaries amounting to $700,000, which has to be added to the other salaries. Then in the few items we have been considering this afternoon we have salaries in the vote for Chinese immigration, over and above the other activities, amounting to $34,000. Then we have salaries of $25,000 covered up in the exhibition vote. I throw this out as a suggestion to my hon. friend. It really would be a good thing if everybody short of the expert could know just what the different activities of the country were costing to the country. Here we have in this one department civil government salaries amounting to $272,000, and salaries covered by these other items I have mentioned amounting in all to $829,000.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to the expenditure under this vote of $25,000 in Great Britain and $90,000 in the United States


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is wrong. Where does he get the $90,000? It is $50,000.


Donald Sutherland: I took the figures down as they were given by the minister, and I certainly understood that $90,000 was being spent in the United States, $25,000 in Great Britain, and $25,000 for salaries, making a total of $140,000. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend never heard me say that there was $90,000 appropriated for the United States.


Donald Sutherland: We were told that $25,000 was being spent in Great Britain, and $25,000 for salaries. Then where the balance is to be spent if not in the United States, I do not know.


Charles A. Stewart: I will give the hon. gentleman the information, and will he take it down this time? If these questions are for the purpose of holding up this vote, there is no use in giving information. I have given it half a dozen times already.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us get it.


Charles A. Stewart: Take it
down this time, please. The amount of the vote is $140,000; collection of exhibits, $35000; exhibits in the United States, $50,000; exhibits in Great Britain, $20,000, and window displays, $8,000; salaries as per detailed statement, $25,000, and unforeseen, $2,000. The figures I have given represent the cost of sending these exhibits to the Old Country and to the United States, and do not include the cost of the fair itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to apologize to my hon. friend. I am sure no one wants to bother him, but on the other hand he will bear with me, I do not think he ever said a word about that $35,000 cost of collection.


Charles A. Stewart: I mentioned it innumerable times to-night. Was there not an inquiry from the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) as to who gathered the exhibits in Quebec?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We got the name but not the amount.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amount was given.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I want to apologize, as I got up to do. I am very sorry. Let us see if we have it right now. We have $35,000 for the collection of the exhibits. Are the salaries or any of the officials included in that $35,000?


Charles A. Stewart: No

Supply-Immigration


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. The $50,000 for the United States is the cost of exhibiting the samples which are collected here and sent there.


Charles A. Stewart: The same thing applies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What happens to the collection that costs you $35,000?


Charles A. Stewart: They are collected for the same purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to help my hon. friend but he will not let me. The cost for collecting samples was $35,000, and those samples are sent to the States-


Charles A. Stewart: I will read exactly what is done. I read it twice before:
This is to include the purchase price of samples of grains, grasses, fruits, vegetables and mineral specimens, together with expenses of field men, and staff in grain warehouse in Winnipeg.
Exhibits at state and county fairs in the United States, $50,000. This to include charges for space, freight, express, duty on exhibits, travelling expenses of agents in charge, also salary and expenses of temporary assistants at different fairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You send those exhibits down there; you do not get them in the States? I suppose these are part of the exhibits you paid $35,000 to collect?


Charles A. Stewart: I would imagine so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I asked a moment ago when we had the difficulty. So that the $50,000 for the States would be over and above the samples covered by the $35,000 and I think that the same thing would apply to the $20,000 for Great Britain.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. The memo I have reads:
Exhibits in Great Britain including freight of shipment for Canada, freight and express charges in Great Britain, rental of space and expense of
assistants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think you told us what window displays are?


Charles A. Stewart: These are window displays in the various agencies of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide assistance to immigrants under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, $600,000.
Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend (Mr. Forke) asked for a more detailed statement of this item. I can quite appreciate his request for information on the large amount that will come up for consideration
next week, but I want to point out that this will be a very difficult matter to itemize We are endeavouring at the moment to make an arrangement with the Overseas Settlement Board for co-operation. If we do not get co-operation we cannot spend the money. I explained the proposal the other day, and I will explain it again to-night briefly. The first idea we had was the bringing of children from the Old Country. I pointed out that there was a place for these children in Canada, but that they would not be brought here if there were no foster homes for them. I have a list of the homes or places from where these children will be secured in Great Britain, and I though it was good business to ask for an appropriation to encourage the immigration of these young people. The organizations that have been doing this work have found it exceedingly difficult in recent years to secure the funds for the maintenance of the homes and carrying on the work of the education of these children and the training and clothing of them. It has been carried on very largely by voluntary effort on the part of English people, and there is a number of very admirable homes from which these children can be selected. I sent Mr. Smart over there to make an examination of the children, first to see where we could secure the kind of children that would be desirable to bring to Canada, because I want to assure the committee that we do not desire to bring any children who would be undesirable. They will all be carefully selected and brought to Canada on application from Canadian people themselves. Unless there are homes for them they will not be brought. It has to be borne in mind that we expect the Empire Settlement Board to join us and put up the same amount of money we will put up, and in this particular case we do not expect any return. It will be a straight grant. I had estimated-I do not know whether the amount will cover the cost -$80 per head to pay the passage of these children; that would be $40 for the Canadian government and $40 for the Overseas Settlement Board. I will read you the names of the homes. There are many other homes in addition to these where fine children can be procured, but these are homes that have been in existence for a number of years, and eventually I hope that, perhaps,, we can branch out, if this scheme proves successful, and there is a demand for children, or a place for them to go. These homes will be inspected as well as the children, so that the complaint that is so frequently made that children are being made slaves and are not receiving attention will be avoided as far as possible. It would

Su p ply-1 immigration
also entail the cost of the inspection of these children once or twice a year, at least. Some one asked the other night if these children would be sent to school. They will come under the provisions of the laws of the province in which they are located, and as hon. members know in some of the provinces today the school age has been extended to sixteen years. These are some of the places we hope to place the children-
Children
Miss Macpherson and Mrs. Birt, London and Liverpool, (Canadian Head-quarters), Marchmont Homes, Belle-	Year	Immigratedville, Ont	
Miss Rye and Church of England, Niagara-on-Lake,	1868 to 1921	13.976Ont., and Sherbrooke, Que. Mr. (now Sir) J. T. Middle-more, Fairview, Halifax,	1868 to 1921	3,766N.S	
The National Children's Home and Orphanage (formerly Dr. T. Bowman Stephenson)	1873 to 1921	4,915Hamilton, Ont	
Mrs. Bilbrough-Wallace (Marchmont Home), Belle-	1874 to 1921	2.761ville, Ont	
Cardinal Manning (Ottawa	1878 to 1915	5,529and Montreal)	
Dr. Barnardo, Toronto, Peter-	1880 to 1888	1,403borough and Winnipeg. Man. Mr. J. W. C. Fegan, To-	1882 to 1922	25,456ronto	
Mr. Wm. Quarrier, Brock-	1884 to 1922	2,798ville, Ont	
The Catholic Emigration Association and amalgamated societies, St. George's	1890 to 1922	4,074Home, Ottawa	1897 to 1922	5,998The Salvation Army	1905 to 1922	820Minor Agencies	1897 to 1922	4,920Total	
76,410
The minor agencies are not named; they are put in this largely for statistical purposes. Thus, this does not involve the expenditure of a huge sum of money for administration, it involves two of our officials in the Old Land making selections, and I notice that a little difficulty has arisen in connection with this very question in the joint action of the Australian government and the British government. I want to assure the committee that if they allow me to have this money, the most careful selection will be made of those children who will be brought to Canada, and also, of other people who are coming. I know I am being criticized very frequently because we are somewhat anxious to maintain the standards; that is, we want those who come to Canada to be mentally, morally and physically fit. I think that is desirable; I have always felt so. More than that, I think these children will assimilate into the life of Canada, will be assimilated into Canadian

homes, will become Canadian citizens and will, perhaps, in a much better way adapt themselves to Canadian conditions than those who are of more mature years' before coming to Canada. We have no definite arrangement at the moment with the Imperial authorities, because some considerable discussion is involved as to what methods are to be employed. A day or two ago, I received a wire intimating that the British authorities were viewing our proposal with favour.


Mr. LEWIS:: Will the minister kindly answer my question as regards the minimum age of the child?


Charles A. Stewart: We propose to bring the bulk of the children between the ages of eight and fourteen. I know there is a great difference of opinion as to what age the child should be, but purely as an experiment, we propose to bring out at least a couple of hundred boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, if we can secure places for them.


Mr. GOULD:: Will the same interest be shown in finding homes for the children? I speak from a humanitarian point of view. The reason I ask the question is that I have, in many instances, seen children placed in homes where they did not receive quite as good treatment as, in my opinion, they might have. Will the department see that the homes are real homes for these children?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no complaint to offer as regards any province; but I think Ontario is, perhaps, the best field in which to test out a plan of this kind, and Quebec is similarly situated. Those provinces are more thickly populated, and they have classes of homes into which those children can, perhaps, be taken, and an environment that will give the children a better chance. I see the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) looking at me. I am now speaking of the older provinces.
Mr. CALDW'ELL: Is Quebec not more inclined to grow her own children?


Charles A. Stewart: I was very much interested in looking over the figures to see that quite a number of those children go into Quebec, in spite of the fact that the people of that province, to their credit, raise a large number of very fine children. The older provinces are undoubtedly the best places in which to put those children. Their homes are established, and while the West will take some of, those children, in the main, they will go into the older pro-

Supply-Immigration
vinces. I am not so familiar with Quebec; but as regards Ontario, in discussing the matter with Mr. Manning Doherty, I found that they had not only agricultural agents but representatives travelling almost continually visitmg*those homes. In Ontario, they have and have had for years an officer in charge, whose business it is to be going about the country constantly visiting these homes. We propose on behalf of the federal government, if possible, to visit these children twice a year, and before a child is placed, to get a recommendation from the responsible people in the neighbourhood as to the character of the home into which the child is going. That is most essential. If you are careful about the selection of the child, it is just as, well to be careful as regards the home into which you put the child.


Oliver Robert Gould: As regards the $40 which is the amount, I -think, the minister mentioned as Canada's obligation, the homes where those children are placed would not be obliged to return the $40?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that is a grant outright.


Mr. HOEY:: Is it the minister's intention to spend this entire sum on child immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that covers only $200,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has stressed the question of selection on the part of the department, and I am glad to know that he is not unmindful of the question of inspection. In days gone by, I have had a little to do with the Middlemore children who are the ones who have been brought to New Brunswick in recent years. I would advise the minister that, as far as possible, in each province where it is pi'oposed to place these children, he should have a permanent standing committee in each local community. For instance, in New Brunswick he might arrange -and I think this could be arranged through the authorities of the Middlemore Home-to have a committee in the shire town of every county. I am not unmindful of the fact that a man's neighbours do not usually give him a bad standing, especially in matters of this kind, and I have known of citizens applying for those children being given characters not altogether warranted. If you had a standing committee in each central community, I am sure you would find they would take the pains to sift the character of applicants, so as to make sure that those children were not being put into improper homes. I have known of cases where the most outrageous
cruelty has been committed against such children. That is a crime the country will not stand for; but it is better to prevent it than to cure it after. The minister read a list of the homes which have been sending children to Canada. I wonder if he has on his list a home known as the Cossar Home for boys. I would like to tell the minister about the activities of this home which is one of the smaller institutions of this kind. In the city of Glasgow there is a citizen known as Dr. George C. Cossar, who for a number of years past has been engaged in the work of rescuing the waifs of that city. At his own expense he takes them in and cares for them and sends them out to a large farm at Gagetown in the province of New Brunswick. The boys he sends out are for the most part around the ages mentioned by the minister. They are taught practical farming and are kept on the farm until they are ready to shift for themselves. This gentleman has brought out to this country at his own expense a very large number of boys, and in view of the fact that he is the only person engaged in work of this kind, what he has achieved is, I think, remarkable. The boys who have been settled in New Brunswick have with one single exception been a credit to him and to themselves, and when the war broke out, I am informed by the manager of the farm, every single one of them enlisted and fought for his country. The minister might tell us whether he intends to give any encouragement to agencies such as this one, which has done such a splendid work. If he would like to have more information privately I should be glad to give it to him.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
that it is good business to begin this work only with such organizations as have made a success of it and can exercise Some care in the mattter of selection and in inspection afterwards. Our Mr. Smart, who has had a long experience in the work, will visit the children and make inquiries about the home. I quite realize the responsibility that we are taking upon ourselves in a matter of this kind, and if we make mistakes the advertising would be very bad for us. I think it is well for us, therefore, to begin with the people who have experience and who have made a success of this sort of work, because after all there are only certain classes of people who are adapted for engaging in work of this character. I assure the committee that we shall try to exercise the greatest care in whatever is done in this matter.
Supply-Immigration


Arthur John Lewis: The minister said something about selecting the children from good homes. Does he mean homes in the Old Land or in Canada as well, and are these children orphans?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Smart
reports, and I gather the same thing from Commissioner Lamb of the Salvation Army, that there are in Great Britain innumerable families of children who have no very bright outlook for the future and whose parents find it difficult to maintain them. These children are a splendid class of young people, and the parents would be willing, if they were assured that the children were going into homes under proper supervision, to allow them to come out on some engagement or other. But we are not attempting that, because I think the committee will readily understand how difficult it would be to have an organization that could take care of immigration of that sort. At any rate we are not attempting it at the moment. Later on we may branch out in this direction, but personally I want to go carefully and slowly in beginning an undertaking of this kind. After all, bringing children to Canada is not a new thing for the organizations I have mentioned. So far as that goes it would be merely a matter of giving them a per capita allowance for the children they brought out and established. We have done a considerable amount of this work in the past, not by way of per capita grants, but by means of a general grant. But if we are to undertake the thing in a systematic way we must accept some responsibility for the selection both of the children and of the home.


Mr. SHAW:: Is it the policy of the department in such cases to have the children legally adopted by the foster parents? If so, at the expiration of what time does the adoption take place? Further is any supervision maintained by the department in the case of adoption?


Charles A. Stewart: That is a matter to which we have not given a great deal of consideration, deeming it wise to follow the procedure adopted by these well-organized institutions who, as a matter of fact, have the children taken right into the homes of the foster parents in a great many instances. I think my hon. friend will realize that, with the two hundred 'teen age boys and girls whom we might establish, some other plan would have to be adopted, such as an arrangement for two or three years, with provision for some return for the services

rendered by the boy or girl of that age. But for the small children it would be preferable to have them adopted permanently into the home.


Donald Sutherland: I should not like this item to pass without expressing my appreciation of what the minister is doing in this regard. I do not know of anything that will redound more to the credit of the government than this wTork, if proper supervision is exercised, as the minister intimates he is prepared to see shall be the case. I also want to express my great admiration for the work, referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson), of that philanthropic gentleman in Glasgow in bringing these boys to the country. I remember in 1908 or 1909 I had charge as I had had for a few years, of the immigration work in the province of Ontario. This gentleman, a man of considerable means, has made this work his life vocation and to it he has devoted his time, his means and his ability. He is anxious to see that the under-privileged boys in the Old Land get a better chance, and I am glad to know that in the province of New Brunswick he has received such encouragement. When he came out to this country I met him, and I have often wondered how he succeeded in his work. I made close inquiries at the time and found that he had established in Glasgow a home at a large farm where he taught the boys agriculture. They were thoroughly instructed in the business and on being sent out here they were sent to the home that has been mentioned, afterwards being placed in the rural districts. I notice that a great number of the homes referred to by the minister are located in the province of Ontario, and I quite agree that that province is probably as well adapted as any other, if not more so, for taking care of these young people. It is an easy matter, to find out whether proper supervision is being exercised in the homes in which these children are placed, and if it is discovered that such is not the case you may rest assured that a condition of this kind will not continue very long. I am satisfied, however, that the work will be satisfactorily carried on while there is co-operation with the provincial governments, who have already the machinery to take care of the children. I want to express my approval of what is being done in this matter, and I trust that this devoted philanthropist of Glasgow, who has made this his lifework and who is putting his means into it, will receive the encouragement to which he is undoubtedly entitled.

Supply-Immigration


Henry Lumley Drayton: While I am glad to see the government are now taking some some little interest in immigration from the Mother Country-and I sincerely congratulate them upon arousing from the slumber they were enjoying-I would ask my hon. friend what arrangement was made between Great Britain and Australia and New Zealand under which, according to the Associated Press, those dominions secured 11,000 immigrants, and what was the arrangement under which Canada was able to get in the same length of time only 130 immigrants?


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend expect an answer?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly. I
am now dealing with the scheme of immigration started by the Mother Country, and if I am wrong I want my hon. friend to interrupt me at once. Under this scheme I ask my hon. friend what the arrangement was with the Mother Country under which Australia and New Zealand got 11,000 immigrants in the period during which we were able to get only 130? Now I hope my hon. friend will understand what I am asking him.
i


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think my hon. friend's arithmetic is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I stood up for correction.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the official figures before me, but is my hon. friend aware-and I think he is-that notwithstanding the fact that Australia has spent huge sums to establish British people there, last year about 86,000 people entered Australia and about 72,000 left? Of course my hon. friend wants to make a comparison between Canada, where we are just beginning a scheme of selected, assisted immigration, and Australia, where they have had the scheme in operation for some time. But if we had secured such a small net gain as has Australia I think my hon. friend might very well criticize us rather severely. He seems to be under the impression that Canada is the only country from which people happen to be migrating, but he is very much mistaken. The Australian immigration scheme has already involved a huge expenditure on assisted passages and the purchase of land for settlers. Speaking for myself personally, I want to approach this question with due caution. I have said upon innumerable occasions that I wish to see people from Great Britain settle in Canada. That is my desire. But when my hon. friend says that 132-


Henry Lumley Drayton: The figure is
130.


Charles A. Stewart: Where did my hon. friend get the information?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend consider that he has answered my question?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite appreciate the fact that my hon. friend does not want to discuss this matter overmuch, that he wants to get off into something collateral, to talk about emigration from Australia. I was not talking about emigration from Canada, although the Lord knows we have enough of it. I was simply asking for information that the department ought to possess, and that is- *what was the arrangement with the Mother Country and Australia under which Australia got 11,000 immigrants and we got during the same period 130. My hon. friend asks me where my particulars came from. Let me tell him that these are the particulars that resulted in his sending Mr. Black over to England, because when I drew his attention to the matter in this House he got up and told me that the government had sent that gentleman over to look after the matter. The figures were given by the Associated Press. I do not know if they are right. I am not the minister of the department. I do not know how many people the department brought in under this assisted scheme. The press may be absolutely wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend is talking about the assisted scheme-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: -I may tell him that none came into Canada under this scheme.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Associated Press said 130 came.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon. I did not understand him correctly. I take it all back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is all right. But is my hon. friend not sure that some of the agencies he has himself mentioned managed to bring over those 130 immigrants? Did his department bring over any under this scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So this British Empire scheme, so far as Canada was con-
Supply-Immigration

cerned, was a dead letter until the matter was brought to my hon. friend's attention in the House about three weeks ago, when he sent his deputy over.


Charles A. Stewart: I have never been accused of evolving a scheme so quickly as that. Indeed, the whole current of criticism is that I have been acting too slowly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree.


Charles A. Stewart: But I have made a wonderful record upon this occasion if this is all the result of the suggestion of my hon. friend since parliament assembled. However, I am not going to take credit for it. I discussed this matter and sent Mr. Smart to England last fall, as I pointed out to my hon. friend, to look into the situation. I will admit that perhaps I have been cautious. I am not always cautious, and sometimes I have regretted my haste. But I should like to know how successful a scheme of assisted immigration is likely to be. It is all very well to say, "We will vote a big sum of money to bring out a large number of people." But we do not know what we are going to do with them when they come here unless we vote a further sum to establish them upon the land, because I think my hon. friend will agree with me that generally throughout Canada there was not at that time much opportunity for newcomers in the urban centres. There is to-day. To the extent there is such opportunity we will endeavour to place immigrants in our urban centres. But because Great Britain and Australia have joined hands in a scheme of this kind, I do not know that we would be warranted in embarking on such a heavy expenditure as has Australia in connection with it. South Africa seems to be dealing rather carefully with the matter, although they are spending money upon improving their land holdings for the purpose of placing settlers upon them. I want to start in a moderate way. My hon. friend says that 130 people were assisted to Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know. I have quoted the figures given by the Associated Press.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know where they came from. A greater number of young domestic servants came into this country under the assisted passage scheme. My hon. friend knows that people in Montreal, in Saskatchewan, the Ontario government, have been acting in this matter for years, so I hardly know where the 130 would originate; there must have been a much larger number than that. It is important that this matter

should receive careful consideration, and we have given it that consideration. I think we are warranted in asking for the co-operation of the Overseas Settlement Board for this purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not yet answered my question. If it is an improper question, that is a different matter. Surely the department knows what is being done under this large Empire scheme by the other dominions, and surely it is proper that we should have that information.


Charles A. Stewart: Australia, in addition to assisting the payment of passages -and that applies to adults as well as to children-has a land settlement scheme, a training scheme-they seem to have innumerable schemes involving the expenditure of money in a rather lavish way. But after all, they have not got very many more immigrants than Canada and not nearly as many as the United States. Clearly the Britisher wants to go to Canada because it is closer. My hon. friend knows that the Australian scheme involves a very large expenditure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not. That is why I afn asking.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Donald Sutherland: The minister takes a great deal of credit for being cautious; it is quite evident that so far nothing has been done in this matter. I pointed out last night that on three different occasions it has been stated that the government had an immigration policy which was to be put into operation, but we are now informed that no arrangement has so far been made in connection with the overseas settlement scheme. It is a remarkable fact that we are spending much money in the United States to induce immigration from that country and a relatively small amount in the Old Land; and we refuse to co-operate with the British government in establishing their people here.


Charles A. Stewart: WTe did not last session-it may have been our duty to do it-make any proposal to join in a programme of this sort. The matter of providing homes

Supply-Immigration
for those who come here is being examined at the moment, and all that remains to be done is to make the arrangement with the overseas government, and that we are endeavouring to do. My hon. friend knows that we must have the money.


Donald Sutherland: It would not be unusual or surprising for the government to place their plans before parliament in order to justify any expenditure they might subsequently propose in that respect. I noticed a statement in the Globe some 10 p.m. time ago that the Canada Colonization Association were receiving financial assistance from the British government in connection with the scheme discussed here a few days ago. Evidently this company has been making arrangements with the British government with a view to putting into effect the policy which is to be provided for under item 52. Last night I asked the minister what arrangements had been made and he said that that would be discussed under that item. The minister suggests that the money had not been voted and that nothing could be done. But the government need not wait until the money is actually voted before formulating their plans. We ought to know exactly what the British government propose and what the arrangements under consideration are. There appear to be three different plans, one in respect to domestic servants, one in respect to children, and another for ordinary settlers. I have no doubt that the 130 people who came out here were brought into Canada through the instrumentality of the government of Ontario, which for years has been advancing money to assist deserving settlers. In fact, Ontario was compelled to adopt that method because of the neglect of the federal government in the matter. Homes were obtained for these children in advance, and about four-fifths of them, I believe were located in Ontario. This is the season when immigrants should be arriving here, not months later when the demand will slacken off. We have a party expected to arrive in Toronto next week from the north of Scotland, and an agent of the Ontario Department of Immigration has gone to meet them at the seaboard. Places are already provided for them. There is any number of applications for help in the hands of the department, more than they can possibly supply. Yet the minister informs this House that the plans are not yet completed, and here we are almost into the month of April and the immigrants should be arriving within the next few weeks and be placed on the farms of this particular province at least. I think 94
it shows that the minister, instead of being cautious, has been neglecting the duties that should be discharged by his department. It may be that through pressure of work connected with several other departments he has not been able to devote the time he should to this work, but it is altogether too important a matter to be treated lightly.
When I asked the minister a question a short time ago as to the amount of money that was be'ng spent in the United States and Great Britain, he replied that he had given the figures on several occasions and he wanted me to take them down. Well, I took them down, and before he sat down he had given two different sets of figures, and I found that I was nearer right than he was when he stated that I had taken a wrong view of the situation.
I, do not believe the minister is treating this matter seriously, and I am inclined to believe the House is not being treated in the manner it should be. I am sure the people of this country are looking for something different from the Department of Immigration at this time, owing to the fact that during all the years of the war immigration was practically shut out of this country. It was not natural to expect immigration then, but the result is that to-day the agricultural industry of this country is at a standstill because of the lack of labour on the farms, and there is an abundance of labour to be had for the British government is- willing to assist in this matter. We do not know just how far. We cannot get that information from the minister. I think this matter is altogether too important to be rushed through in this way without the House being given the information to which it is entitled.


Charles A. Stewart: This $600,000 vote is divided into three-$200,000 for children, $200,000 for domestics, and $200,000 to be loaned to individuals for passages under a nomination scheme. We expect the British government will agree to all three, because this is practically what they are doing with the Australian government. Indeed, that is their offer, and we have simply devised our scheme so that we will have no difficulty in that respect. I mentioned a moment ago that there did appear to be difficulty developing over selection with the Australian gov-enment. I hope we shall not have that difficulty. That refers entirely to children.
So far as farm labour is concerned, it is coming to every province in Canada, and to every railroad station in Canada. Our department has been receiving for the last three months applications from one end of Canada

Suppl y-I mviigration

to the other from fanners who are willing to hire, preferably by the year. Farm labour is coming forward daily from Great Britain, and some also from the Continent, from Holland and Scandinavia. Every agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and every agent of the Canadian National Railways has been an immigration agent for this purpose.
What my hon. friend says about the government of Ontario is very true. I have sought on several occasions to work in co-operation with the provincial governments. That is my desire, and we are working with them to a certain extent, but I do not think we have yet reached that stage of co-operation that will bring real success to an immigration scheme, though I am hoping to reach that stage. I am quite free to .admit that I find an element of suspicion in connection with the federal Immigation department. I do not know why, but I understand that it originated some years ago. So far as I am concerned, my sole desire is for co-operation all round.
As to the children, everything is arranged, except that I am not able to say definitely to-night that we have an agreement with the British government. I hope I shall be able to say that in a day or two because I had a wire to-night which would indicate that matters are almost settled. That is being arranged through Mr. Larkin, the High Com-misioner for Canada in London, in co-operation with the Overeas Settlement Board and Mr. Black, the Deputy Minister, who is over there at the present time.
I should like to deal for a moment with the other phase of the question. The domestic servant problem is one that I endeavoured to arrange in co-operation with the provincial governments. Ontario, as my hon. friend has said, has been spending money for years to bring out domestic servants to this province, and I believe with very fair success. The province of Saskatchewan is also engaged in this work, and has been for some years. The lady who makes the selections in England for Saskatchewan has been employed partly by the federal authorities and partly by the Saskatchewan government. Both these provinces prefer to work as they have been doing in the past. Nova Scotia prepared to utilize the Salvation Army, and New Brunswick-I am speaking from memory -is prepared to do the same thing. Ontario, in spite of the fact that they are bringing out domestics themselves, has also an arrangement with the Salvation Army to bring out domestics. Manitoba has expressed the desire that

the Army might be used for this purpose so far as they are concerned, and so has British Columbia. So far as Alberta is concerned, they do not desire to go into a scheme of this kind at all. The reason I mention these matters is to show that we did endeavour to get the provincial governments to say how many of these young women might find employment in the respective provinces, and where they could be placed, and we sought to get them to assume the responsibility, because this is not a grant; it is a loan, with a ten per cent reduction for losses, for the full amount of the passage.


Donald Sutherland: May I ask what it is proposed to loan in each individual case?


Charles A. Stewart: If the domestic was coming to Nova Scotia, to Halifax, for instance, her loan would be the cost of her passage to Halifax, and similarly if she were going to Winnipeg. If she were going to British Columbia it would be just that much more. There is a minimum and a maximum that can be loaned, but the amount in each case depends altogether on the destination for which the domestic is bound.


Donald Sutherland: What is estimated to be about the average cost for passage of each individual?


Charles A. Stewart: About $125, taking Winnipeg as a central point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What arrangement has the government made for the collection of these loans?


Charles A. Stewart: I am coming to that portion of it, because there is where our difficulties begin.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I thought so.


Charles A. Stewart: With a federal organization scattered all over Canada for the collection of the money to be advanced, it would be too cumbersome and too expensive; therefore you can only utilize some responsible organization that is engaged in the work. The provincial governments ot Ontario and Saskatchewan are putting up their mfoney. They are taking their own chances of collection, and making their own selection. Although the province of Saskatchewan at one time showed a desire to join us in this scheme, so far none of the provinces is prepared to go into it, and I am not sure that, so far, we have any organization of a responsible character prepared to come forward and say they will re-pay 90 per cent of the advance, except the Salvation Army, and they are recognized by the Overseas Settlement Board. I hope

Supply-Immigration
that we shall later be able' to get a responsible organization that will give a guarantee of that sort. The Salvation Army have carried on with the Ontario government, and have given satisfaction, so far as I can find out. I inquired of the Hon. Manning Doherty, as to the results they had had in the collection of the moneys advanced to the Army, and he told me they had had splendid results and that the system relieved the government of the responsibility of making the collections of the moneys advanced. There is no doubt that there will be other organizations which would undertake this work, but so far the Salvation Army is the only organization that is able to meet the requirements and satisfy the Overseas Settlement Board, because in this particular case, so far as they are concerned, I want the committee to realize that the Overseas Settlement Board, whether money is advanced by way of a loan, expect the federal government of the country to which a person is emigrating to repay that loan, or whatever portion 'of that loan is collected, on a fifty-fifty basis. So far as the Army is concerned, they are making a division, the Army paying one-third, the domestic herself, or the individual, where they are dealing with males, one-third and the government one-third. So far as we are concerned, we will have to put up 50 per cent. In this particular case the Overseas Settlement Board would put up the other 50 per cent, and they guarantee to return 90 per cent of the loan. That is the guarantee they offer as a responsible organization.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To make that clear, the guarantee is given by whom?


Charles A. Stewart: By the Salvation Army.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not by the association that puts up the 50 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: No; the
Overseas Settlement Board is quite prepared to have the Army responsible for their contribution, to repay it to them if we so desire. There is just that one difference. They have expressed the willingness if we so desire, if any advances are made to the Army, to accept the army as the responsible medium for repayment. That would, of course, reduce the risk very materially. That is the only organization that we have at the moment to deal with, in so far as domestic servants are concerned. I hope we will be able to get some other responsible organizations to engage in this work, because as near as we can estimate the amount, 5,000 domestic servants could be placed in Canada if they could be procured. 94 i
One difficulty is that there seems to be so many occupations in Canada into which these young women can enter, that they do not remain very long in the homes to which they come in Canada. The other scheme I have in mind is the nominated scheme of passage.


Arthur John Lewis: In regard to the domestics that are to be brought out. I understand the shipping authorities will look after the girl3 or domestics on board ship, but that when they get on the train in Canada, no such provision is made in regard to their food. Who looks after that end of it.


Charles A. Stewart: A conductress accompanies every unaccompanied young woman; if arrangements are made that they travel in groups, we send a conductress right through to Vancouver. That has been done for two or three years.


Arthur John Lewis: When I travelled on one of the Transcontinental trains some time ago, I noticed about thirty young women, English, Scotch and Irish. The young woman who looked after them went into the Pullman and had her meal. I would expect that, but I passed time and again through the colonist car, where the girls were located, and I found they were eating in any style. There did not seem to be any practical provision made for their meals. These girls coming to this country would not know what provision to make for their meals, and I was wondering if the conductress was responsible for them, and whether, when you got thirty girls of'that description, travelling in a colonist car, three nights on the train, any provision was made that they should be kept separate? Because there are no proper beds and they sleep on slats.


Charles A. Stewart: The purpose for which the conductress is appointed and paid is to see to the protection of these young women, and land them at the various hostels provided in every province in Canada now. That is the sole purpose of having a conductress accompany these young women If they are neglectful of their duty we would be glad to hear it.


Arthur John Lewis: I did not mean to suggest that. Does the department look after the food situation, or do they have to provide it themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: The government has not been bringing these girls out.
I understand the Saskatchewan government, for example, in nearly every case has someone to whom the girl is going. In many cases an advance is made by the individual himself
Supply-/ mmigration

the farmer or the businessman. He sends $160 or $170, brings out the young woman and she is placed in his home. If he has not the money the government in many cases finds it for him. The federal authorities have been given the services of these conductresses and they assemble the girls at the immigration halls in parties of not less than eight, usually up to thirty or forty, and travel right across Canada with them.
Dealing with the nominative scheme, it is the most difficult thing, I think hon. gentlemen will agree, to hold the young man. I have looked into this question and I may say, in answer to my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that I have thought very seriously of offering assistance to many of these young Scotch labourers who are quite prepared to come to Canada, but have not the means to pay their passage. But the great difficulty is that these young men will possibly move out. There is nothing that will hold them if they are not satisfied, and you lose touch with them and, perhaps, lose the money that you advance for their passage. Some scheme may be devised of bringing the unattached man out and keeping him in the country, because there are in the Old Land numbers of young men who could be brought out and successfully established in Canada. We have adopted a scheme of asking the farmer here, because this applies only to the farmer, to nominate someone that he knows in the Old Land. We ask that either he or the man who is coming, contribute 25 per cent of the cost of bringing the man out. In 99 cases out of a hundred, practically, these nominations will be of married men with families whose friends are desirous of bringing them out to Canada. In many cases the nomination will be of the wife and family of a man already here. We have decided on rather a simple scheme for the purpose of securing the return of the money. In the first place, the nominator puts up 25 per cent of it. He gives a bond, upon which we expect him to get the name of at least another responsible party, for the repayment of the loan in one year if it is for two persons, that is a man, his wife and a small child, or in two years, if the family is larger, the loan being without interest. That is the scheme we have in connection with nominated passages. We have made arrangements with the Bankers' Association that we shall send the forms upon which to make application to local banks in every community, and they will attend to the collection free of charge. Briefly, that is the scheme that we have to offer for the other $200,000, and it seems 
to me that it is safe. I feel that I am warranted in asking for a trial of it, and I think it will bring here people who will settle permanently, because they are being brought by their friends who are vitally interested in them, and in that case they are more liable to remain in that particular locality or to settle down permanently in our midst.


Donald Sutherland: I do not think any
risk is being taken. The chief objection I have is that nothing is being done. I refer to an article which appeared in the press in September last which I now have in my hand to this effect:
The Peopling of Canada
The Canadian people will approve both the aim and method of the federal government's new immigration policy, etc. The services of the Canadian Colonization Association, an organization backed by private capital, which has been a long time mapping out the field for immigration to this country and will have the financial support of the Imperial government, will be employed in the location of settlers.
Is this the government's policy or is it not? This has been published in the press of this country and it has not been denied. If this other organization is the medium through which immigration into this country is going to be solicited, and we are just being led to believe that something is going to be done by the government, we should have a little understanding with regard to item 53 before this one is passed. This seems a most remarkable state of affairs when we are passing votes for agencies, for salaries of immigration agents. I brought this to the minister's attention last night, and I was told that it had absolutely nothing to do with the other association; yet the very fact that this $200,000 is to be devoted to advancing loans to enable settlers to come to this country, leads me to believe that there is something we have not so far' been made acquainted with. I should like the minister to inform the committee whether this article which I have read has any foundation or not, and whether any advances have already been made to the Canada Calonization Company to bring settlers to this country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What paper was that?


Donald Sutherland: This was published in the Toronto Globe of September 12, and it has not been contradicted so far as I know. I find that ever since that time the same paper has announced that another immigration policy was being advanced by the government. Surely we are not asked to wait at this time of the year, almost the hegin-

Supply-Immigration
ning of April, for the government to formulate and to put into effect a policy to bring immigrants into this country for the present year. It is simply a matter of waiting to see what is going to happen. Under ordinary circumstances, it would be well to exercise some of the caution to which the minister has referred; but there is no risk to be run as regards the domestic servants who have been referred to. The provincial governments through the hostels which they have throughout the country, have all the machinery, and there is no risk to be run as regards advances made to domestic servants. Ontario has been doing this for years, and it will not entail a cent of expense on the government to do this work. My hon. friend referred to domestics who have been coming out here and asked whether anyone was in charge. Those who come into Ontario are met at the port of landing; they are taken care of until they enter their homes, and after that certain control is kept over them and a close touch is kept with what is going on. If the government are not prepared to act, then they should lend assistance to the provincial government to do something. They should not force the provincial governments to do all the work along this line, and then endeavour to claim some of the credit. The government, from the minister's own admission to-night, are doing absolutely nothing, and I believe from reports published broadcast throughout this country, that another company which is being subsidized by the government is engaged in this work and is now receiving similar grants from the Imperial government. Has any money been advanced to this Canadian Colonization Company up to the present time? That is a fair question; it is a question which is pertinent to the item before the committee. I am sorry that I have to leave in order to catch my train, but I think we deserve some information as regards the question which I have submitted. I want to know whether any arrangement has already been completed by the Canada Colonization Association with the British government to receive financial assistance in order to bring settlers to this country.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will remember that the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) asked the question two weeks ago with respect to the matter that he has mentioned.


Donald Sutherland: I did not hear it.


Charles A. Stewart: The question was answered: "Yes, the Canada Colonization Association got $40,000 from the government last October."


Robert Forke: That has nothing to do with the $600,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Not a thing.


Robert Forke: Then why waste time discussing it?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend is very much concerned about wasting time, and I hope he will continue to exercise his caution in that regard. The question I asked was what arrangement had been made between the Canada Colonization Association, which is subsidized by this government and which the minister informed the committee he was keeping in close touch with to earmark every move they were making, so that no advantage could be taken of the government, and the Imperial government to receive financial assistance, as intimated by the newspaper article which I have read.


Charles A. Stewart: I have already answered my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But he is referring to the Imperial government.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know if they have made an arrangement with the Imperial government. I know that they are simply working in the United States.


Donald Sutherland: This is the newspaper which represents the government in this province. The editorial which I refer to has this heading:
The Canadian people will approve both the aim and the method of the federal government's new policy.
This is the heading, and the report goes on to state:
The services of the Canada Colonization Association-an association backed by private capital-which has been a long time mapping out the field for immigration to this country and which will have the financial support of the Imperial government, will be employed in the location of settlers.
This is the newspaper article that has led the people of the country to believe that this association was engaged in this work, and the minister tells us now that he has no definite information regarding the matter. The deputy minister is in the Old Country, but surely the minister can keep in touch with events over there. Are we simply putting these items in the estimates to make it appear to the people that the government propose some time to do something along this line, but that in the meantime they have no in-
Supply-Immigration

tention of doing anything? If that is the case I think it would be better to say so now and end the farce.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been trying all evening to tell my hon. friend what we were doing. At one stage of the proceedings he seemed quite favourable, but now he appears to have a different attitude altogether. I am extremely anxious to carry out what I have suggested to-night, and I thought I was going to have the support of my hon. friend, but apparently he does not desire me to get on with the attempt I am making to have the arrangement completed in the Old Land. I am very anxious to bring people from the Old Country into Canada, and I have spent considerable time to-night explaining to the committee what we are doing. I hope I made myself clear, because I certainly did want to put the position fully before the committee. At one stage my hon. friend was quite enthusiastic; he said, "Here at last is something upon which I can agree with the minister." But unfortunately I have spoiled it all by explaining too much.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has certainly devoted a good deal of time to informing the House as to what he has not done, but as regards anything having been done, I fail to see what results have been obtained through the policy that has been featured in the press so often during the last few months.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My criticism of the minister s policy will not be of the character offered by the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland). He has criticized the minister in one breath for not having done anything, and, in the next breath, for spending money on the Canada Colonization Association. If I have any criticism to offer it is because the minister has paid over money to this association before it has been voted by parliament. I fully approve of the policy of not making any agreement that calls for an expenditure of public moneys until it is voted by parliament, and I am glad that the minister has been exercising some caution in this respect. I do take strong exception to money being paid to this association. I do not approve of the scheme at all. However, I did not rise at this moment to make any speech on this point. I simply want to endorse what has been said by my leader (Mr. Forke) earlier in the evening, and to suggest that the minister give the items in connection with this vote of $600,000. I would ask him to put those items on Hansard so that we may be able to con-

sider them beforehand. My IeadeT asked that this item, together with item 53, be allowed to stand that the details be put on Hansard, and I should like to defer any further remarks in coneetion with these votes so that the minister might have an opportunity to comply with the hon. member's request.


Charles A. Stewart: The whole
item covers some $1,700,000, and I think I may justly plead fatigue. I have had a fairly strenuous day and it would take a considerable time to give those items. If the leader of the House (Mr. Mackenzie King) will permit me, I shall be glad to do it on Tuesday.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We all want to save the minister as much as we can. Would it not be easier to have the details drawn up and a copy sent to the hon. member (Mr. Forke) and to anyone else who might want it? I have tried to follow the minister as closely as possible. As far as I can understand him, in connection with the first item of $200,000, in so far as our financial commitments are concerned, the British government puts up 50 per cent and we 50 per cent, and both say good-bye to it. In regard to the next item, the domestics, that also is something that is handled entirely in co-operation with the British government. They are to be responsible for 50 per cent, and we for 50 per cent. But there is in connection with that a further qualification. The British government's share is to be repaid before we get ours, unless we make an arrangement with the Salvation Army and substitute them for ourselves so that we shall have no further responsibility for the 50 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There remains, however, a third class which I understood my hon. friend to say the home government had nothing to do with.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I misunderstood my hon. friend, because it seemed to me that we were putting up money for the nominator, on the bond of the nominator, on the payment of 25 per cent in cash. I did not understand that the British government had anything to do with this.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the whole of the vote depends on the making of an agreement with the British government. I should like to know whether a draft agreement has yet been prepared, so that we may have some idea of its contents.

Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: No, we have not yet got a draft agreement with the British government; that will have to be entered into. I am waiting for particulars to know what form that draft will take.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice further that for the purposes of the agreement we are to have regulations. I wonder whether my hon. friend could not give the committee some idea as to what regulations he will adopt for the purposes of assisting and helping the immigrant, on the one hand, and protecting the country, on the other. The whole thing is to be done by way of regulations. Does he propose new regulations? Is so, in what connection does he need anything new?


Charles A. Stewart: There is very little needed. I regret that I did not before inform the committee that we expect the Overseas Settlement Board to join in the third scheme. That is the hope but there will be this difference in connection with it, that we shall be responsible for the whole amount. Of course it will be divided between the Overseas government and the federal government of Canada, but we shall be responsible for the repaymnt of the whole amount. That is the difference between the domestic scheme and that of the nominated passage. But it is only on account of the Salvation Army that we escape the responsibility for the half furnished by the British government in the scheme for bringing out domestics. The regulations are much along the lines that I have explained. Arrangements have been made with the banks, and they understand what we propose doing. As these bonds come in properly filled out we send them forward.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just a word further in regard to putting a detailed statement be-for us so we may have an opportunity to consider it during the week end. Practically every member is on two or three committees, some of which are sitting twice a day, and it is only on Saturdays and Mondays that we have a chance to attend to anything outside that work. For this reason I hope the minister will give us, even although it be only in brief outline, particulars of the items under which the $1,800,000 will be spent. Unfortunately most of the Progressive members are from the extreme ends of the Dominion and do not go home over the week end, so they will be here and in a position to study these particulars. If the minister adopts this suggestion I am sure it will expedite the passage of these items.


Charles A. Stewart: I had in mind that hon. members would be having a week's rest. -


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We would like an opportunity to consider these particulars before Monday afternoon if possible. Could the minister not give us a brief outline of the expenditures?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
innumerable.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: All we want is a brief outline of the heads under which the $1,800,000 will be spent.


Robert Forke: Does the minister intend to go on with this next week?


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to have the assisted passage scheme disposed of, because until it is settled I am unable to say definitely to the British government whether we can begin or not.


Robert Forke: If the minister does not intend to go on with it next week he could put the items on Hansard later.


Charles A. Stewart: I can put them on to-night.


Robert Forke: As we have had a pretty full explanation regarding the $600,000 vote I would suggest that it be passed.


Charles A. Stewart: It would
facilitate business very much if the committee would agree to let it pass.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I could agree to that, Mr. Chairman. I should like to have a little more information as to the form of the agreement and the regulations. I would point out to my hon. friend that the way the vote is worded leaves a doubt as to whether he would make his arrangements for nominated passages through the British government. He hopes to, but he is not at all sure about it. At the same time he wants to do business. If he takes his vote this way he cannot do it apart from the agreement. I think he had better consider very carefully whether he wants the bargain in that form.


Charles A. Stewart: I had Mr. Edwards draw this agreement after careful consideration of the Overseas Settlement Act. He drew it as best he could in conformity with the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister does business under the overseas scheme entirely the agreement is perfectly well drawn. I understood that my hon. friend was going
Interim Supply

to do business under that act as far as children and domestics are concerned, but beyond those classes he was not quite determined how to proceed.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, I have no intention of using any part of this money except in conjunction with the Overseas Settlement Board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Forke: I do not think there is any particular hurry for putting the particulars on Hansard to-night.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot very well give a summary without using all these sheets, involving several hundred names and the amounts mentioned for printing and advertising, in Great Britain $202,000 and in the United States $370,000 if I remember correctly, and a great many other items. Would it be satisfactory to the committee if I prepared a statement of the amounts spent on salaries and advertising and lumped these together? Otherwise it will mean a great deal of detail.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister is preparing a statement why not set out the information in detail? It will be quite easy to do so.


Robert Forke: If we could get an intelligent grasp of how these moneys are being spent we would be satisfied. It would facilitate the business of the committee if we had this information beforehand.
Progress reported.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Before the adjournment may I call the attention of the House to the fact that we are on the edge of a new fiscal year, and though we have made considerable progress with the Estimates the supplies are not in a condition to warrant us making anything like an extensive appropriation. I am going to ask the House on Monday, if I can obtain unanimous consent, for a special supply bill covering two months of the coming year. I give notice in this informal way in the hope that the House will agree to it without division.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, March 26, 1923