1924-07-11

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DENIS (Joliette) presented the third report of the special committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Returned Soldiers.

Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Sheilord):: Mr. Speaker,
I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Pelletier, that the third report of the select standing committee to supervise the Official Report of Debates be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. VIEN:: (Translation) presented the
seventeenth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce, as follows: Your committee have had under further consideration and study the report of Dr. H. M. Tory on Agricultural Credit, which was referred to them on May ttlh, 1924.
Your committee find that the credit of persons engaged solely in farming or the tillage of the soil is affected by certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.
Your committee, therefore, recommend that legislation be introduced at the present session of parliament amending the Bankruptcy Act as follows:
"An Act to Amend the Bankruptcy Act."
"1. This Act may be cited as The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1924.
"2. The Bankruptcy Act is amended by inserting after section SB thereof the following section:-
" 8c (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province has authorized any officer of the provincial government, charged under a .provincial statute with duties which in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council are analogous in any respect to the duties of custodian and trustee, to act as custodian and trustee under this act, the official receiver shall in the case of an assignment by a person engaged solely in fanning or the tillage of the soil appoint such officer as custodian.
" (2) Any officer so appointed to the office of custodian by the Official Receiver shall thereupon in addition to such office be and be deemed to be the authorized trustee as if appointed under subsection (1)
Banking and Commerce

of section 15 of this Act, and shaJl continue to be the authorized trustee until properly removed under subsection (2) of the said section 15.
"(3) In case any such provincial officer is appointed custodian and trustee, he shall not be entitled to be paid any remuneration as custodian or trustee nor any of the costs enumerated as costs of custodian in Part III of the General Rules, but shall be entitled to his lawful disbursements.
"3. Section 59 of the Bankruptcy Act is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection: " (2) Paragraph b and c of the preceding subsection, shall not apply in the case of an application for discharge by any assignor who at the time of the authorized assignment was engaged solely in farming or the tillage of the soil."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Jacobs, that the seventeenth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly think that the hon. member wants the House to concur in the report without a moment's consideration. It is rather an important report if I caught it rightly.


Thomas Vien: I moved concurrence with a
view to expediting the legislation, if any, to be brought down in accordance with the committee's recommendation, but in view of what my right hon. friend says I will leave my motion as a notice of motion for Monday next.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
seconded by Mr. Jacobs, that the sixteenth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Thomas Vien: By way of explanation, I beg
to read to the House the report, concurrence in which is now sought. It is as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the various matters referred to them by the order of reference, and have reported on same from time to time.
Your committee, in addition to numerous meetings of sub-committees, have held thirty-nine sittings on twenty-seven separate days,.,have heard the evidence of ten witnesses, and had twenty-three exhibits filed before them.
Your committee sumbit herewith for the information of the House a printed copy of their proceedings, the evidence given before the committee, and also certain documents submitted to the committee as exhibits, but not contained within the proceedings.
Your committee recommends that the order of reference, reports, proceedings and the evidence given before the committee, together with a suitable index to be prepared by the clerk of the committee, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House for the present session and for distribution, and that rule 74 be suspended with reference thereto.

The evidence and the documents referred to are of great importance, and I think hon. members will find them of sufficient interest and profit to warrant their being printed and distributed with the sessional papers.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I have no
special objection to the motion in this case; any objection I might have would be of a general character. I notice, though, that the report which we are asked to adopt does not recommend any particular subject of legislation or any special legislation. In this connection may I interject a suggestion which I hope may be useful? I think we are somewhat overdoing the deciding of things by committees. If committees are to make recommendations, such as have been made almost without number this session-sometimes, I fear, too expeditiously-and then we are to be faced, on the order "Motions," with a motion, without notice, for the adoption of such recommendations, all the safeguards of	parliament	are swept	away.The motion to adopt a particular line of action recommended by a committee fixes the conduct of the	House.	It	is noteven like	the first	reading	of	a bill,a mere	preliminary	and	introduction.
It is the determined and final action of parliament, and parliament must reverse itself or this becomes legislation in due course. Ordinarily we have, I think, fourteen different stages which must be gone through, in order that there may be nothing precipitant, in order that the utmost consideration may be given to every step we take; and even then if parliament errs at all it errs in cluttering our statute books with too much legislation. I deprecate the habit that I think we have got into this session of having committees recommend a certain legislative course, whereupon the whole thing is thrown in the face of parliament without a moment's notice and we are expected to debate it and decide it then and there. When such committees do report with recommendations of this character I suggest the wisdom of leaving the report on the files of the House, on the Table, for consideration in the meantime by members and for the study of those who may have the leisure to do so. But the initiation of legislation should be left where it has always been; the responsibility should be where it has always rested.


Thomas Vien: I agree with the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Meighen) as to the advisability of laying on the Table reports of committees and allowing them to remain there a certain length of time before they are concurred in. That is why I did not press my

Criminal Code
motion on the other report in respect to the Bankruptcy Act. The report now presented is merely to order the printing of the evidence and proceedings of the committee and their distribution to hon. members. Moreover, this report was presented to the House yesterday; it is not one of those I presented today.
As to the advisability of entrusting committees with work of this kind I am afraid I must disagree with my right hon. friend. The work done by the committees of the House during this session has been extremely valuable. Committees can mere easily give full time and detailed attention to the matters that come before them than the House can, and the work of the House is thus expedited.
I suggest further that next year or at some time in the future an amendment should be made to our rules to provide that even the budget and the estimates should be studied in committee. That would save the time of the House considerably, and more attention could be given to the details than can be given under the present procedure in committee of the whole, owing to the desirability of expediting the business. I think it is one of the usages of the British House of Commons to entrust to a committee the study of these matters. I know it is in France, where what we call committees are called commissions; any important piece of legislation is thoroughly gone into by a commission of the House before being reported. I agree with my right hon. friend however, as to the advisability of having reports of important committees laid on the Table in time to permit their consideration by the House as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to be
misunderstood in the matter-and I have no right to speak again except by permission. My objection was not so much to the hurry of moving the adoption of the report; my . objection was to the principle of moving the adoption at all when such report embodied and recommended a course of legislation. This forces the House to determine in one debate and usually without notice-in fact, it may be always without notice-a	course of action
which by the rules of parliament requires at least twelve or thirteen different stages at which variation may be suggested or moved and during which the deliberate judgment of parliament is matured and finally determined. It is not, let me repeat, so much an objection to the moving of the adoption of the report after the report has been laid on the Table for some days; it is to moving the adoption at all and getting the judgment of parliament that way instead of by the more constitutional course.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am inclined to agree to a considerable extent with what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) says; it would not be fair to the House to ask concurrence in the report of a committee recommending important changes in any policy of the country without giving hon. members full opportunity to consider and study the suggested changes. But I rise to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Vien) whether the Bankruptcy Act was referred to the Banking and Commerce committee for consideration and study. I see from their report that changes in the Bankruptcy Act are suggested.


Thomas Vien: The question came up incidentally in connection with rural credits. In the report of the committee the amendments proposed are only in connection with rural credits. The preamble of the report states clearly that the committee have considered the matter of rural credits and, that the credit of people exclusively engaged in farming is being affected by some provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. They recommend that the amendments embodied in the report be enacted into law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George-Etienne Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 251, to amend the Criminal Code.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, the object of
this bill is to prevent the publication of false, defamatory and seditious matter which is intended to produce such feelings of ill-will and hostility among different classes of the community that a breach of the peace is likely to follow, or lawful business pursuits are likely to be interfered with.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the bill, which I did not know anything about before my name was put as seconder, I may say that I am extremely pleased to see that the bill is introduced in the House just on the eve of the twelfth of July.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, any gibe that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) is inclined to make with regard to the twelfth of July will not affect those who celebrate that day, because they are among the best citizens of this country. If his reference is that on that day things are said that are libellous and defamatory, he is talking without knowledge, and he is libelling a class of persons who have shown their pa-
Criminal Code

triotism, their love of order and their good citizenship for over one hundred years in the history of this country. If the occasion required, Mr. Speaker, I could elaborate what I am saying and point out that the day against which my hon. friend has made a gibe is one of the most important in the history of the human race.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, seeing that my remark is not received with general acceptation I may be permitted to say that that day marks the permanent establishment, not for one class, not for one race, but for the whole of the human race, of the principle of civil and religious liberty. There is no greater boon that the people of this world enjoy than that. The event was the consummation of a thousand years of struggle, the Magna Charta being a part of it.


Mr. IRVINE:: The twelfth of July is not
until to-morrow.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think under these circumstances I am perfectly justified in replying to the gibe which my hon. friend made with regard to that day and those who celebrate it.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope we shall wait until to-morrow to celebrate the day.


Arthur Meighen: I know the hon. member is acting on a presumption which is hasty. I am quite certain that the bill which the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier has in mind is directed more against recent remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Ouimet).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS. FIRST AND SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 249 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry George Stuart Johnston.- Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 250 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Ethel Armstrong.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I wish to inquire of the government if they have any information to give the House as to whether it is intended in the near future to amend the Elections Act to provide for the transferable vote in single-member constituencies.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret that I cannot do more than repeat what I have said to my hon. friend before, that the matter is still under consideration.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 240, to amend the Bank Act.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
beg to move:
That this bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the Whole House with instructions that section 131, subsection (a), of the Bank Act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
In case of the insolvency of any bank;
(a) The notes issued or re-issued by such bank intended for circulation and then in circulation, together with any interest paid or payable thereon, as hereinbefore provided, shall be redeemed out of the Bank Circulation Redemption Fund up to the amount of the said fund, and the balance of such notes, if any, then remaining unredeemed, shall be a first charge on the assets of the said bank. If upon the winding up of the said bank and after all liabilities have been paid there remains in the hands of the liquidator any balance, the same shall be used to reimburse the said Circulation Fund by the amount contributed thereto by the other banks and used thereout for the redemption of the said notes. If the said balance remaining in the hands of the liquidator is not sufficient to reimburse the said Circulation Fund by the said amount, the other banks shall contribute thereto as provided for in section 66 of this act.


Mr. ROBB:: I am not going to delay the
House beyond a moment. This question was fully discussed and considered by the Banking and Commerce committee, and the proposition was not adopted by that committee. I do not propose at this late stage of the session to delay the House longer than to say that I am going to vote against the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: We all have not the
advantage of being on that committee, and we would like to know what it means, so that we may not give a blind vote. Probably members of the committee do know, and I think we have the best right to call on the minister to enlighten us as to what can be said against the amendment, as well as what can be said for it.


James Alexander Robb: This question was discussed
not only by the Banking and Commerce committee this year, but also by that committee last year. My hon. friend's friends were before the committee this year, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by delaying the proceedings of the House this afternoon.


Robert Forke: I would just like to remark
that I do not feel like giving a vote upon this question at all, because I have no information whatever regarding it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I had no idea this biLl
was going to be read a third time this afternoon, or I would have been prepared to give the House further information.
With reference to what has been said by the Acting Minister of Finance, (Mr. Robb)
I wish to say that this resolution did not come up last year before the Banking and Commerce committee, for the reason that most members of the committee misunderstood the working of the note circulation redemption fund. Most of the members of that committee were under the impression that the note circulation redemption fund was a real redemption fund, or an insurance fund. They did not realize that it was nothing of the sort until after the collapse of the Home Bank when the liquidator discovered that although some $2,000,000 of Home Bank notes were out in circulation they could not call on the circulation redemption fund for this amount-that the only amount which could be called upon, under the Bank Act, was the amount paid by that bank into the fund, which amount was only about $100,000. The aim of this amendment is to make the fund a real insurance fund. It is true that the amendment was defeated in the Banking and Commerce committee, but it caused probably more discussion there than any other amendment proposed. In my opinion the arguments in favour of the amendment before that committee were more convincing than the arguments against. The amendment was only lost by a few votes, and, therefore, I think it is only fair that it should now be brought before the House.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Before the hon. member resumes his seat will he explain to the House the system under which bank notes are now redeemed?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The bank note circulation fund is subscribed to by all the banks. According to the Bank Act the notes of a bank that are outstanding are a first lien on the assests of that bank. Although the note circulation redemption fund loans an amount, if need be, equal to the net amount of notes outstanding, it is a loan only. The failed bank can count as an asset only the amount it had paid into the fund:	As the notes are
a first call on the assets-including the deposits-of the banks, and as there are three other liens on the assets besides those notes, the
Bank Act
depositors are not very happily placed in having so little a lien on the assets of the bank. The amendment is submitted with a view of strengthening the position of the depositors who to-day are in the worst position of any of the creditors of a failed bank.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: If I were
not so anxious to get away from the House and return home I should like to discuss this matter at some length, because it is a very important question. However, I shall not occupy more than three or four minutes of the time of hon. members. First of all it should be clearly understood that the banks in this country have a special privilege in being allowed to issue notes to the amount of their paid-up capital. This privilege, practically speaking, is not enjoyed by any banks in any other country so far as I know. I asked a prominent witness who was before our committee this year, after he had appeared before the committee, just what he thought of the note issue privilege in the Canadian Bank Act, and after he had looked into the act he told me that he thought it was a great source of weakness to any banking system to have such a privilege. This privilege is for the benefit of the banks. They make a certain amount of profit out of it, and I say that those who enjoy the profit from this privilege of note issue should provide the guarantee fund for the notes issued. But the Bank Act makes the note issue a first lien on the assets of the bank; they are paid before the depositor gets one cent on the dollar, and we are greatly concerned at this session of parliament with the safety of depositors. So long as the Bank Act remains in its present form, and with its present provisions, the redemption of notes certainly does interfere with the safety of depositors.
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) simply provides that the bank circulation redemption fund, which has been contributed to by each of the banks, should first be used for the redemption of notes in the case of failure of a bank. Then, after the affairs of that bank are wound up and the depositors have been paid one hundred cents on the dollar, if there are any funds remaining, the note circulation redemption fund should be reimbursed out of the amount which is in the liquidator's hands. If there are no bank failures of course banks will not suffer any loss, if there are any bank failures or loss to the depositors, the loss will not be so great if this amendment is adopted. And surely, as I said before those who enjoy
Bank Act

the note issue privilege should pay for it. The Acting Minister of Finance says that this matter was discussed last year. Well, we discussed last year government inspection of banks. We failed to convert the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or the government, or the committee to the idea of bank inspection by the government. This year we have induced thm to bring in an amendment for government inspection of banks. Therefore, the argument that the Acting Minister of Finance has advanced is not a very sound one, and it is possible that in a few years we may convert him to the acceptance of some such provision as this in regard to note circulation. I believe the issuing of notes should be in the hands of the government, but while the banks have this privilege they should first be called upon to provide for the redemption of notes in the case of the failure of a bank. Because, as the general manager of the Royal Bank said when he was before our standing committee, the deposits were absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the banking business in this country, but the privilege of issuing notes was not necessary. This privilege is continued in the Bank Act at the request of the bankers, and again I say that the bankers should be called upon first of all in the case of the failure of a bank. If the funds in the circulation redemption fund are not sufficient to pay the notes the balance would still remain a first charge on the assets of the bank. The security of the notes will not be interfered with in any way. We simply ask the banks who are receiving all the benefits under the note circulation privileges to provide this additional security.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: As I understand it, all the banks belonging to the Bankers' Association contribute to the redemption fund. In the case of the failure of a bank that fund may be drawn upon to repay the holders of notes only to the extent to which the failing bank has contributed to that fund. The amendment as presented would change the law in this respect-that the whole of that fund contributed by all the members of the Bankers' Association shall be made available to pay for the losses of any one bank. In other words, the banks which may be conducting their business properly and profitably and just as it should be conducted, are called upon to pay for losses for which they are not responsible. That seems to be an unsound principle and that is why I am opposed to the amendment.


William Irvine: Is it not a fact that the
redemption fund as now constituted in the event of the fund being called upon implies the principle against which you have registered your objection?


William Daum Euler: Just to the extent to which these banks contribute.


William Irvine: No. Suppose a bank fails,
and there are not sufficient assets in the bank to redeem the notes after you have collected all assets, including the depositors' money, then the purpose of the redemption fund is that it will be used to redeem notes still outstanding so that it will be seen that we have the same principle in effect now as my hon. friend objects to, but we desire to further extend that principle by the amendment.


William Daum Euler: I would like to cut through
all argument and present this view of it: That if the amendment is adopted the banks which have nothing whatever to do with the failing banks are made responsible, although they have conducted their business properly, for the losses sustained by the bank that is not wisely or properly conducted. That seems to me the one principle underlying the whole thing. One argument in favour of the amendment, which has perhaps a little force, is that the banks have the privilege of issuing notes for which I think they pay only one per cent-is that correct?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


William Daum Euler: -and they may issue circulation on which they can charge six or seven or eight per cent as the case may be, and therefore they may very well be called upon to contribute to that fund, and have the fund used for the purpose mentioned in the amendment. I say, there is some force in that. But if the banks have a privilege- and I think they have-for which they are not paying sufficient, then let them stand on their merits and charge the banks a sufficient sum for the privilege which is given them. Let each bank stand on its own bottom. I cannot recognize the principle that we shall make one bank responsible for the loss of another.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


William Daum Euler: Certainly.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the hon. gentleman
does not-

Bank Act


Mr. MARTELL:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member moved the amendment and subsequently spoke again, and he now wishes to address the House. This is the third time, and I do not think he is quite in order. At this late hour of the session it is not wise to permit a violation of the rule.


Hewitt Bostock: The point is well taken.
Any member can only speak once on the same motion. By the leave of the House I understood the mover of the amendment was answering a query by another hon. member. Of course he can only speak now by unanimous consent, and if that consent is refused, the rule will apply.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I simply wished to ask a question, with the permission of the hon. member who is addressing the House, who was then on his feet.


William Daum Euler: I have no objection.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Referring to the remarks of the hon. member-


Lewis Herbert Martell: His Honour the Speaker has ruled.


Hewitt Bostock: According to the rule
no member can speak twice to a question, unless he has been misquoted by some other hon. member. That is not the case in this instance. Therefore, the hon. member is barred from addressing the House, unless by unanimous consent.


Arthur Meighen: I think, Mr. Speaker,
that you have misapprehended the purport of the hon. gentleman's statement. As I heard him distinctly, he was merely asking a question, with the permission of the hon. member who had the floor.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood that first he
was answering a question put by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Of course that would not come under the rule.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I simply asked the hon.
member for North Waterloo if he would permit me to ask him a question, and he said he was perfectly willing. Therefore, I think I have that right. Considering the statement that the hon. member (Mr. Euler) has made, I would like to ask him this question: If the bank which failed could not call on the note circulation redemption fund for more than that bank had paid in, what advantage is there, in his opinion, in having a note circulation fund at all? Or why should not each individual bank simply have a reserve fund of its own and do away with the note circulation redemption fund?


William Daum Euler: If each bank had a reserve
fund in its own possession, I should think that would be less desirable than having the central redemption fund where it is.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): First of all, the notes issued by the banks constitute a first lien upon the assets of the insolvent bank. The government has provided that the circulation redemption fund be contributed to and made up by the banks in proportion to their circulation. The only purpose it serves now is that in the event that the bank has not readily available within a limited time funds to pay the notes which constitute a first lien upon their assets, the circulation redemption fund is called upon to make up whatever shortage there may be; and that is only temporary, because, of course, the circulation redemption fund secures the notes. The notes are the first charge upon the assets, and the result is that the circulation redemption fund in the long run is never called upon, and has never been called upon in the history of the country, so far as I know. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make this a real fund, an insurance fund, so that it may be used in payment of the notes, and then if there are not sufficient, assets left to redeem the circulation redemption fund it will not be made up-


Mr. HUGHES:: By the depositors.


Mr. SHAW:: -by the depositors. Then the banks will come in, after the depositors, to the extent of the circulation redemption fund that has been used. I think that is shortly the purpose of the amendment. It is to substitute the insurance principle, where now there is only a temporary purpose accomplished by the circulation redemption fund.


William Irvine: I think that if this motion
is worth while moving, it is worth while discussing. I am not prefacing my remarks that way as an excuse for making a long speech, but I think that we ought to know the import of the amendment.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I again rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has spoken.


William Irvine: I simply asked a question
of the hon. member for North Waterloo.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is that no member can speak twice on the same question, but there are certain amenities which are observed by the House of Commons on debate. Where a question is put by unanimous consent, it cannot be considered as a speech. Therefore I cannot say that the hon. member has spoken twice.

Bank Act


William Irvine: My hon. friend (Mr. Martell) in the corner has spoken four times already, is he going to deny me the opportunity to speak once because I asked now a question? I would not have bothered the House with any remarks if the hon. member lor North Waterloo had not risen to present an argument against this amendment. I want to state briefly in reply to the hon. gentleman the effect which the amendment would have, and to answer what he put forward as an argument.
The present redemption fund may be called upon to redeem the notes of the bank, if all the assets of the bank have been exhausted and have not been sufficient to redeem the notes. That is the purpose of the fund. We want by the amendment to have that fund available to redeem the notes of the bank so that when a bank fails the notes are not made good from the depositors' money. That :s a brief statement of the amendment. My hon. friend from North Waterloo states tha: he wants to cut through all argument ana reach a conclusion without argument.


William Daum Euler: No.


William Irvine: He did not say that, but that is the effect of it.


William Daum Euler: I am not responsible for what my hon. friend thinks.


William Irvine: He says that a new principle is involved in this; that we are proposing to take money from one bank to pay the losses of another bank. That is the principle upon which the fund is organized now, and we are not altering that principle. If, however, all argument is cut it would be possible to come to the conclusion of my hon. friend. The amendment proposes to put the redemption fund on the basis of insurance instead of on a surety basis as it now is. The fund at the present time is a guarantee fund, whereas this would have the idea of insurance and would bring the fund into use immediatly in the case of a bank failing and thus the depositors money would not be called upon to make good the loss. That, I submit, is a very desirable result, and no good argument has been advanced against this proposal. I think hon. members will be obliged to do one of two things, either carry the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), or abolish the so-called guarantee fund entirely as having no justification.


James Alexander Robb: When we make up the notes from the funds of the depositors, my hon. friend would desire to return to the days when, as soon as a bank failed, the bank notes which a man had in his pocket w'ere of no value.


William Irvine: I would desire in this regard merely to return to honesty. The people in this country have been, to use a common word, "fooled" by the redemption fund. The depositors in this country have been led to believe that the bankers had a fund out of which the notes of a bank would be redeemed in the case of a bank failure, but when a bank actually failed it was out of the pockets of the depositors that the notes were redeemed. There is no use trying to get away from that fact. I want to put a stop to misrepresentation by making the fund available for the purpose for which it was intended.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was debated at great length in the Banking and Commerce committee, where all the arguments which have been advanced in this chamber to-day, and many more of a similar kind, were advanced in its favour, and none of them found favour with the majority of the committee. There are two major reasons that may be given against the proposed amendment and I will try' briefly to summarize them. One very-specious argument in favour of the amendment is that because recourse is had to the assets of the bank in finally redeeming a defunct bank's note circulation, therefore, there is a corresponding loss to the depositors. At first blush it might be held that that is correct. The notes in the first instance are paid out of the redemption fund if there are not in the hands of the liquidator sufficient liquid assets to redeem the bank's notes. That fund is reimbursed out of the assets of the bank as soon as its assets are liquidated, and it is only when there are not enough assets to pay the note circulation that recourse is had to the so-called redemption fund. It is argued, therefore, because this course is pursued, it is a distinct detriment to depositors who are really unsecured creditors. That argument loses sight altogether of the fact that when a bank note is put into circulation by a bank, a corresponding asset is received by the bank. Therefore, when one judges the matter wholly upon its merits, the argument advanced from that point of view in support of this proposition loses its whole effect.
The other major argument against this proposed amendment is this. It occurs to me that it is a little better than immoral to

Bank Act
suggest that, by compulsion, by legislation, a solvent bank, without having a single word to say about the management of a bank which goes into liquidation, without having had anything to say as to the reasons that may have put it into the slough of despond and insolvency, should pay the debts of an insolvent bank. I do not know of any principle upon which that can be sustained.


James Joseph Hughes: Under the act as it stands at present, if the assets of the bank that has failed are insufficient to pay the notes, would this redemption fund not be called upon to make up the deficiency?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would, to the extent to which the bank had already contributed to the fund in the first instance, but there would be no further recourse to the fund. The situation which the hon. gentleman has brought up may never arise-has never arisen in this country.


William Irvine: Why have the circulation fund?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know that argument will be immediately made. I answer by saying that it has a psychological effect in the minds of the note holders. It is a fund that is available in case the assets of the defunct bank do not pay the note holders. That situation has never arisen; it is not likely to arise; but it may arise, and in so far as the fund is good it should not be abolished. If we want to have a real bank circulation fund which would absolutely protect note holders, and it is not considered that the present scheme is good enough, I suggest that we adopt the national bank system and ask the banks to buy government bonds as a protection for their note issue. But, the minute you do that, you withdraw from the banks the privilege of lending to you or yours two or three hundred million dollars or whatever it may be that is now available for business in Canada. That will be withdrawn from business and it will be just that much detriment to business. Bv just how far you go that way, you will defeat the object which you have in mind which is to raise credit in this country.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not a member
of the Banking and Commerce committee, but I understand my hon. friends want the guarantee feature which would make all the banks contribute to a fund which would guarantee the notes of all the banks. This would1 enable one bank to interfere with another by checking up its credit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think we are going to give one bank the privilege of checking up another bank, but one bank is to pay for the notes of another bank.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton):: I have been a member of the
Banking and Commerce committee for the last two years. The argument has been advanced here to-day that because this amendment did not carry in the Banking and Commerce committee, therefore, it is 4 p.m. not worthy of consideration. Personally I was not able to attend the sittings of the Banking and Commerce committee very much this year on account of being on several other committees which were sitting at the same time. Had all the members of the Banking and Commerce committee been present when this motion was before the committee I believe, it would have earned. Had I been present, I would have supported it as strongly as I could. Had I known that this amendment was being voted upon, I would even have left another committee on which I was sitting in order to attend to vote for this amendment because I believe it is sound.
The statement has been made that this matter was considered by the Banking and Commerce committee last year. That statement must have been made by mistake, because this year I find that all the members of the Banking and Commerce committee to whom I talked were as much surprised as I was to find this year, and not until this year, that this fund was not used solely for the redemption of notes. I think the recent bank fiasco first brought this to our notice. I do not think any person understood the purpose of the fund before; I know I did not and I have talked to several members who were also ignorant of its real purpose.


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend proceeding to argue that an honestly managed bank should be made responsible for the bad management of the Home Bank?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If this fund was created for the purpose for which the public believed it was created, for the redemption of notes of a defunct bank, it is a form of insurance to guarantee circulation.


James Alexander Robb: No, it is the insurance principle which we are opposing.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The general opinion
has been that this fund was to ensure the payment of notes issued by a bank, which notes-the bank having failed-were of no
Bank Act

value. By the way, this motion does not mean that we shall go back to the old method, that when a bank fails its notes shall be no good.


James Alexander Robb: That is the argument of my
hon. friend.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not responsible
for his argument. Suppose we admit the insurance principle. If I insure my buildings against fire, and during the period of insurance they burn down, I would be somewhat surprised if the insurance company told me: "We can only pay you insurance to the amount of the premiums you paid in." That would be comparable to the argument used in this case. If this is not the .insurance principle it should be made so. For instance, what right has a bank to take deposits from the public, and upon a certain condition arising to use those deposits to pay their note circulation? Well, that is what the present practice means if I understand it aright, and I think I do. I have not had the privilege of attending the meetings of the Banking and Commerce committee as often as I desired, but I have been following its work, and I think that as time goes on both this parliament and the public will be behind a good many of the propositions-not all, because I am not behind them all myself-made by the members of that oommittee.


James Alexander Robb: Let us hear some of them.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is one of them.
Among my acquaintances I have several men who have been prominent in banking circles, and they thoroughly agree with our contention in this matter, as well as with government inspection of banks and some of the other proposals that were placed before the committee. Their opinion tended to convince me of the desirability of supporting these two specific measures.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker,
as has been remarked, this proposal received a good deal of consideration in the Banking and Commerce committee, and I think if it had not been for the activities of the "scouts" it might have got through.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Whom does the hon. member refer to as scouts?


William Charles Good: I suppose that question might be considered embarrassing, but if the hon. member wishes to know, I am referring to certain gentlemen who were very active in [Mr. Caldwell.[
getting members into the committee to vote although such members were not often in attendance at its meetings. This happened not only this session but last session.
^ Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) :	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It is absolutely improper to refer to any hon. member as being persuaded by scouts to attend the meetings of the committee. The House knows how difficult it was for hon. members to attend the many committees which were in session day after day, and I am sure that on deliberation my hon. friend will withdraw such an inappropriate term.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to reflect upon any hon. member, and if what I have said can be construed as such a reflection I shall be very glad indeed to withdraw the expression.
Undoubtedly there has been an entire misapprehension of the purpose and application of the bank circulation redemption fund. Only yesterday I was talking to a prominent member of the House, who did not happen to be a member of the Banking and Commerce committee, and he, too, was under the same misapprehension that most of us were under last year. The provisions in the act have been pretty much of a fraud upon the public, and it is the purpose of this amendment to embody what is the general opinion of the public in regard to this particular fund.
With regard to the observations made by some hon. members as to the liability which would rest upon well managed banks to help redeem the notes of badly managed banks which fail, it should be observed that at present the section dealing with this fund admits the principle; the only change suggested is to make the liability more direct. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and I think also the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), it seems to me, misstated the fact when they intimated to the House that this fund can only be called upon to the extent of the amount contributed thereto by the bank which fails. That is not the case. The fund can be called upon ultimately to make good the notes of the defunct bank if and after the assets of such bank have been exhausted.


William Daum Euler: Is not that an important consideration?


William Charles Good: It may be, but it does not
touch the principle of the case. The principle

Bank Act
of insurance is admitted in the present provision of the act, and this amendment is simply to make more direct the liability which the banks are under now.


Thomas Vien: Is my hon. friend not mistaken when he says that the principle of insurance is admitted in the act? On the contrary, is it not the principle of suretyship? And is not the purpose of the amendment to change that to the principle of insurance?


William Charles Good: It may be strictly accurate to describe the present clause as expressing the principle of suretyship, but even in suretyship there is an element of insurance. If I endorse somebody else's note, and he fails to meet it when due, I am liable for payment. If, as the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) said, I have a building insured against fire, and I am careful and do not have any fire, I have yet to contribute to pay the losses of those whose buildings are burned down and who possibly were careless. I contend that to the extent that this fund may be ultimately drawn upon to make good the notes of a defunct bank, it involves the same principle which has been objected to, that is, the levying of a tax upon the well managed bank to make good the losses incurred by a poorly managed bank.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But if my hon. friend is asked as a favour to endorse a note, he complies with his eyes open, knowing what the legal incidents of his endorsement are in the event of the promissor being unable to meet the note when due? But in this case is he not saying to people who have nothing at all to do with other banks:	"You must make
good the lack of funds of a badly managed bank over which you had no control whatever?"


William Charles Good: I would remind the hon.
member that the Bankers' Association, which is composed of all the banks, have the duty of checking up the circulation of each bank. In addition to that they have a direct interest in providing that all bank notes shall pass current at face value and shall not fall to a discount. I think that the Bankers' Association. if this amendment goes through, would be in very much the same position as that of a person who endorsed a note; they would be doing it with their eyes open and with a certain sense of responsibility for looking after the management of all banks that are members of the association. Now that the inspection of banks has been provided for,
the probability of loss to any well managed bank through having to contribute to make good the notes of a poorly managed bank is,
I think, very small indeed.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Does that
not almost remove the possibility of anything happening to the circulation? Is not the in-spectional element after all the chief element of security?


William Charles Good: I sincerely hope so, but I do think that we ought either to pass this amendment or wipe the clause out of the Bank Act. Make it a real insurance fund or abolish it altogether.


James Alexander Robb: Having said that, my hon.
friend must admit that if he holds the notes of a certain bank that fails, he runs the risk of finding them of no value.


William Charles Good: I do not understand that Mr. Speaker, because the notes are a first charge on the assets of the bank.


William Daum Euler: You would have to wait
for the redemption of notes until after liquidation took place.


William Charles Good: Possibly it would take some
little time to realize on the assets, but that difficulty might be overcome by making an advance to the bank in order that the notes might be quickly redeemed.


William Daum Euler: An advance from whom?


William Charles Good: From the government or
from the Bankers' Association. The Bankers' Association -would be very definitely interested in the matter.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would not the effect of
what my hon. friend is advocating be to make the different individual banks liable for one another, and would that not be tantamount in the final analysis to having but one bank in Canada?


William Charles Good: I hardly know how to answer
that question; it takes us pretty far afield. Possibly we might overcome the whole difficulty if we had a Dominion issue of all bank notes, doing away with private issues. That, however, is a matter I do not wish to discuss at the present time. I submit that this amendment is quite worth while, and it ought to be passed or else the present provision in the act might as well be abolished.


James Joseph Hughes: In the event of the assets not being sufficient to pay the notes, is not this redemption fund then a very real asset, a very real fund to take up the balance?
Bank Act


William Charles Good: It may be of value. I understand from the secretary of the Bankers' Association that only on one occasion in the history of Canadian banking has the fund been called upon.


James Joseph Hughes: But it is there all the
6ame.


William Charles Good: It is there.


James Joseph Hughes: And my hon. friend said that if the amendment did not pass he would be in favour of wiping it out altogether. That would certainly be a retrograde step.


William Charles Good: I am not advocating that it be wiped out; I want to make it something real. I want to make it something more than a deception of the public.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member said,
"Wipe it out if this amendment does not carry."


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to make any statement in regard to this matter, or even to vote, with the little information I have. I am not a member of the Banking committee and have not had time to study the question. I have tried to make up my mind just what the real facts of the case are. At the outset I may say that I would not be in favour of anything that would not make a bank note of its full face value even though the bank fails; that must be guaranteed to begin with. I always thought that the bank note circulation fund was contributed to by all the banks and that the whole fund was available for the redemption of bank notes.


James Alexander Robb: That is correct.


Robert Forke: Yes, but only to the extent that the bank in question has contributed to the fund.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Thomas Vien: The section of the Bank Act provides:
That all payments from the circulation fund shall be without regard to the amount contributed thereto by the bank in respect of whose notes the payments are made.


Robert Forke: Of course that would be a
sort of temporary loan.


Thomas Vien: It is a temporary loan.


Robert Forke: It seems to me that the
banks have special privileges and they ought to assume certain obligations. There seems to be a certain amount of mutual responsibility, as is indicated by the banks having a note circulation fund. Each bank does not 
go by itself; apparently the principle is recognized that one bank is interested in the welfare of another. I do not think any serious harm will result if a certain amount of responsibility is spread over all the banks in regard to making bank notes worth their face value should the bank that issued them happen to fail. I do not think it will ever be the case, as suggested by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that one bank will have to make up all the deficits of another. We are not. dealing with the matter in that broad sense.
Last year hon. members in this part of the House voted solidly in favour of bank inspection. We have not forgotten that, and it makes me hesitate to find fault with any amendments that may be offered to the Bank Act. In the past banking has been largely studied from the banker's point of view; it is only now that the general public are beginning to understand something of banking and to see that it is just as important that the public are protected as it is that the banks are protected. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the amendment.


Thomas Vien: I am
afraid that the hon. member (Mr. Spencer), who moved this amendment will defeat his own purpose and that of hon. gentlemen who support him. If the bill is sent back to the committee it may die there, and if we are to have a couple of weeks' discussion on it, the thing may be overdone.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I suggest,
to the hon. member that it is not fair to hold out a threat like that.


Thomas Vien: I did not threaten anybody.
I am simply suggesting one of the dangers of my hon. friend's amendment. But it is not correct to say that the Bank Act has been a fraud on the public in that it has created an impression that the note redemption fund was there to redeem notes with no reference at all to the assets of the bank. It has at all times clearly set forth in the Bank Act that the note redemption fund is there to provide the immediate redemption of the circulation of the bank which has become insolvent. But the minister who takes the money in the redemption fund has a first lien on the assets of the bank as any note holder has under section 131. Therefore when hon. members suggest that the public at large have been taken by surprise when as depositors they find themselves ranking after the note holders ir. the liquidation process, they are not on good ground. Section 131 provides that the first lien on the assets of the bank shall be the

Bank Act
notes in circulation. The redemption fund is created as a surety for the note holders in case only that the assets are not sufficient to redeem them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a mistake to create the impression that the public at large has been defrauded when they find themselves ranking after the note holders in their claim on the assets of the bank.
In respect of the proposition itself, I believe that it would be most inadvisable to adopt it. It has been fully threshed out in committee, and my hon. friends are wrong when they try to give the impression to the House that the vote in committee wras somewhat in the nature of a surprise vote. This question was agitated last year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. YIENand a vote was taken, and the committee last year was of the same opinion as it is to-day. This is by no means a new question.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to mislead the House. I am quite certain that on reflection he will admit that this particular question was not discussed and did not come up in the Banking committee last year, and no amendment was moved in this regard.


Thomas Vien: I am willing to accept the
correction of my hon. friend, but I am still under the impression that the matter was agitated in the Banking and Commerce committee last year, and I will take the time to check up my impression. The report of the Banking and Commerce committee last year occupies a full volume; I may be mistaken, but I am still under the impression that my hon. friend is wrong and that I am right. However, the matter was threshed out this year, and it has been found that it was unfair to ask a bank which has contributed to the circulation redemption fund to be obliged to pay out of its own moneys for the bad administration of a bank that has fallen into bankruptcy. This fund is only an additional surety to guarantee the note holders that, if the assets of the bank are insufficient, the fund will be called upon to pay. I think this principle, which was embodied in the act before its revision last year, and which was put in the act on its revision last year, is one that has been arrived at by experience; it is wise and should not be changed.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: There are just two or three points
I should like to emphasize. The chairman of the committee (Mr. Vien) has said that
this matter has been threshed out very fully in committee, and that the committee was not in favour of it. May I point out that last year the question of bank inspection was very fully threshed out in committee and the committee was not in favour of it either. It took the failure of the Home Bank to convince the committee and this House that inspection was necessary. I should like to endorse the position taken by several members of this committee that this resolution, or anything like it, was not before the committee last year; that is my understanding of the work which went on in the committee.
The suggestion has been made that there is something of fraud about such an arrangement as this. Personally I would not use the term fraud, but I would say that the public has been under a decided misapprehension with regard to this bank note circulation redemption fund. It is not the misapprehension which the chairman of the committee has suggested, that they would not have precedence over depositors; the misapprehension has been this: The public believed that the Bankers' Association and the other banks were behind the whole of the note issue of any particular bank.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will admit
that was there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not admit it.


Thomas Vien: Surely'!


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. As I understand it, the only purpose of this bank note circulation redemption fund is to ensure promptness in the redemption of the bank notes. It can be called upon up to the extent to which contributions have been made by the individual bank. It does ensure promptness, and so far it is good. But the resolution is intended to make the position of the bank note holders even stronger than it is to-day, because it would insist that the resources of all the banks, if necessary, or at least up to the amount that has been paid into the fund, could be called upon. It would make bank notes absolutely safe.
The question of morality has been raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). He claims that it would be quite immoral to make a well conducted bank pay for the weaknesses or failures of a poorly conducted bank. I would submit that this is the very principle of insurance. If there is a fire, the person who is very careful may possibly be called upon to pay for someone who is less careful; and the same principle
Bank Act

applies in marine insurance and any other kind of insurance. Why do we ask that this principle of insurance be recognized? Simply because the banks have an immensely valuable franchise, the issue of bank notes. The issue of bank notes is pre-eminently a state function, and I hope that before very many years are past no other organization than the state will be permitted to issue bank notes. In the meantime the banks are granted this very valuable privilege.


James Alexander Robb: May I ask my hon. friend
a question? I do not want to interrupt his argument except to point out that the bill before us is to provide for the inspection of banks. My hon. friend is now arguing the question of insurance. Is he out to kill the inspection bill, or to introduce the insurance theory?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The resolution
deals with the question of guaranteeing bank notes more fully than is now the case and of saving the depositors.


James Alexander Robb: But the real thing before us
is the bill for inspection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that if this motion which has been before the House and has been discussed for the last half hour is in order, I am quite in order in discussing it.


James Alexander Robb: I tarn not objecting to discussion, but I am pointing out to my hon. friend what he may really accomplish.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am discussing this question of making the bank note surer, and of forcing upon the banks the responsibility of guaranteeing the notes of the various banks that now have this very valuable privilege of issuing bank notes. I was pointing out that it has been objected that this is an immoral transaction. I want to ask if there is anything immoral in asking that a group of specially privileged people shall in some way provide that the public shall not be a loser?
I cannot see the immorality. Let me ask concerning those hundreds of miners in Fernie who put their deposits in the Home Bank because there was no other bank in the place where they were paid in which they could put them, and who are now called upon to contribute at the present time to make good the notes of the Home Bank: Is that morality? Surely when there are banka that are confessedly making huge sums out of the special franchise they enjoy of issuing notes, it is moral that they should1 be forced to see to it that all banks are conducted in a 
reasonable and safe manner. It has been said, and I think that perhaps there is on the face of it a little in the argument, that the proposed arrangment would be obligatory while insurance is voluntary. I would point out that there are some forms of insurance that are practically obligatory under our modern ways of doing business. After all, no bank needs to accept this privilige of issuing bank notes: it is a purely voluntary thing. And if the state thought fit to say to the banks, "If you want to have this valuable franchise of issuing bank notes you must submit to certain conditions", that would be absolutely proper and reasonable. It is surely a provision that the public requires for its protection at the present time. May I point out that one of the first effects of legislation of this kind would be that the banks would be a great deal more careful in looking into the affairs of other banks, and in insisting that regulations should be provided that would prevent bank disasters such as that of the Home Bank.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I wish to say one or two
words on an amendment which I propose to move, and I can assure hon. members, that I will not ask to have the House divided on the matter. Under the Bank Act as it now stands the double liability of the shareholders cannot be called upon until such 5 p.m. time as the bank becomes in an insolvent condition. We have in Canada to-day only fourteen banks, and I do not know that the Canadian people would view with any considerable favour a reduction in that number. Under the situation as it now exists, if a bank gets in a perilous condition the Inspector General is simply empowered under the proposed act to close the bank, as would happen in the case of insolvency. I propose Mr. Chairman, by the amendment which I will suggest., to make that double liability available while the bank is still in operation. The double liability clause of the Bank Act is contained in section 125. For the purpose of clarity, I am repeating the entire section and making some changes. I move:
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back * to the committee of the Whole with instructions to repeal Section 125 of the Bank Act and to substitute therefor the following:
125. In the event of the property and assets of the bank being insufficient to pay its debts and liabilities, or in the event that the paid-up capital of the bank
has been impaired by losses, or by the payment of dividends or by the payment of bonus or otherwise, each shareholder of the bank shall be liable for such deficiency or for such impairment to an amount equal to the par value of the shares held by him in addition to any amount not paid up on such shares.
(2)	" Shareholders," within the meaning of this section, shall include an undisclosed principal and, to the extent of his interest, a cestui que trust, on whose behalf or for whose benefit shares in the capital stock of the bank are held.
(3)	Subject to the two subsections last preceding, if the inspector at any time by inspection or otherwise ascertains that the paid-up capital of a bank has become impaired by losses or by the payment of dividends, or by the payment of bonus, or otherwise, he shall forthwith, upon receiving the approval of the minister, by a direction in writing addressed to the general manager, order such bank to restore the amount of such impairment in the paid-up capital by making a call upon the shareholders pro rata to the amount of capital held by each; if such bank neglects within four months after the receipt of such notice to comply with the order of the inspector, the minister may exercise the powers conferred upon him by subsection 10 of section 56A of this act; provided, however, that if all the subscribed stock has been fully paid up, the directors of the bank shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have, possess and exercise the same powers with respect to the making of calls on shares and the recovery and enforcement of such calls whether by suit, forfeiture, sale or otherwise, as they now have, possess and exercise under this act, for the making, recovery and enforcement of calls on unpaid stock; and provided further that any payment or payments, or the total thereof, made by any shareholder in excess of the amount unpaid on said shares, shall in no event exceed the limit of liability of the shareholders, hereinbefore specified.
It will be seen that this provides that if the bank fails within four months after the receipt of notice to call upon the shareholders to make good an impairment discovered by the inspector general, the minister may exercise the powers conferred upon him by subsection 10 of section 56A of the act. It provides also that the shareholders shall never become liable for more than the double liability, although there may be numerous calls. The purpose of the amendment is to make the double liability available before the bank actually becomes insolvent, to allow it to be earned on if in the judgment of the inspector general or the minister, that is found to be desirable.
Amendment (Mr. Shaw) negatived on division.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is with sincere regret that I find myself compelled to take this action at this time. I wish to offer an amendment which was moved by myself in the Banking and Commerce committee some time ago and which was carried by a large majority in that committee.



Bank Act
It was reported to the House two days ago and its concurrence was supported in the House this afternoon. I understand, however, that if we allow the third reading of this bill to go through, no further opportunity may offer itself for moving this amendment, in which let me insist again, both the committee and the House have concurred. It is an amendment to the business and powers of a bank, section 76, page 39 of the Bank Act. The old section reads; subsection (f) of subsection (2):
Except as authorized by this act, the bank shall not, either directly or indirectly, lend money or make advances in excess of 10 per cent of its paid-up capital to a director of a bank or to any company or corporation in which the president, general manager or a director of the bank is a partner or shareholder as the case may be, without the approval of two-thirds of the directors present at a regular meeting, or meeting specially called for the purpose, of the board.
The intention of that subsection in the act quite clearly is for the purpose of preventing as far as possible unwise loans in excess of 10 per cent of the paid up capital to companies in which a bank director may be interested or to companies in which the general manager may be interested by way of being a shareholder or a partner. I find, however, that under the act a regular meeting of the directors may be held with a quorum of only three and naturally they may be just local men. Two-thirds of three would naturally be two. Under the Bank Act, therfore, it is possible, on the votes of two men, to make huge loans far in excess of 10 per cent of the paid up capital. I do not by any means argue that that will be or has been done to any large extent. But the danger rests there, and in full recognition of the lessons we have learned in the last year, I think this House owes it to the country to safeguard the public at least by making sections of this kind as water-tight as possible. I therefore move;
That this bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the Whole for the purpose of further amending the Bank Act as follows:
That subsection (f) of section 76 of the Bank Act be amended by striking out all the words after the word " the " in the fifth line thereof and substituting therefor the following "without the unanimous approval of the directors present at a regular meeting of the board or meeting specially called for such purpose, providing that the notice calling any such regular or special meeting shall set out specifically such aforesaid mentioned purpose."
The House will note that the only changes that I have made in the act as it is now written are as follows:	I am asking the
unanimous approval of the directors present, the number of whom, as I pointed out a moment ago, may be only three. I am fur-
IMr. E. J. Garland.]
ther asking that notice of intention to lend such large amounts be sent with the notice to the directors calling the meeting. My reason for that is that I find in the case of the Home Bank, for example, there were directors in the West who were absolutely unaware for some time afterwards of certain large loans that had been made, loans that ultimately brought the bank to disaster. I think the amendment, especially, as I said before, as it met with the approval of the committee and [DOT] was concurred in this afternoon, might well be added to the Bank Act.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, whatever good
purpose might be served by further amendments to the Bank Act, I submit that at this stage of the session hon. gentlemen who have been pressing for bank inspection are doing much to imperil its adoption this afternoon.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In what way?


James Alexander Robb: Because the real issue before the House is bank inspection.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Not at all.


James Alexander Robb: Imagine for a moment if any of the amendments submitted by hon. gentlemen had been carried and referred to the committee, and it was impossible to secure a quorum of that committee,-


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It would be a reference to
committee of the Whole.


James Alexander Robb: -then the whole bill might be killed. No good purpose could be served even if the committee did meet and pass the amendment, because in practice loans of this kind must necessarily, and generally do, have the concurrence of all the directors present, and if, as my hon. friend argues, one director out of the three at the meeting, happens to be defeated, is it not within his power to advise all the other directors, and would not there be a row at once and a prompt settlement of the trouble? I should not like to use too harsh a word in describing some of the directors of the Home Bank, but because of the failure of that bank all the banking business of the country should not be tied up while notices are sent to the directors, some of whom may live a thousand miles away from the meeting place, to attend a meeting in regard to granting a loan. No good purpose is to be served by this amendment, there is no hurry for it anyway, and I submit that we can well afford to wait until we have the experience of the new bank inspector during the ensuing year.

Bank Act


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: Do I understand that if, say, a company in Montreal wanted a loan from a local bank, and some of its directors were also directors of the bank, it would be necessary to send notices to those directors of the bank who might be living in Vancouver, and to wait until they could have an opportunity of attending the meeting in Montreal to give their consent to the loan?


James Alexander Robb: I understand it would be
necessary to send those bank directors notice so they would have time to reach the meeting, and that this would mean sending the notices two weeks in advance.


John Arthur Clark: That is what I mean.
Nothing could be done until those directors living at a great distance had an opportunity of receiving the notice and attending in Montreal to give their consent?


James Alexander Robb: That is my understanding.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Acting Minister of Finance was quite fair to the group on this side who are pressing for the amendment when he said that we were imperilling the passage of the bill providing for the inspection of banks which bill is now being read the third time. As a matter of fact, the amendment seeks to refer the bill back to committee of the Whole, and if the hon. minister had accepted the amendment we could have been in committee of the Whole now and disposed of the proposal before six o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend believe
that committee of the Whole would have accepted this proposition without discussion? To refer it back would be simply to repeat what took place in the Banking and Commerce committee.


William Irvine: It has already been pointed out that the amendment now moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was carried in committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: The only
one, too.


William Irvine: Yes. It was thoroughly discussed and carried, and the report of the committee has already been concurred in by the House. So it is not unlikely that the House would sustain its action of yesterday.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is wrong
again. The motion to concur has not yet been presented to the House. May I also correct the impression which has been conveyed that this motion was unanimously 275J
adopted by the committee? If I remember correctly, the vote was 17 to 7.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, 27 tc 7.


Thomas Vien: My recollection is that the
vote was 17 to 7. I think my hon. friend is wrong.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was 20 anyhow.


James Alexander Robb: My memorandum states that
23 were present at the meeting.


William Irvine: As to how many were
at the meeting is not the point. The point is that the committee passed the amendment, and, as I understand, the only opportunity we have of sustaining the judgment of that committee is to present this amendment to the House, and this we have done. If that is likely to imperil the passage of the other amendment to the Bank Act which is now before the House, it is not the fault of this group nor of the hon. member who moved the amendment; it is the fault of the rules and general practice of this House which do not afford us an opportunity to present the proposal at any other time.


Thomas George McBride: What group is the hon.
member referring to?


William Irvine: I assure my hon. friend that I am not referring to him. I should never think of connecting his name with any group that is trying to do anything. Naturally I am speaking of the hon. member who moved the amendment and those of us who have interested ourselves for years in trying to secure amendments to the Bank Act. Certainly we are not trying to imperil the passage of the bill now before the House to effect bank inspection, and I resent the suggestion of the minister in this respect. I trust the House will find an opportunity of accepting the amendment. It seems ridiculous that we have to bring it forward in this way, but we have no choice under our parliamentary procedure.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The experience we gained
from the Home Bank incident indicated very clearly two things: First 0f all, that several loans were made which greatly exceeded 10 per cent of the capital of the 'bank; and secondly, that a large group of the directors bad absolutely no knowledge of the loans and had great difficulty in getting any information in regard to them. May I illustrate the purpose of this amendment by a concrete case? We will suppose that somebody wants to borrow a large sum of money from the Bank of Montreal. The capital of that bank is
Bank Act

$27,500,000. Presuming the borrower wants a loan in excess of $2,750,000, in that event, and in that event alone, this measure applies. It does not apply to ordinary loans.


Arthur Meighen: It would also apply to a
loan which would raise the total indebtedness of the company applying to 10 per cent or over the bank's capital?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: It would have that effect, but of course only in the event of the bank directors being connected with the company applying for the loan. It seems to me a very simple and fair amendment, and I think it will adequately meet the situation, and therefore it is eminently worth while under the circumstances.


William Charles Good: It would take about five
minutes to go into committee of the Whole and get this business through if members were agreeable. It certainly does not need to postpone the adoption of the inspection amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Arthur Meighen: The House may be ready, but I am not ready. I do not feel that I am in a position to decide the question. I have some sympathy with the Acting Finance Minister (Mr. Robb) when he says it is not good practice to amend the Bank Act fundamentally on the third reading of a bill which deals specifically with one section. At the same time there appear to be some special circumstances affecting this amendment, that it was passed apparently by a large majority at a meeting of the Banking and Commerce committee.


James Alexander Robb: And at a meeting where less
than one-third of the members of the committee were present.


Arthur Meighen: That may be true, but
how you are ever going to get much more than) a third with the course the government is pursuing, I do not know. They have com-mittee-ized this House until it is almost impossible to get anything done by a real committee. Instead of facing the responsibility and meeting it, the government have sought to dodge it by this committee after that, this commission piled on that committee, until they have simply clogged and stopped the processes of parliament.

Mr. VIEN r Does my hon. friend suggest that the government acted improperly or unwisely in referring to a committee the proposed amendments to the Bank Act?


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, I have not said
that at all.


Thomas Vien: I understood my right hon.
friend to say that the government had dodged its responsibility in referring this matter to a committee of the House.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member did
not understand me to say that at all, because what I said was very clear. I said that the government instead of meeting their re-ponsibilities had appointed this committee and that committee-


Thomas Vien: Standing committees of the
House.


Arthur Meighen: -this commission and
that commission, and had interposed them between themselves and their own decisions to such an extent that there was a clogging of the processes of parliament; that committees that were essential, committees that were doing essential business, were not able to get sufficient members to attend their meetings to enable them properly to carry out their tasks. The Banking and Commerce committee certainly is an essential committee. The reference to the committee of the Bank Act and the suggested amendments is a right thing. But when you accompany this by the acceptance of a motion from somebody calling for a declaration of policy on the coal business and its reference to a committee, and when you have a commission appointed on some subject, to postpone decision, and then after the commission reports have that report go to a committee; when you adopt all these devices, how are you ever going to have the real committees doing the real work perform their tasks? This is the point I made, and made very clearly, I think. Consequently there does appear to be a special circumstance affecting this amendment, namely, that it was thoroughly reviewed before the committee, whatever size the committee was able to attain, and passed there by a commanding majority, consequently it has gone through the only necessary stage to warrant its going back to a committee of this House if it. appears to the House in general to have merit.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is making a
fair argument, but I would like to have his

Bank Act
view on this point: was it not within the right of hon. members opposite to move all these amendments when we were on the second reading and when we were in committee?


Arthur Meighen: When we were in committee of the Whole?


Edward Joseph Garland: This question was still in the hands of the committee and was voted upon, I think, about the time the matter was taken up in the House.


James Alexander Robb: This may have been; the
other questions referred to this afternoon were not.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am dealing with this one.


Arthur Meighen: What I understood the
mover to say was that the committee was not though its work at the time the first instalment of its results took the form of legislation now before the House. At that time the committee was still going strong.


Mr. BUREAU:: This bill has been before
the committee of the Whole House.


James Alexander Robb: I recall hon. gentlemen opposite, when we were in committee on this bill, asking me to pledge myself to adopt this very amendment. If they look at Hansard they will discover that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see the relevancy of that, even if it be so.


James Alexander Robb: It emphasizes what I say,
namely, that it was within their right to propose amendments when we were in committee.


Arthur Meighen: It was, but they would
have taken a very weak position to have done so ^without a recommendation in that respect from the initial committee. The first time the recommendation is made, they come before the House with its result. It seems to me at least to be a basis upon which to demand the serious consideration of the House at this time. That is all I am arguing for.


Thomas Vien: Does my right hon. friend not
believe that the proper procedure would have been to discuss this question of amendment when the concurrence of the House in the report of the committee was being moved?


Arthur Meighen: No, I entirely disagree.
In the first place this bill would then be passed, and in the next place the report of a committee is no occasion for the discussion of a contemplated piece of legislation. That is just what I argued this afternoon. I do
not say that I have such a mastery of the purposes and real effect of this amendment as to feel secure in supporting it, but I do think it merits full discussion, and particularly merits considerate treatment at the hands of the Acting Finance Minister.


Thomas Vien: But that consideration will
be given when the House considers the principle embodied in it on the concurrence.


Arthur Meighen: Concurrence in the committee's report?


Thomas Vien: Yes. The principle of the
amendment will then be discussed.


Arthur Meighen: It may be, but I have
objected before and given my reasons, to determining public policy in that way. Besides, the objection lies that at that time it will be altogether too late to act.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I interrupt my right
hon. friend to point out that at page 4215 of Hansard, July 9th, I called the minister's attention to this very amendment, when the bill was on second reading. I quote:
Mr. Shaw: My suggestion to the minister is that as there is only one amendment that passed the committee it could be incorporated hi this bill and we could dispose of the whole matter now. Otherwise there will be no opportunity of presenting that amendment to the House.
Mr. Robb: The weather is getting pretty warm and we are getting on.
Mr. Shaw. The weather has nothing to do with legislation or it should not have.
That was the very amendment in question.


Jacques Bureau: Why did the hon. member acquiesce by his conduct? Why did he not go on with his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: Do not "oh". It is bettei to act.


Arthur Meighen: We can only conclude
from the interruption of the Minister of Customs that it is sometimes a mistake to follow the suggestions of the government. I have no sympathy at all with perpetual restraints upon legitimate banking, nor have I sympathy with anything unreasonable in the way of obligation upon bank directors. If we go too far in this direction we shall find it very hard to get bank directors at all. I know of very eminent men in Canada to-day who will not take a position on a bank directorate, and I may in confidence assure the House that I have decided to refuse all offers in the future myself. The obligations are very great, and the perils are great. It cannot be denied that what is sought to be
fijink Act

safeguarded against in this resolution is really the heart of the trouble in connection with the banks that have failed. If it is the right way of reaching that particular difficulty; if it is the right way of avoiding the rock which has wrecked many a bank, I would have infinitely more enthusiasm for it than for the substance of the very legislation which is now going through. I do not oppose the legislation at all; no one wishes it better than I. But I do fear that it is putting the government of Canada in a position where we might just as well from this on underwrite all the deposits of this country. However, that is not what is immediately under review. What is under review is an attempt to prevent ill-considered or perhaps corrupt, adventurous -to	put it mildly-loans to directors
through the medium of banks or under some other guise, of the funds of a bank. In the case of every bank that has come within my knowledge that finally wrecked and brought in its train unspeakable disaster, there has been the weakness; there has been the path they followed that led over the precipice. It is not that shareholders have been careless. Shareholders stand to lose not only all they have, but double, before anybody else can lose anything. It is not that we need to protect depositors or note holders or anybody else against shareholders. We need to protect depositors and note holders against selfish, grasping adventurers, who get themselves placed upon directorates, and so placed, play havoc with the funds of which they are trustees. Therefore I think that any attempt to circumvent the trouble where it really exists is far better than to put the government in the position where it really almost acts as a director itself.	Now the purpose of the
amendment is to provide that in any case where a loan is going to bring the borrower's liability so high as to be over 10 per cent of the bank's capital, such a loan must have behind it the unanimous support of the directors present at a meeting called to consider that very thing, in the case of the borrower being a director of the bank, or in the case of a director being a director in the borrower's company. I can see the inconvenience to which the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) behind me has pointed, that there might be a perfectly legitimate loan desired by a company, not merely a solvent company, but a wealthy company, a thoroughly responsible company, a loan which would not require perhaps ten minutes' consideration on the part of the general manager, but if this amendment passes it will be requisite that the directors be called from wherever they may 
be, and all present, so called and notified, must support the loan. It is true that unnecessary inconvenience in some cases may be caused; let us all concede that. At the same time, if I grasp the way the Bank Act stands now- I may have grasped it wrongly-it is required now that there shall be a meeting of two-thirds of the directors. Is not that correct?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: If that is correct, really
I do not see how there is going to be any more inconvenience; they have to be there anyway; there has to be a meeting. I am advised that loans now may be made at a directors' meeting by a two-third vote, loans that bring the borrower's liability above the 10 per cent, but that those present at that directors' meeting may have received no notification that this matter was coming up.
Really, the amendment on its face commends itself to me, and I would like a serious discussion of it, and particularly would I like to see a serious presentation of the objections on the part of the government to it. It has behind it a commanding majority of the committee. Certainly that alone would not be sufficient to attain, my support, but the amendment itself on its face presents a very strong case, and if I do not hear anything that moves my mind from its position, I intend to support it.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Garland, (Bow River) which was negatived! on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs.
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Kennedy (Edmonton), Kennedy (Port Arthur & Kenora),
Knox,
Lewis,
Lovie,
Lucas,
Macphail,
McKillop,
Meighen,
Millar,
Milne,
Preston,
Pritchard,
Ross (Simcoe),
Sales,
Shaw,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Humboldt),
Stewart (Leeds),
Thurston,
Wallace,
Ward,
White,
Woodsworth.-57.
Arthurs,
Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Bird,
Black (Huron),
Black (Yukon),
Boys,
Brethen,
Bristol,
Brown,
Caldwell,
Campbell,
Charters,
Coote,
Davies,
Elliott (Dundas), Elliott (Waterlooo), Evans,
Fansher,
Findlay,
Forke,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Good,
Gould,
Halbert,
Hocken,
Hodgins,
Hoey,

Redistribution
++NAYS
Messrs.
Anderson,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Boland,	Lapierre,
Binette,	Lapointe,
Boivin,	Lavigueur,
Boucher,	Logan,
Bourassa,	Lovett,
Bureau,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Cardin,	McBride,
Carmichael,	McConica,
Carruthers,	McCrea,
Chaplin,	McGiverin,
Chevrier,	Mclsaac, *
Chisholm,	McKay,
Clark,	Me Murray,
Clifford,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Copp,	Martell,
Dechene,	Morrison,
Denis (Joliette),	Morrissy,
Denis (St. Denis),	Motherwell,
Duff,	Murdock,
Duncan,	Neill,
Fontaine,	Putnam,
Forrester,	Rankin,
Fortier,	Raymond,
Gordon,	Robb,
Graham,	Robinson,
Grimmer,	Ross (Kingston),
Hammell,	Savard,
Hatfield,	Sheard,
Healy,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Hughes,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hunt,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Jones,	Vien,
Kelly,	Walsh.-69.
King (Kootenay),


Mr. T. J. STEWART (West Hamilton):: I desire to explain that I was recorded as voting for the amendment through a misunderstanding. I was talking to an hon. member while the division on the amendment was in progress and another hon. member gave me a nudge. I half rose in my seat in response to his action but recognizing my error shook my head and exclaimed " I am not voting for the amendment." When the " nays " were being taken I rose and voted as I had intended to do from the first. I therefore wish to have my vote recorded among the nays.


Hewitt Bostock: It is usual, I think, to
accept the explanation of an hon. member in a matter of this kind. I noticed that the hon. member shook his head when his name was called by the Clerk Assistant in recording the yeas. The hon. member now explains that he did not intend to vote in the affirmative, and I think he should be given the privilege of changing his vote. I therefore direct that the necessary correction be made in the division list.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 247, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the King of the Belgians.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Arthur Meighen: I think at this hour the committee had better rise; we cannot consider the bill now.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Piotou), (Minister of National Defence):	With the leave
of the House I desire to present the report of the special committee to which was referred the Redistribution bill. I present it at this stage on account of the fact that the schedules contain a description of all the constituencies in the Dominion, and it is desirable that it should be printed at as early a date as possible.
Hewitt Bostock: There is a distinct rule
that the first hour, from eight to nine o'clock every Friday, shall be devoted to private bills; but by unanimous consent the House can always permit an hon. member to present a report. I understand the motion is made with a view to expedite business so that the report can be printed for distribution Monday.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Yes.


Mr. BELAND:: I understand the presentation of this report will not interfere with the consideration of private bills. It is only a matter of a minute or two?


Hewitt Bostock: It is a matter of routine.


Arthur Meighen: It is a question
whether the report shall be presented now, out of order, or presented on Monday next after motions. It could not be presented regularly until Monday.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It could not be done without unanimous consent.
Private Bills


Hewitt Bostock: It is to expedite the
printing of the report.


Arthur Meighen: I would raise no objection to returning to the matter when we are through with private bills.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well.



PRIVATE BILLS RELIEF OF MALCOLM MIDDLETON

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 220, for the relief of Malcolm Middleton.-Mr. Jacobs.
Mr. LEWIS:: What is the object of bringing these bills before the House in this manner? It is a different procedure from the usual course.


The CHAIRMAN:: It is the same procedure as is followed every Friday night.


Jacques Bureau: The evidence that is taken before the Senate committee is sent to the members to be examined and considered.


Arthur John Lewis: Have these bills been before the Miscellaneous Private Bills committee?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, they follow the usual procedure.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Gerald Arthur Johnson.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Clara Louise Kinnear.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Allan Thomas Easson.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Henry Irwin Claxton.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of John Henry Smith.-Mr. Duncan.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Bertha May Roy.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Lunetta El-mina Hay.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 229, to incorporate L'lnstitut des Freres de Saint-Gabriel au Canada.-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Eva Laura Bell.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Peter Alexander Fawcett.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Beatrice Ella Mastron.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Herman Kleinsteuber.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Mary Ann Hastings.-Mr. Hocken.

Bill No. 243, to incorporate Joliette and Northern Railway Company-Mr.	Denis
(Joliette).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of William Smith Scott.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Rebecca Smol-kin Koffler.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Earl James Sharpe.-Mr. Jacobs.
.REDISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou), (Minister of National Defence):	Mr. Speaker,
with the leave of the House, under the order Presenting Reports, I desire to present the following report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons:
The special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 2 an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House, and to report the same, have the honour to present the following as their third report:
Your committee have prepared and unanimously agreed upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions, which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended in respect to the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon Territory, and upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended, in respect to the province of Ontario, with the exception of the electoral divisions of South Hastings, West Peterborough, Hastings-Peterborough, and Fort William in the said province, to which the majority of your committee have agreed.
Your committee have also considered section 4 of the said bill, and have unanimously agreed to recommend that the said section be amended. The proposed amendment is appended to this report, and submitted with the several schedules for the consideration of the House.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
E. M. Macdonald.
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 247 respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the King of the Belgians.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION _
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Immigration and Colonization-Immigration outside service-salaries, $750,000.
Mr. NEILL:: Can the government give
us any further information on the point

Supply-Immiffration
mentioned by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago when in answer to a question from this side of the House he said that the matter of the further restriction of Japanese immigration was still under consideration by the government? The House will recall that on May 8, 1922, the following resolution was moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the immigration of oriental aliens and their rapid multiplication is becoming a serious menace to living conditions, particularly on the Pacific coast, and to the future of the country in general, and the government should take immediate action with a view to securing the exclusion of future immigration of this type.
The word "exclusion" was cut out on a motion by the Minister of Immigration and the words " effective restriction " were inserted. But the minister in the language he used on that occasion .was very definite as to his intention. He said:
I do agree with everything my hon. friends have said about this matter. I am entirely in sympathy with the object of the resolution, but if that object is to be obtained we must be careful about the methods we employ.
And the Prime Minister himself used this language:
I think the present restriction is not effective: the government is prepared to seek to make it effective. That is what we wish to do.
So we have the unanimous pronouncement of this House that the oriental situation on the Pacific coast was a menace to the whole of Canada, and we have the statement of the Prime Minister that the then methods of restriction were not effective and that it was determined to make them so. We also have in this resolution what may be considered as authority to the government to take immediate steps to make the restrictions more effective. The result of that mandate, as we may call it, or that authority given by parliament, was this. The government next year introduced a practical measure of Chinese exclusion which has worked very satisfactorily. But as regards the Japanese phase of the question their action took the form of negotiations with the Japanese government, the result of which is that we have still to-day the gentleman's agreement which is universally admitted to have been a failure with all its admitted imperfections save only in this one point, that the quota in respect to two certain classes of immigration, which had formerly been fixed at 400, was supposed to have been reduced to 150. 'There is a very complete misconception of the facts in that regard. I presume most hon. members, and, I think, most people in the country had the idea, and have the idea
to-day, that the total Japanese immigration under the gentleman's agreement was formerly limited to 400 and that it is now limited to 150. If that were the case there might perhaps, be small ground for complaint. But that is a distinct misconception; that is not the case. While there is that quota it applies only to two limited classes, and there are other classes in respect to which, while the door is not exactly wide open, the provisions of the gentleman's agreement are so loosely worded and loosely applied that they can be strained so as to enable the bringing in to this country of immigrants illegally, or at least in defiance of the spirit of the gentleman's agreement. I shall not weary the committee by going into the statistics. But if that is not so, how is it that our immigration returns, which at least can be relied on, show that in one recent year the total immigration of Japanese was 1,178 when it was supposed to be only 400? No later than yesterday, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) we were informed that in the two months of this fiscal year-that is, April and May, 1924-the total immigration of Japanese of all classes into this country was 135. That is for two months, one-sixth of the year; multiply that by six and you get immigration at the rate of 810 a year-and that since the amended gentleman's agreement has come into effect. In the first two months of this fiscal year Japanese immigration has been at the rate of 810 a year, so that dissipates any mistaken idea-for it is a mistake-that the limitation of Japanese immigration is 150.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend know how many of them are Japanese returning to Canada who have been previously resident here?


Alan Webster Neill: I think none of them were
Japanese returning. The Bureau of Statistics informed me that no record is kept of Japanese returning. The records apply only to those who enter for the first time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is right about the method. But records have been kept on the other side which would indicate the numbers which are returning, and I imagine that some of those discrepancies could be accounted for if the two were placed side by side.


Alan Webster Neill: The returns given in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South yesterday were undoubtedly based on our returns, and I am taking the figures from them.
Supply-Immigration

I have the written statement of the statistical bureau that they do not keep records of those returning to Canada; it is only the first immigration that is counted. Here is what the figures say: In the two months I have mentioned, of women there were 73; of labourers, 12; of others, 50, making a total of 135. To illustrate how adroitly this thing is worked, I may point out that the gentleman's agreement was amended last August, and here are the monthly returns of immigration since then from Japan. August, 29; then it dropped in September to 23, and dropped again to 16, 16 again, then 17, and so on, to create the impression that the gentleman's agreement was functioning, and that is what always happens after you have made a gentleman's agreement in that quarter. For the first two or three months everything looks lovely, everything is carried out in the full spirit of the agreement, but after a few months, when they think suspicion has been allayed, we find that the immigration goes up, as it did in February, to 50; I do not know what the figures were for March, but for April and May the figures were 135. That is just an illustrative indication of what happens under these 'loosely drawn agreements. I might say that the gentleman's agreement was supposed to control immigration and limit it to only four classes of immigrants, and to only two of these does this quota of 400, and now 150, apply. So the situation is to-day that we have with us this gentleman's agreement, -which has been an admitted failure, except that the quota has been reduced. I frankly admit it is much better to have a quota in two classes of 150 than of 400 but I maintain it does not meet, and cannot be said in any way to meet, either the letter or the spirit of the resolution which was passed on the 8th day of May, 1922, calling for effective restriction, I submit that is not effective restriction. That is the situation up to date.
As regards the future, for it is no use complaining of a situation unless some means can be found of remedying it, in guiding our future course I presume it would be wise to take cognizance of the experience of the United States in a similar regard. There they had a gentleman's agreement much more strict even than ours, because they had no quota at all. It was definitely stated that their gentleman's agreement was meant to -take the place and have all the results of a total exclusion bill. They passed a Chinese exclusion bill, and instead of passing a Japanese one, they put into effect this gentleman's agreement, which as I said, was much more strict than the one we had. Con-IMr. Neill.l
ditions there were much worse than they were here, and were rapidly growing worse, and there, as here, the subject was regarded in congress as one of these hardy annuals that some member from the West got up and howled about in the House, and then the matter was forgotten for another year. Well, that went on for a long time in the United States, and then almost overnight, but pos-siby as a result of a great deal of education, congress woke up and discovered1 that this was not a western question, not a Californian question, but a national one, and once they grasped that, they very speedily took action and inserted a clause in a bill then going through the House that people incapable of becoming citizens under their laws could not be admitted into the country. That seemed a reasonable provision, that it was not desirable to admit, either in large or in any numbers people who could never under the United States laws become citizens of that country. That provision cannot be said to discriminate against any nation in particular, because it applied to something like 65 per cent of the total population of the world, and I think included some 27 different nationalities, of which the Japanese population comprised only 8 per cent, and that 8 per cent is the only nation that has made al'l this protest and fuss.
I should like to quote just one argument, because my idea is to show that it is not feasible or practicable or desirable to handle this matter any longer by means of a gentleman's agreement. If it served in the past, the past has gone, and it is no longer feasible to continue it. As we are all aware, there was a great discussion in the press and elsewhere when this bill was going through congress, and the suggestion was made on behalf of the Japanese government that this drastic action, this insulting action, as they called it, was uncalled for, inasmuch as the whole thing was trivial. "Why," they said, "what are you making all this fuss about and insulting a friendly nation for? How many Japs are you going to exclude? Only 146 in a year. What is all the fuss about then?" In case it might be thought that I am twisting newspaper comment for my own ends, I will quote the absolute language of a letter addressed by the Japanese Ambassador to Secretary of State Hughes, which contains this sentence:
And yet the actual result of that particular provision, if the proposed bill becomes law, wcAld be to exclude only 146 Japanese per year.
Only 146 Japanese per year, the Japanese Ambassador says. I have here cuttings from

Supply-Immigration
newspapers in the West and also from Tokio, which I shall not read to the House, but I will give the headlines: "Japanese rush in thousands to the United States." This is under a San Francisco headline: "Four liners which will make extraordinary runs from Yokohama and arrive in San Francisco in the last four days in June are-" and then follow the names of the four boats: "At least 2,000 Japanese will arrive on these four boats." Here is another item from San Francisco again: "A local Japanese newspaper estimates there are approximately 6,000 immigrants awaiting sailings from Japan on receipt of word they will be barred after July 1." Here is an extract from an English newspaper in Tokio: "The government"-mark you, the government-"has secured five steamers to handle the large number of Japanese seeking to reach the United States before the exclusion law becomes effective." Here is a heading from a British Colum'bia paper, saying that "Over 5,000 Japanese sailed from Tokio tc beat the exclusion date," and they mention some of the Japanese steamboats and their sailing dates, which were being advanced to get these people across in time. I have here the Vancouver Province, published in Vancouver, showing a photograph of Japanese picture brides, who are coming to Vancouver on their way to the United States. That is given and accepted as a piece of ordinary newsr This group among hundreds of others were even coming via Victoria because the space was all taken up on boats sailing direct to the United States. It has become a commonplace in the West. I need only mention that these picture brides, come in in direct violation of both the spirit, and I maintain, the letter of the gentleman's agreement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if the
hon. member will vouch for the veracity ol these newspaper items?


Alan Webster Neill: I will not personally vouch
for the veracity of every one of these items, but when I cite a number of items taken from the press, stating that various ships are sailing, not a mere statement that they are going to sail or perhaps may sail, but when they state that they are sailing and give the names of the boats and the sailing dates, I do not think it would be possible that I or anybody of the same thinking as myself would be able to get these items published in a paper in Tokio in order to mislead this House. It seems more than probable that there is a good deal of truth in these statements published in various newspapers, at great distances from each other, stating that boats have been
arranged for by the Japanese government to accommodate this rush of immigrants. Does the hon. member suggest that I faked this photograph of picture brides taken on the liner at Victoria? Hardly! I have not sufficient influence to do that. There has been a great rush of Japanese immigrants, from 4,000 to 6,000, men and women, in six weeks. They say they are proud; they do not like the exclusion legislation, and yet their pride is of such a character that thousands of them, men and women, after saying only 146 would come in in one year, rush into a country where they have the strongest evidence they are not wanted. That is the kind of pride they have. The only kind of their pride which is hurt in this connection is when some nation proposes a measure of restriction which really restricts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if the
people from Great Britain had not a similar kind of pride when they camped along the Canadian border in order to get into the United States before the British quota -was exhausted?


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about the
Japanese at the present time. I have heard no complaint, I have heard no suggestions from Britain that they are going to rattle the sabre and talk about war because the United States now insist upon the exercise of their rights to restrict very seriously and substantially the number of immigrants going into that country from Britain. As I say, I have heard no complaints. Britain has recognized that the United States has the right to regulate its own immigration. That is all we ask-that we should be allowed the same privilege without interference from any foreign nations. I suggest that in five years from now, perhaps in less than that, the United States, and I think Japan also will congratulate themselves on the stand that has been taken recently, because it is an end for all time to this question, an end to friction, an end to the very causes of irritation and suspicion which inevitably do lead to misunderstanding and perhaps to war. So when the question is settled finally as it is in the United States, I think in years to come it will be an advantage to both parties; and Japan will recognize that this decision is not the result of a mere handful of fanatics in the States but that it is the settled policy of the country, and they will cease to endeavour to intrude themselves into the United States but will seek an outlet in some other country where they will be more welcome. I am not saying that the negotiations uip to date have not been the best that could be done, but what I would like to
Supply-Immigration

lay before the government is this. The situation has changed to-day, it is not like it was a year ago even, and I suggest that the condition to-day is much more favourable for us to push on with this subject and bring it to a head. Now as never before we have this opportunity. The conditions are ripe, so to speak. To-day it is not too late for the Japanese nation to negotiate with us, this year, this summer,-but perhaps next summer, matters will come to a head like they did in the United States and it will be too late for them then to negotiate. The Japanese statesmen are wise men and they must have realized by the events in the United States that diplomacy may hinder, and delay, and prevent the consummation of the people's will for a time, sometimes for a long time, but there comes a day sooner or later when the will of the people will be expressed in spite of diplomats or governments as was done in the country to the south the other day. It was a voluntary outbreak, you might almost call it, of public opinion, and when that occurred it swept diplomacy, and everything else before it. A similar manifestation of public opinion may come at any moment in this country, and the Japanese statesmen would be well advised for their own sakes to take the olive branch that the government might hold out now and say "Yes we will agree" without having to have it put into such a drastic law as the States did. "We will agree to a real, definite restriction," not a restriction expressed in terms of a vague gentleman's agreement to be enforced by the other side, but a real restriction in which we would keep the restricting in our own hands and would know what we are doing. As I have said before the only kind of restriction which the Japanese will agree to is one that does not restrict but a restriction of which she has the handling.
Now, I wish I had the ability and the eloquence to bring it home to hon. members that this is not a mere political question in British Columbia, or a parochial question in my own district; it goes further than that. It has ceased to be a provincial matter, it has almost ceased to be a national matter;
I would suggest it is almost a world wide matter to-day. That may seem to some to be a far-fetched statement but let me explain : In this matter, as in other matters in the light of diplomacy and of history, we will either be going forward or going back. If we desire to go forward now is the proper time to do it. If we go back the time will come when the North American continent will be dominated by the yellow race. I do [Mr. Neill.}
not say that will happen in a few years, it may take seventy-five or a hundred years to accomplish it, but come it will and perhaps much sooner than hon. gentlemen expect. It seems to many impossible that the time would ever come when we would be dominated by the oriental race but let us look at the possibilities.
At present these races are not allowed to vote but it was only last year that an hon. member of this House-not a crank, not a theorist, but a man of repute and standing in his profession-urged when speaking on this question that orientals should be allowed votes in this country. Once concede that and you are opening the door, and opening it widely to a great many other things. Because the orientals will use their votes in one settled direction to increase the immigration of their people. It will not be next year, it will not be five years-but suppose you found orientals voting, then it will not be seventy-five or a hundred years before they will be in control on this continent which is so eminently suited to accommodate their enormous population. People may laugh at that and say it is a dreamer's vision; that before such a thing could come about there would be a fight. But you will not get a chance to fight. It would not come as a result of a bloody conflict, it would be the result of a peaceful penetration. Nations have been overrun and conquered by force of arms and they have survived and gone on. But a peaceful penetration perhaps by a more virile nation, certainly by a more numerous and more prolific one, one accustomed to a lower standard of living- the dominance of that race once accomplished will be forever.
If you look at the issue a little further it means more than that. Once let the North American continent be controlled or dominated as are the Hawaiian islands where inside of five years the orientals will be in a majority; go into the question further still and what does it mean? The dominance of the white races over the brown, black and yellow races of the world will be lost. That again seems like a far-fetched reason as the result of a few thousand orientals coming into British Columbia. To draw a picture of the white race losing the supremacy of the world as the result of such conditions seems a dream, does it not? But the history of the world and of individuals tells us that those men and those nations have always gone farthest and most rapidly ahead that have been able to anticipate far ahead the course of events and bend them to their need or guard against any evil

Supply-Immigration
which may be threatening. Historians tell us that this fear of a dominance of orientals, or the dominance of the brown, yellow and black races over the white has been a fear that has been gradually growing throughout hundreds of years. It was far, far away at one time but it is now getting nearer. In spite of our boasted supremacy the fact is that we constitute only 35 per cent of the population of the world, and when you consider the vast development that has taken place during the last twenty years in the education and in the growing aspirations of the brown and yellow races of the world towards independence and towards the control of their own destiny, so to speak, you can perhaps realize that the danger is increasing. And here is another thought which may be far-fetched also in the opinion of some. Once let the white nations of this world be dominated by the yellow and the black and the brown races, inevitably, as night follows day it follows that our white civilization will pass away and be replaced by an oriental civilization with all that it implies. We will go back thousands of years to the time when you will find tyrants ruling over peoples who lived in a state of semi-slavery, degradation and misery. That is oriental civilization and that is what we may be heading for if we do not take the right steps. This is no question of a dream. There are lots of precedents upon which to base this fear. Civilizations have come and gone and left hardly a trace of their greatness. We therefore might well consider whether we want to take any step which would precipitate or make possible such a destiny for white civilization. I repeat, and I will quote a good authority for it, that the preservation of our civilization depends upon the domination of the white races over the coloured races of the world. No less a man than the celebrated Mr. Hughes, the Premier of Australia, speaking the other day in Victoria used this language-I will only quote a sentence:
" The purity of race," declared Mr. Hughes. " is the chief asset of man, as we understand the matter."
Now that is not a fanatic speaking; that is the premier of a great, dominion who has a statesman's attitude am a knowl 'dge of the situation.
"If there was anything." he said, "In purity of race as an asset then they in Australia would be able to say that they had preserved it throughout their national history. And that policy was not for the welfare of Australia alone, but for the whole of western civilization."
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, and very many others with which I will not detain the House, I think it is the duty of parliament and the government to proceed cautiously but
firmly, and as speedily as possible, to put into effect the resolution passed in this House two years ago looking for effective restriction in the full sense of the word.
That is the general principle. The results we wish to achieve may be cited as the same as were cited in the case of the Chinese. We want the exclusion of all but Japanese diplomats, Canadian born Japanese and merchants and students.
As to the methods, no extensive legislation is needed. The means are right at hand if we want to take them. I suggest the cancellation of the gentleman's agreement and the enforcement of section 13, chapter 25, of the Immigration Act, 1919, where it gives the power to the minister to prohibit the immigration of any one deemed unsuitable, having regard to climatic, industrial, social, educational, labour or other conditions or requirements of Canada, or because such immigrants are deemed undesirable owing to their peculiar customs, habits, modes of life, methods of holding property, and because of their probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, within a reasonable time after their entry. That has been the law for years, and it has never been employed. It could be enforced with the acquiescence of the Japanese nation without any offence to them, or any direct discrimination aimed at them.
But there is another method which I believe has been a success in a British Crown colony. An arrangement was made with Japan by which any Japanese subject wishing to come to the colony I have mentioned had to have a passport. It had to be vised by the British consul in Japan, and it was an understood thing between the Japanese nation and this particular Crown colony that instructions would be given to those consuls and agents not to vise any passports given to these people. That has been in force for some years,, and has worked effectually without trouble on either side. Either method would suffice in this case. In connection with that there would also have to be evolved some method that would not give offence to their national pride, to give registration to the Japanese now in Canada, because under the recent registration under the Chinese Immigration Act, while it was supposed there were some
38,000	Chinese lawfully admitted into Canada this compulsory registration betrayed the fact that there are something like 10,000 more Chinese actually in Canada to-day than were believed to be in this country. I would be glad if the minister or the government could
Supply-Immigration

see its way to give some expression of what their policy will be, or what steps they intend to take in this matter.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has again brought this matter to the attention of the government. He has stated that we have a gentleman's agreement with the kingdom of Japan. That was modified when Japan recently intimated that they would reduce the number to meet the conditions and restrictions that we were placing against other countries. Japan is not the only country against which we have restrictions. I am bound to say that the people of Japan are living up to their promises fairly well. There are negotiations now between the government and representatives of Japan, and we are also adopting measures to make a more effective record of the movement of the people coming from the Orient, so that we will be able to classify and determine for our own nation and for the nation from which these people are coming the returning citizens and the new arrivals in our country. I can assure my hon. friend that the government has every desire to meet the wishes of all the provinces of this Dominion regarding immigration. But he must keep in mind the fact that Japan has a large population, and that we do a very profitable and very fair business with them. No longer ago than last night, while acting on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) I had to defend a vote for a considerable expenditure, which my hon. friend (Mr. Neill) supported, to erect a grain elevator in British Columbia and it was represented that that elevator was built partially for trade with the Orient. So, in dealing with this matter, we must consider all sides of it. I have no statistics of the trade between Japan and Canada, but I wish to assure my hon. friend that the government have no desire except to see that the arrangement made with Japan is lived up to.


Alan Webster Neill: In answer to the statement
made by the minister, I may say that the two subjects have no connection whatever. The trade with China is increasing by leaps and bounds, and so is the trade with Japan, and we will do well to continue that trade. The trade is progressing now with Japan, and that trade will always continue when conditions are right. The fact that we are willing to trade with Japan and China does not involve the assumption that we should marry them or let their sons and daughters overrun our country. That doctrine was exploded years
rMr. Neill.]
ago. This is a matter entirely apart from the Trade and Commerce department, and I would like if the minister would give us an idea of some action by the government along the line of negotiation, rather than a mere idea that we will keep track of them. They will come in, and the question is, how are we going to keep them out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to
my hon. friend, (Mr. Neill), I might say that,
recognizing the importance of this problem, not only from the point of view of the province from which he comes, but from the point of view of the whole Dominion, I took occasion a short time ago to have another conversation with the Consul General of Japan, who is the representative of the country here, concerning the statistics on record in our department, and the statistics which were coming from Japan. I have to confess that, so far as our own statistics are concerned, it did not appear that our department had been keeping a separate record of the numbers that were returning immigrants, as contrasted with others who were coming in for the first time. The Japanese government have kept a very careful record in that regard. I drew the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Robb) to the matter and his department have taken steps to have the record kept in a more detailed manner. I am inclined to think that an accurate statement of the statistics would tend to show that the large numbers that have been appearing in the recent statistics are, many of them, Japanese who left Canada in the last year or two and1 who have been returning. As my hon. friend knows, a great many Japanese leave Canada every year for Japan and return six months, twelve months or two years later. We have consistently maintained that if a Japanese becomes a resident of Canada we should permit him to return to Japan and come back again. These returning Japanese have appeared on our list as Japanese arrivals, so to speak, and we have looked upon them as newcomers. As a matter of fact, they are not.
Broadly speaking, Japanese coming to Canada fall into the category of labourers or nonlabourers. I think, so far as the problem is concerned, it is esentially a labour problem. With the class of Japanese who are not labourers we are not concerned in the matter of restriction of numbers, beyond making perfectly sure that labourers do not get into this country under the guise of nonlabourers. For example, among the nonlabouring classes would be government officials. No one in Canada wishes to

Supply-Immigra tion
exclude any government official of Japan. We want Japanese government officials to feel just as free to travel through thi3 country, and to get as intimately in touch with Canadian conditions, as we would wish the Japanese government to permit our government officials to travel through Japan and become acquainted with Japanese conditions. The same is the case with students. I do not think anyone in this country wishes to prevent bona fide Japanese students from coming to our universities and colleges for training. As is well known, the number of students from Japan who attend universities in the United States is very considerable, and these men, returning to Japan with a knowledge of American conditions, have been really the forerunners of a considerable trade development, to say nothing of being of great assistance in their own country in helping to bring about standards of living, and of industrial conditions similar to those which exist on this continent. I do not think one need argue the point as to the importance of encouraging Japanese students to come to our universities in order to become acquainted with our standards in matters of civic life, methods of government and the like, and to return to the Orient with those ideas. That, really, is the most effective kind of missionary effort, to let the oriental see the civilization we have, and if in any particular we are ahead, to let him carry those ideas back to his people.
Another class is that of merchants, and so long as we are sure that the men who are coming to this country from Japan are not labourers travelling in the guise of merchants or petty shopkeepers who are competing with similar classes in our own country, but are bona fide merchants seeking to develop trade between the two countries, I feel that most people in Canada would wish to have them admitted.


Alan Webster Neill: The right hon. gentleman
will remember that I specially mentioned those as being admittable immigrants. I did not wish to exclude them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will admit all that I have said up to the present moment. He takes a broad view of the question. I wish to repeat the broad line of distinction as I see it is between the labouring classes, so to speak, and the classes other than the labouring classes. I am enumerating the latter. Again there are travellers from Japan, young Japanese of families in Japan apparently able to send their sons abroad, and others who are able to travel
for reasons of research or pleasure. No one would wish to exclude any of those classes. That is a very considerable group; and among the Japanese that have been coming to Canada of whom we have kept a statistical record, are many belonging to those classes. Then, there are some under the heading of miscellaneous, a few types of individuals, whom I have not mentioned; but they will occur to anyone on thought-missionaries, actors and the like-who might be passing through the country.
It is with respect to the labouring classes that the problem asserts itself. Broadly speaking, of the labouring classes, there are those who come as contract labourers, those who come as Japanese labourers to work on farms of Japanese and those who come as domestic servants.


Alan Webster Neill: And their wives.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I admit as regards those classes-contract labourers, domestic servants, and agricultural settlers- the gentleman's agreement to which my hon. friend has referred restricted their numbers to 400. The latest understanding with the Japanese government was that those numbers would be kept down to 150. If we can keep them down to 150, there will be very few in Canada who will take strong exception to such a limited number, but we want to be perfectly sure that they are being so restricted. If there is any doubt about restriction to 150, because we fix that as a maximum, I would agree with my hon. friend that we may have to take drastic measures to ensure that the number is so restricted.


Alan Webster Neill: If the limit was 150 heads, that is total immigration of any kind, that could be handled, but under the section dealing with the women, the number is absolutely unlimited. Any woman who says: "I am the wife of So-and-So" can come in, and that is the principal objection, because they will come in and raise children.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is right in drawing to the attention of the department the importance of having a clear understanding with the Japanese as to the number to be admitted as the wives of those who are already in the country or of those who may come in. The Department of Immigration is taking up that very matter with the Japanese government, because we have recognized the loophole there which admits of possibilities that are considerable. With respect to one class, the contract
Supply-Immigration

labourers, the gentleman's agreement provides that no Japanese shall come into this country as contract labourers except with the approval of the government of Canada. The government of Canada have not given any approval . thus far for the admission of Japanese labourers as contract labourers, and we do not intend to. It was thought advisable, at the time that agreement was drafted, to have inserted some clause which would permit, if an exceptional need arose, owing to some unforeseen circumstance, of bringing in men under contract. The clause was understood at the time as having that significance and nothing more. Under that head none have come in. Those that are coming in are coming in either as domestic servants or as settlers on land owned by Japanese who are farmers. The only other class is that of returned immigrants or the wives and children of those men who have been here. I repeat that I think our department can exercise perhaps a closer scrutiny than they have in the past. I believe the Japanese government are trying to live up to their understanding with our government; but as we all know, outside of the government altogether there are in Japan agencies that are interested in getting numbers of their people into this country if that is at all possible, and we must take every measure conceivable to prevent anything of that kind. We should seek to be strictly honourable in our relations with the government of Japan; but the government of Japan should not take exception to anything that we do to see that the number of those who come into this country does not exceed the number actually agreed upon between their government and ours.
May I add just this further word? The feeling that has been aroused in Japan as a result of the recent action of the United States government is somewhat tense at the moment, and we ought to take account of that circumstance. If we can gain our object of restricting effectively immigration from Japan without intensifying the feeling against this continent at the moment, that will be all to the benefit of Canada in the long run, and I am sure that my hon. friend will be the first to agree with me in that.
I believe too at the moment the Japanese are very friendly towards us, and that if our commercial agencies wall take advantage of the psychology of the situation, if I may use that expression, there is a chance at this time for Canada to develop immensely the trade between our country and Japan in a manner that will be very beneficial to the people of British Columbia in particular and fMr. Mackenzie King.]
indirectly to the people of our Dominion as a whole. The government feels that that is one aspect of the question of which account should be taken, and we are therefore continuing to proceed along the line of endeavouring to secure by diplomatic methods what, perhaps, our friends to the south of us have despaired of obtaining in that way. If we find that we cannot get effective restriction in the manner I have described, the government will be prepared to consider any further restrictive measure which my hon. friend or his friends from British Columbia may bring to its attention.


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has fully covered the ground. No one has attempted to contradict his statement that the two races, the yellow and the white, will never assimilate. Why, then, should they be allowed to come together? Eleven years ago the Japanese birthrate stood in the proportion of 1 to 252 white; to-day a Japanese baby is born in British Columbia for every thirteen whites. If that rate of progress continues during the next ten years, the Japanese birthrate in the province will exceed that of the whites. Surely we do not want such a condition of affairs, therefore I would urge the government to at least put a stop to Japanese women entering British Columbia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman. I
am very glad indeed to hear the Prime Minister's words with regard to our seeking to avoid the passion and prejudice which exists at the present time as evidence in the action of the United States. It seems to me that when all over the world international relations are somewhat strained, and we have not altogether recovered our normal way of looking at things, it is very essential that we should avoid occasions of friction between the nations.
I agree with the member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) that we ought not to permit the incoming of orientals, or, for that matter, of any other group to lower our standard of living. I think the hon. member contributed a great service the other evening when he so well called attention to the fact that by the bringing in of a certain number of Chinese in bond on the British Empire Steel Company's boats the immigration law had been practically evaded. There is a danger that in this way we may establish a very vicious form of peonage in Canada, at the same time lowering our own standards and degrading the unfortunate immigrants who are thus brought in without proper safeguards.

Supply-Immigration
But I call attention to the fact, as I have done on previous occasions, that mere exclusion of Asiatics will not solve the economic problem of the competition of the oriental races? The fact is that if steamers cannot be repaired cheaply enough on this side of the Pacific they are repaired on the other side; the fact is that these ships which enter our ports from China, Japan and other parts of the Orient are bringing in goods that are made by cheap oriental labour, and these goods compete with our goods, and thus with our workmen. So I repeat, exclusion is no final solution of the economic problem. However,
I protest as emphatically as I can against the attitude taken by the member for Comox-Alberni when he used words something like this: That the preservation of our civilization depends on the dominance of white races over the other races of the world. If that be the case, then the sooner this civilization perishes from off the face of the earth the better. Does the hon. member mean to say that we of the white race must eternally bestride this earth and keep other races in subordination? It seems to me that this is the very doctrine which some people accused the Germans of preaching, and for the defeat of which the world war was supposed to have been fought. It is this use of the word "dominance," this idea of some superior Nordic race, that is responsible for a great deal of the trouble which we have at the present time, and I do not think that such a statement should go unchallenged. The hon. member recognized that this was indeed a world-problem, but I submit that when he advocated exclusion and expressed a great deal of prejudice against other races he did not offer anything like a world solution of the problem.


Alan Webster Neill: I did suggest a solution, I
submit. I suggested that if the white civilization was to be maintained we should maintain the white domination.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the kind
of solution which I think any thoughtful or far-seeing man will surely repudiate. The immediately practical solution was that we were more or less to exclude those people from our territories. But exclusion is no solution of the problem. If we are to have trade, it involves our going over to those other countries, and also inevitably involves more or less their coming over to this country; it means that our ships must go abroad, and it will very likely mean that their ships must 276
come here. What about our relations with other countries, India, Egypt, China; does it mean that the British people must preserve their dominance there? I would suggest that these countries having learned a measure of our civilization, if you like, having learned something of the industrial methods of the western world, will in the future be in an altogether different position; they can now compete as they never could before with the western nations, and they can, if necessary, resort to force as the western nations have done in the past. Are we willing to withdraw from all these different countries where our commerce has penetrated, and whence to-day our financiers are drawing immense revenues? That is the question that, it seems to me, we ought in all fairness to ask ourselves. The modem world is becoming a unit. We cannot any longer hide ourselves behind stone walls and thus hope to solve our greater problems.
So far as this country is concerned, if Japanese or other Asiatics are permitted to come in-and I am not asking that there should be an influx of them, although as a matter of fact I think that the danger of such an influx is very greatly exaggerated-but if we allow a certain number of them to make their homes in the Dominion, then in all fairness we should advance a step further and allow them to take their part in our citizenship. As a matter of fact, when the war broke out a very considerable number of Japanese in British Columbia went to the front and fought for this country, which at that time was supposed to be the very best way of showing one's patriotism. Indeed, in Stanley Park there stands to-day a monument to our Japanese soldiers who fell in the war. I know that those who belong to His Majesty's forces have .the voting privilege even in British Columbia; but there are Japanese civilians perhaps who are as loyal as those who fought in the late war.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to the general question of immigration. There are three closely interrelated problems, immigration, emigration and unemployment; for it seems to me that our immigration problem cannot be considered apart from our problems of emigration and of unemployment. Reports received from the various unemployment services located at 56 centres throughout the Dominion indicate that at the present time there is a lesser demand for labour in comparison with the available supply than was the case at the same period of 1923. There is in fact unemployment of some consequence, reported from a number of the centres send-

Supply-Immigration

ing in returns, and it appears that there is ment service of Canada gives a statement for no shortage of labour of any proportions in the half months ending June 15, 1922, 1923 any district of occupation. The unemploy- and 1924, as follows:
Totals for Canada	Vacancies	Registered during period	Applicants	Reported during period	Unfilled at end of period	Placed	Unplaced at end of periodRegular	Casual	1922	18,308	6,706	20,702	11,688	3,468	17,8281923	20,480	9,757	21,700	13,435	4,164	9,3841924	12,910	4,256	17,188	8,479	3,515	13,976
I would like hon. members to note that while last year there were registered a larger number of unemployed, 21,700, and this year only 17,188, last year there were unplaced at the end of the period only 9,384 while at the end of the period this year the unplaced amounted to 13,976. That is, a large number of people are not registering this year; they know it is useless for them even to go to the registry office. But even of those who do go to the registry office a much larger number are unplaced than were unplaced at the corresponding period last year.
Inquiry at the Labour department shows that recent weeks have witnessed curtailment in the iron and steel industry in Nova Scotia, and in the logging and lumbering industry in British Columbia. The coal mining industry both in Nova Scotia and in Alberta and British Columbia, is in a very dull state. In Nova Scotia short time, owing to a dearth of orders, is in evidence, while in Alberta and eastern British Columbia the industry has been crippled by the continuance of a strike. On Vancouver Island the mines are invariably working below capacity. In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec short time is quite frequent in factories, while a number of the manufacturers report that operations are below normal for the season and in some cases staff reductions have been carried out in recent weeks. I could give some illustrations of that. I had a very strong letter only today from Stratford where a large number of Canadian National Railway employees have been laid off owing to the slackness in work -many of them skilled mechanics who have been employed for a considerable period. In Nova Scotia, according to the last number of the Maritime Labour Herald, the situation is described as follows:
No bleaker outlook ever faced the workers of Nova Scotia than that which faces them to-day. Two
[Mr. Woodsworth.J
thousand men have been laid off work in New Glasgow, who were employed in the steel works and car works there. For these men nothing was done at Ottawa when the rail order was got for Sydney.
And further:
At Inverness there are at least 800 miners idle. The mine there has been closed down for weeks and the people of that town are in such destitute circumstances that a public appeal is being made on behalf of these starving miners. The politicians have done nothing for Inverness. At Sydney Mines there are still 300 idle miners who have to rely on the small donations of their fellow mine workers to keep them from actual starvation. The 3,500 steel workers in Sydney have only a few weeks more work between them and idleness and want. As a direct result of the closing down of these plants the 12,000 Nova Scotia miners who are now working two and three days a week will have their working still further reduced.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The fact that miners
are idle in Inverness is due not to lack of market or any other correlated cause, but to the circumstance that the property is in litigation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so, but the
minere have just as hard a time, whatever the cause.


Alexander William Chisholm: I quite understand
that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the studies
which are made from time to time by our own Labour department, there are three main classes of statistics which reveal in some degree the extent of the unemployment situation. In the first place the percentage of unemployment among trade union members is reported by about 1,450 trade unionists as being 7.3 per cent on June 1, 1924. While somewhat of an improvement over June 1,
1922	and a very considerable improvement over June 1, 1921, this was less favourable than the figures for either of the years
1923	or 1920. Then, there is a bulletin issued monthly by the Dominion Bureau of Statis-

Supply-Immigration
tics dealing with the unemployment situation. That bulletin shows that as of June 1, 1924, the index number stood at 95.2 and that on June 1, 1923, the comparable figure was 97.3 while on June 1, 1922, it was 89.2. Thus while June, 1924 registered an improvement of 6 over 1922 it disclosed a decline of 2.1 per cent as against June, 1923. Further, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows in a tabulation the value of all building permits issued at 56 different centres throughout Canada. Without giving the figures I may say that they show that approximately one-fifth less work in the building and construction industry has been authorized at these 56 centres this year than was the case last year. It is not taking too much for granted to assume that the building and construction being undertaken this year is considerably less than last year.


James Alexander Robb: If that is the case how does
my hon. friend explain the strike in his own city of Winnipeg recently wherein men who were receiving $1.10 an hour struck for $1.25?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The figures I am
giving are official figures, and I have no doubt they are correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
they taken from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From a statement
given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In answer to the minister may I suggest that it is hardly necessary to enter upon the history of the Winnipeg strike. I have all the statistics here with regard to the building trades. As far as the Winnipeg strike is concerned, the fact is that for a good many years past the bricklayers have gradually been building up a rather high scale of wages, as measured by the amount per hour, but the trouble in the city of Winnipeg is that bricklaying is a seasonal occupation, and many of these men work for only four and five months in the year. For several years past there has been very little work in the building trades, and a large number of mechanics at Winnipeg have had to go to Chicago and Detroit in order to obtain work.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Was not that on account of the strike of 1919? Did not the public lose confidence after that strike and refuse to invest their money?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not at all. Further than that the cost of living has become extremely high all over, and apparently these bricklayers were able to force the nominal 276i
wage up a little bit, although their real wage is not higher than it was some time ago. I have here a statement as to the unemployment situation in Winnipeg at the present time:
During the winter of 1920-1921 the city of Winnipeg gave employment relief to 7,000 people; in 1921-1922 to 12,680; in 1923-1924, to 8,955 people, in addition to those employed on relief work. The situation in the month of June, 1924, is such that special measures have been taken to deal with those out of work, and relief has been granted.
That is June of this year, within the past few weeks, when ordinarily almost every man who wished to go out to the country could obtain work, and when the city of Winnipeg usually shuts down entirely on its relief work. There is a comment made by the Independent Labour Party of Manitoba:
Many workers come to this country with the object of going on to the farms. We would point out that there is considerable destitution even among the farming communities. In the province of Manitoba in the farming districts, something like 150 schools were closed during the past winter because the farmers could not pay the taxes necessary to keep the schools open. Most of these were among the more recent areas opened up.
During the past session of the legislature of Manitoba special measures have had to be passed to care for these districts.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Have not schools been closed in some of the oldest settled districts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, some of them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And the reason was that these people built beyond their means.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The reason was that in some of the older settled districts many of the early settlers had made their money out of the increased values of lands, and had gone off to the towns to live. Tenant farmers came in and had to take the land over at high rentals or buy it at greatly enhanced values, while at the same time the cream, if I may use the figure, had been skimmed off the land. It was in poor condition in some cases, weedy, and in other parts of the country the humus had been taken out of the soil, and these new tenant farmers found it impossible to make a living on land which originally produced well for the first settlers.
I have had a large number of resolutions sent to me during the past few months, which I will not take the time of the House to read, covering the situation from the standpoint of the working classes, from coast to coast. I may say, it is much the same story-men out of work everywhere, or working part time. It is all very well for us to read these statistics, but, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you to picture the effect on the men and the women and the families involved in such a
Supply-Immigration

condition as this. For many years I had something to do with social work in the north part of the city of Winnipeg. I know what it is to try to organize relief work. I know what it is to have to come into close contact with the distress that prevails under such circumstances, and I submit that with thousands and tens of thousands of our Canadian people not knowing which way to turn in order to get work, the men becoming demoralized through lack of work, the women becoming heartbroken, and even the children deteriorating through a lack of nourishment-take those articles published a few months ago by one of the Montreal papers, dealing with the question of tuberculosis in that city owing to the lack of nourishment among the poorer classes-I say that when you consider these facts you must pause and ask yourself whether it is wise under existing conditions to continue to induce people to come to this country to compete with workers in an already overcrowded labour market. As I listened the night before last to the debate on taxation, when we were asked to give large salaries and appoint new boards to consider how people might more scientifically be taxed, I thought of the large numbers of the common people. I am not ashamed to say that I represent the heaviest taxpayers in this country, the common people, because after all the taxes sink down until they rest upon their shoulders. In view of the increased burdens so scientifically adjusted, I recalled some words that are credited to Count Tolstoi:	"The government is willing to do
anything for the people except to get off their backs." That is the feeling that is becoming prevalent among very large sections of the people here in Canada, and from the standpoint of unemployment I say it is a question whether we should at the present time bring in more people. Just on that point I had a little note a few weeks ago from a friend of mine, from a rather unexpected quarter, a business man of some standing. It shows how the immigration plan sometimes works out in practice. He says.
When I was last in Toronto, the secretary of the Old Colony Club-
A club to which he belonged.
-at the King Edward was telling me the chambermaids in that hotel had been notified of a reduction in wages from $35 to $25 a month, a cut of $10, and they were told if they did not choose to take it there were a number of first-class Scotch immigrant girls available who would be glad of their jobs. Knowing the Scotch as well as I do, I do not believe these girls would have left their homes in Scotland to come over here and beat down the wages of Canadians, probably Scotch immigrants themselves in earlier days, if they had known it in advance.

We have had in the larges industries, mechanics brought in and asked to take the places, at lower wages, of men who are now occuping these positions. Down in Nova Scotia, with so many miners idle, miners are being imported. I had documents placed in my hands a few weeks ago showing the wretched devices resorted to by some of the companies-the employment of spies to obtain a knowledge of conditions, to go in and out and make themselves good fellows among the men, and then either quiet down or foment trouble, as the case might be.
Now I pass to another side of the question, and that is the emigration from Canada, and I ask whether, looking back through the years, our policy can be said to be successful, when it has not even maintained the population which we would normally have had in this country. Since 1900 our immigration has been as follows: From the British Isles, 1,475,119; from the United States, 1,446,924; from other countries, chiefly European, 990,609, or a total of 3,912,652. With our present population of say 9,000,000 we have, during the past 25 years, received 4,000,000 of immigrants. Surely it is time to ask whether, if we are not able to keep these four millions of immigrants who have come to us, it is worth while our spending money in trying to bring in more. Last year the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) presented certain statistics which I think Should be repeated this year. In 1871 we had a population of 3,689,257, and if we had kept that population and just added the immigration to it, we would have all the numbers we have to-day, making no allowance for natural increase. These facts are striking. We have spent on immigration into this country-that is officially spent as a government-$30,207,894, and we have not a single soul to show for it. Now I ask what of the past year? Mr. C. Grant MacNeil, the Dominion Secretary of the G.W.V.A., recently has been making public some significant facts regarding what he described as a "gigantic debacle." He says:
During 1923 we brought 137,320 people to Canada, but lost 182,369 to the United States. Each month we admitted an average of 11,443 people and chased out an average of 15,197 people to the United States. We presented the United States with a quota equivalent to our total immigration from all sources, and 4,500 of our resident citizens in addition. The expenditure on immigration for 1923 approximated three and a half millions of dollars which was exactly the price we paid for our generous gift to the United States.
Mr. MacNeil estimates that about 100,000 of the men who served in the war are now residents in the United States. He also points out that the United States census of 1920

Supply- -I mmigration
discloses that 1,117,878 persons of Canadian birth were resident in the United States. On March 31, 1923 out of a total of 63,057 pensioners, 4,434 were resident in the country to the south. A pension was being paid at that time to 12,468 individuals not residing in Canada. If you wish to study further some very interesting tables I will refer you to a recent number of Industrial Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
that paper? Is it an official organ of some kind?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid I cannot say. The article referred to was published in Industrial Canada and reprinted in the Veteran.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not Industrial Canada the official organ of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am inclined to
think so. .


Mr. DUFF:: What is the answer to all this story?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The answer to
this-
Mr. McCREA- What is the cure for it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The cure? Well
I am coming to it.


Mr. McCREA:: Free trade, I presume?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going to
give such a hackneyed answer as that because I doubt very much whether free trade, even if we had it, would solve all our problems.


Thomas George McBride: Does the hon. member
know any better country to live in than Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Apparently 100,000
of the men who fought for this country thought there was a better country to live in as they have gone to the United States.


Thomas George McBride: Answer the question.


Edward Joseph Garland: He does not have to answer it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: One at a time.
I would say to the hon. member for Cariboo that I im not discussing what country is the best to Lve in, I am discussing certain Canadian policies and I-


William Duff: Not policies, conditions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am coming to
policies. Before we can adopt a proper policy we must know what the conditions are.


William Duff: What is the policy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been outlining the conditions-


William Duff: Let us have the policy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been outlining the conditions and I think no one will dispute that the statistics I have given are correct statistics. Most of them are official.


William Duff: One would think this was
a poor country to live in.


Thomas George McBride: The hon. gentleman's
figures are absolutely incorrect as far as British Columbia is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If these statistics
with regard to British Columbia are incorrect I would' suggest that the hon. member for Cariboo should take up the question with the Bureau of Statistics. The figures I have been quoting originated from the Bureau of Statistics.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Make it snappy.


William Duff: Let us have your policy.


Arthur John Lewis: You said that at least 100,000 who had fought in the Great War felt that the United States was a better country than Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They seem to fee/ that.


Arthur John Lewis: Would you sgy the same of
the people of other countries who come to Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Undoubtedly. Now I submit that we are not dealing with policies just now. We are dealing with an item of expenditure, and I am discussing that item directly. The point is this:	We have spent
enormous sums of money, either directly or indirectly, in importing immigrants to this country, yet a large number of the people who have come here have found it undesirable to stay in Canada and have passed on to the great republic to the south.


William Duff: Is it the same people or others who have gone to the States?


Edward Joseph Garland: Usually
Canadians.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I have the
statistics on that point.


William Duff: I have asked you a questior.
Supply

Immigration


James Shaver Woodsworth: Partly both. But
to a considerable extent our whole immigration policy has led to a displacement of native-born Canadians by those from Great Britain or the Continent.


William Duff: You did not say that at
first. You said that the same people who came in went to the United States. That is not correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A very considerable number of people have gone over. I would say that a very considerable proportion of the 100,000 returned men who went over were bom in the Old Country.


William Duff: Perhaps we are better clear
of them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it is a case of
replacement I am Canadian enough to believe that our own people are of as good a stock as those who are coming to us from different parts of the world.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me
that is one of the serious aspects of this whole question-that we cannot retain our own native-born population.


William Duff: How do you propose to retain them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend is so anxious to get on that I am not going to dwell any longer on statistics.


Arthur John Lewis: How would the stopping of
people coming into Canada from other countries prevent the native-born from going to the United States?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
that it is necessary to answer that question; it is absolutely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.


Arthur John Lewis: Not at all.


William Duff: What are we discussing?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are discussing
an item in the estimates.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a moment.
I will answer the question in this way:	We
propose to expend a large sum of money in introducing more immigrants to this country, and in that connection I am questioning whether this policy is a good or a sufficient policy for Canada. I think I am quite in order. The two points which I have tried [Mr. Duff.l
to make clear to the House are, first of all, that it is a cruel thing to induce people to come into an already overcrowded labour market. It is a wrong thing for us to bring in people who next year will be unemployed, as was the case with a very considerable number of the British harvest hands who came last August. The second point is this: That despite all the large numbers that have been brought into this country in the past 25 years we have been unable to increase our population, and that raises the question as to whether we should not adopt or discover some other policy by which we can retain our people and build up a stable population in Canada.
Now just a word before I pass on to speak of one or two details with regard to the class of propaganda we have been carrying on in order to get people here. We have been giving immense sums to private organizations. From 1909-10 to 1923-24 we paid out to one organization alone, the Salvation Army, $365,404.97. That was an enormous sum to pay to one organization. I am not discussing the question as to whether it is a good organization or not, but I do say we have paid out large sums to this organization, and I can show, as I did on a previous occasion, that a considerable number of those who have been brought in, especially juvenile immigrants, have not by any means been up to the mark. With regard to juvenile immigration I brought forward some weeks ago a number of statistics from some of our leading social workers in Canada, as given at a congress in Winnipeg a few months ago, showing the low grade immigrants that were being induced to come to Canada by certain organizations subsidized by this government.
Even in connection with the work of our own immigration officials, there are being published-I will not say false, but I think I can truthfully say misleading-statements. We had distributed to us only a few weeks ago a pamphlet entitled, "Canada, the new homeland," which I understand is being given to the visitors at Wembley. This pamphlet states that Canada is a land of homes. Go to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, out into the rural districts, and ask how many of those homes are mortgaged. We have been discussing that question in connection with the committee on Banking and Commerce, and we recently placed some new legislation on the statute books in order that we might deal with bankruptcy in the prairie provinces. Go into our cities in this country, and ask how many homes are clear of debt. This

Supply-Immigration
pamphlet describes it as a land of homes, and yet we find that a great many men who came here as immigrants many years ago are unable to obtain homes of their own. The pamphlet asserts that Canada is a land where all the people who are intelligent and industrious may reasonably expect success. Now, in the face of conditions as revealed by the official statistics of this government, I cannot allow such a statement to go unchallenged. As I have said, a hundred thousand of the returned men, who thought it worth their while to go and fight for the country, found that in a few years they had to leave the country for which they fought, because they were not able to maintain homes here.


William Duff: Whose fault?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think very largely the fault of the policies of this country.


Francis N. McCrea: Free traders are to blame
for that.
Mr, DUFF:	Whose policy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Lack of policy.


William Duff: Or lack of policy by a lot
of people who have more mouth than work.


Francis N. McCrea: A lot of people in this
country are better talkers than workers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would submit that these hundred thousand men we acclaimed as heroes cannot be regarded as men who just talk and do not work; yet they could not find work. Here is another sentence in this pamphlet, which reads:
Understand clearly that the reason why land is so cheap in Canada-


Francis N. McCrea: Before the hon. gentleman
leaves this question, I will ask him to give a little advice. He has been dealing with the woes and the miseries of the people of this country for the last half hour, telling us about their troubles. Has the hon. gentleman any policy to propound for improving it. It is easy to find fault, but what is the hon. gentleman's policy? I understand he is in favour of protection for the labouring classes and free trade for everybody else.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Later I may say a
word or two with regard to the policy, but I understand that under the rules of the House a member of the opposition cannot advance any effective policy. He cannot propose a policy that would involve the expenditure of one red cent, so that he is reduced to being
a critic of the policy advanced by the government. I will read a sentence or two more from this pamphlet as follows:
Understand clearly that the reason that land is so cheap in Canada is that it is so plentiful.
That may be one reason, but it is only one reason, as any hon. member who is familiar with the situation knows very well. The colonization branch of the Immigration department has advertised in its own publications that there are large numbers of abandoned homesteads and other farms that can be obtained cheaply. The fact is that the people who went out and built their homes, and tried to make a success have failed. The literature of the department itself, shows that the reason that there are cheap lands in this country is not exclusively that they are so plentiful. This pamphlet goes on to speak of the forest growth, of the mineral wealth, of the fisheries, and so on. Undoubtedly that is all true, and I will add one statement to those given in this pamphlet. At a convention of land surveyors held here in Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier on February 5th and 6th, 1924, Colonel Dennis, director of the Natural Resources department of the Canadian Pacific Railway stated that there were 63,000,000 acres of privately owned unoccupied lands within fifteen miles of the railway in the West. Those lands are unoccupied. It is also important to note that they are privately owned. In this country a few years ago we had the idea that we would like to have this country a land of homes, and the government initiated a policy by which it thought to accomplish that purpose, and the lands were divided into homesteads, but what has happened? A very large number of the homesteads are not now in the hands of those who originally took them up, and other large areas of land have been alienated from the Crown and are now in the hands of private individuals or private corporations.
Now Mr. Chairman, I submit that this year ws should face the question frankly, and ask whether the present policy of the government of continually dumping people into this country will solve the problems confronting us at the present time. I do not think so, and hence I feel we cannot go on supporting the expenditure of large sums of money to bring in immigrants.
I had not intended to say anything -with regard to what policy I would put forward. I have attempted on other occasions to outline certain general principles. If the members are interested, they can look up some of my old speeches in Hansard.
May I mention however a few things that will have to be done if we are to hold our
Supply-Immigration

population in this country. Living conditions must be made tolerable. These vast resources, which we say are Canada's, but which are held by only a few people, must in some way be made available for the vast majority of the people. In some way or another the cost of living must be cut down. I cannot see how our manufacturers, and I have a good deal of sympathy with them-


James Alexander Robb: How does my hon. friend
propose to reduce the cost of living, for instance, rent? By defending the recent strike in Winnipeg when men struck for $1-25 an hour instead of SI.10? I am not questioning whether it was right or wrong, but I am asking my hon. friend if he thinks that will help to reduce the cost of living.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; and I will for the moment leave my statement to answer this question. I do not think the increase in wages will reduce the cost of living for the general public. But wages form only a very small part of the cost of production. There are other fixed charges that are much more important and which might be reduced. In my city of Winnipeg and throughout the West the enhanced value of land undoubtedly accounts for a very large proportion of the increased cost of living.


William Duff: Does the hon. member want the farmers to get less for their products?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


William Duff: How is he going to reduce the cost of living unless the farmers get less for their products?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the farmers might very well get a little more.


William Duff: Would that not increase the cost of living?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; there are other factors.


William Duff: How does the hon. member argue that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I might mention one that we had up the other day and that is the question of watered stock.


William Duff: Is there watered stock on the farm?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps 1 but the
farmer has to buy cement, boots, textiles and many other things that are produced under conditions in which profits are based on overcapitalization We all know that.


William Duff: That is a small proportion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not by any means. I should like to challenge the hon. gentleman to have a committee next year that would go into this whole question of over-capitalization and find out just what load it places upon the people of this country.


William Duff: We have had too many this
session without having any next session.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am well aware
that we have had too many for some gentlemen who do not like their affairs to be investigated. I said that I thought there were other policies that would need to be adopted; I also stated that this was not the time nor place to outline those policies.
We are asking that immigrants be brought into this country in order to help to pay the taxes. Sooner or later we must face the problem of raising our taxes in an altogether different way, so that those who can afford to pay will be forced to pay and that the whole burden of taxation will not rest upon the ordinary people of this country who are dependent upon comparatively small incomes. I do not want to broaden out this debate, but I would urge that the government should consider very carefully the advisability of spending more of the peoplei's money to bring immigrants into this country and rather devote a larger measure of attention towards making conditions in this country favourable for the people who are already here.


Francis N. McCrea: It is all very well to say
that we should reduce the cost of living and everybody believes in that; but how does my hon. friend propose to do it? For instance, the bricklayers of this country are getting $1.25 an hour and, as I understand the matter, the bricklayers in Winnipeg went on strike for more pay. The hon. gentleman who represents labour advocated the justice of their cause. If we follow along the line of everybody getting more money for his services, will the hon. gentleman explain the remedy for reducing the cost of living, because if the landlord or the man who builds houses for tenants has to employ plumbers at $1.50 an hour and bricklayers at $1.25 an hour who go on strike for more pay, that means that those buildings cost more and rents must be higher? The same thing is true all along the line. If the labouring classes throughout the country get more money, which the hon. member advocates and fights for, how are we going to reduce the cost of living? The farmer is producing his part of the cost of living as cheaply as he can. I do not think

Supply-I mmigration
the farmers are making too much money on their foodstuffs, and I do not believe the landlords are getting more than a reasonable return for their money on rented dwellings. We have listened for the last hour to a description of the miseries of the labouring classes, unemployment and so forth, but the hon. gentleman should explain his remedy. How is he going to reduce the cost of living? By increasing wages for the labouring classes? By having shorter hours and more money? Ten years ago the bricklayers of this country received fifty cents an hour; they worked ten hours a day and they would lay from 1,500 to 1,600 bricks a day. Now they get $1.25 an hour; they work 44 hours a week and they lay about one-half the quantity of bricks they used to lay. My hon. friend, the advocate of the labouring classes approves their conduct. I approve the idea that every man should get a reasonable wage for a reasonable amount of work, but I do not understand this curtailment of work. How is it that the brick'ayers of to-day cannot lay as many bricks as they could ten years ago? All the labouring classes are working along this line, and while my hon. friend representing labour in this House has talked more than any two other members, he has never propounded any plan to do away with the miseries of the people and to reduce the cost of living in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had the annual wail from the hon. member for Centre Win-[DOT] nipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and now that he has relieved himself to that extent, we might get back to business. I desire to draw the attention of the minister to an occurrence in the city of St. John, N.B. in February last when a party of seven young Czecho-Slovakian farmers landed there on their way to the West. Positions were awaiting them in the West with their relatives and they were not in any way to be a charge or likely to be a charge on the country. On landing at the city of St. John they were all medically examined and found to be in good health. But when their passports were examined by the immigration officers it was found that they lacked the vise of the Canadian immigration officer at Antwerp. This was easily accounted for, however, and the explanation showed very clearly that the men themselves were in no way to blame for the omission. As a matter of fact, they had purchased their tickets at the Canadian Pacific offices in Prague, and their shipping orders were marked, "Antwerp to St. John, New Brunswick." But the Canadian Pacific agent sent the party via Rotterdam and Liverpool; that is to say, they were transhipped at Liverpool. Consequently they had no opportunity of getting the necessary vise at Antwerp. These men spoke very little, if any, English. They produced their passports whenever they were asked to do so en route. It is obvious that they should have been asked to produce them at Liverpool, but they were not.
When they reached Canada they were informed that because of the omission of this technicality, due to no fault of their own, they could not land. They were very much amazed to find that they would be deported, simply because of this omission. But they were informed by the immigration authorities at St. John that if they put up $20 apiece they could appeal from the order of deportation. They all appealed, except two, and were obliged to wait while their appeal was being decided at Ottawa. But strange to say the two who did not put up their $20 and appeal were allowed to enter, while those who did appeal and deposit their $20, as advised by the immigration authorities, were obliged to remain under detention as if they were so many felons, but, unlike felons, they were not kept at the expense of the country, they were charged $1.75 a day for their maintenance while waiting a decision from Ottawa. Notwithstanding that the whole fault lay with the steamship officials, these immigrants were kept in St. John for several weeks in a state of great suspense, not knowing whether they were to be deported or admitted. Meantime their positions in the West were kept open for them, and those to whom they were going took their case up and brought pressure to bear upon the authorities in Ottawa. If that had not been done, doubtless these men would have been deported.
Now, these men do not understand yet why they were detained in the city of St. John at great expense to themselves because of this technical omission, due I repeat, to no fault of their own, and why the department has not made some arrangement whereby they shall be reimbursed the expense which they incurred during their enforced stay in St. John. I am not very familiar with the conditions of this case, it has been handed to me by another member who is not able to be present to-night, but I have been asked to make a protest on behalf of these men and to request the minister to have it thoroughly investigated. I know he will take this course, and I am sure he will then arrive at the conclusion that an injustice has been done, and that some compensation at least for their out of pocket expenses will be given these men. No doubt the deputy minister who is present has either already looked into the case, or will, and I am sure he will see that justice is done.
Supply-Immigration


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, I simply rise as a representative of an agricultural riding to protest against a continuance of the present policy of bringing in immigrants. This is a very expensive luxury for the government to indulge in when farming conditions are such that we cannot hold our own upon the land, in fact, when agricultural conditions are so depressed that in my part of Ontario you cannot sell farms, and you can only give them away to persons who do not understand that to-day a farm is a luxury. It has been stated in the press that last year *we lost about 45,000 more immigrants than we brought in plus the natural increase. It cost us well over $3,000,000 to make this very expensive experiment. To me it seems utter folly to continue such an immigration policy. At their annual convention last year the United Farmers passed a resolution of protest against this policy. I quite understand the desire to get Canada filled up. That desire is really strongest in the minds of people who are paid for bringing in immigrants, that is, transportation companies and others who make money out of immigrants on their way from their native country until they land here, when they are left to shift for themselves. _ I have recently been reading a pamphlet issued by one of the transportation companies which are so active in this traffic, and1 it has afforded me much amusement. For instance:
' How can I get a farm of my own in Canada?'* This is the question which thousands of ambitious men. anxious to better their circumstances, anxious to get into a position where they need not fear unemployment or the ups and downs of industrial life, are asking themselves.
Well, it is quite true they need not fear unemployment on a farm; one is often penniless there, but there is always work to do. This is a cleverly written pamphlet. It is true that immigrants who take up farms need not fear the ups and downs of industrial life; on the farm there are generally "downs"- there are no "ups".
I quite understand the position of ministers, and they have my most sincere sympathy, for they are not in touch with the country people. They each have a salary which keeps them from poverty, they do not live among the country people; and when they do go back to their ridings, if they be rural, they are usually surrounded by politicians 'whose object it is to make things look as good as possible. What do ministers who are not in touch with its people know of the land?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend1 may not know that the Minister of 
Immigration spent his early days on the farm. Should he not know something about farming conditions?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: He knew something
about them then.


James Alexander Robb: A long while ago.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not saying this
in any nasty spirit. It is true, ministers have a very small chance of getting in close touch with the people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was born on a farm, and all the relatives I have live on farms, and I am in close touch with them all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I hope I am a good
friend of the Minister of National Defence,-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope so.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: [DOT]-but I must confess that he does not look like a farmer.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope I
do.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I wish you did. It
is true, however, that some time, whether it be this year or later, the present immigration policy will have to be abandoned. To continue it would be just as sensible as for a farmer to take a leaky pail and try to fill it with milk from his cow. If the hole in the pail is large enough he may milk the cow with the greatest skill and energy, but he will never fill his pail. That, is the fault with our immigration policy. I rise merely to protest against the foolishness of the whole thing.


Thomas Vien: I think it is hardly a true picture of the situation in Canada to say that those who have settled on the land are in such a desperate position that they cannot dispose of their farms even by giving them away, except to those who do not know what they are taking. The constitutency which I have the honour to represent is entirely a rural riding. The county of Lotbiniere is settled only by farmers, and I would like my hon. friend (Miss Macphail) to visit my riding so as to correct her impression. She would see there about 150 sturdy sons of the old stock who have taken lands newly opened to colonization out of the old seigniories. They live, it is true, in log cabins, tilling the soil, developing homesteads for themselves and for their children. I do not believe there is any happier group in this country than those sons of farmers who are continuing the developments carried out by their forebears in that section of the country. These people do

Supply-Immigration
not regret that they belong to the farming class. Of course they do not ride in Rolls-Royce cars or in automobiles of any kind, even Fords; they have one horse or a pair of oxen; they live modestly and they practise thrift. They have the qualities of their forebears: they know how to repress their wants and they are satisfied with very little indeed, sometimes with almost nothing at all. I have already invited some of my farmer friends to visit this part of the country, particularly those who complain of the condition of the farming classes. Some of them have said: "It is not reasonable that civilized men should have to make such sacrifices." But those who have built up our national wealth in this way have not looked at the matter from that selfish point of view. They have denied themselves those luxuries which are not compatible with the development of a great country.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the hon. member live as his constituents do in order that he may accurately interpret their thought?


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend forgets that in most cases-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friends laugh, but wait a minute; he laughs best who laughs last. When the people of my county want to till the soil, they know that it requires a man who can keep the handles of a plough. When medical sendees are needed they go to a medical man because he is versed in the art of curing the sick. When they want a representative in parliament they must find somebody who understands their problems and who can defend their interests in this House. If I am not living the kind of life that they live, it is because they have recourse to my services to come here and defend their interests, and that is what I am doing to the best of my ability. It is not sound patriotism to deprecate the conditions in this country. It was not so with our forefathers; had they not been ready to renounce those luxuries and enjoyments that many of our people now appear to desire so anxiously and so earnestly, they would not have contributed so largely to our present national wealth. If my hon. friend will visit northern Ontario she will find that in that part of the province almost
300,000	of the sons of Quebec have established themselves there, opening up new districts to colonization and assisting in that development which means so much to Canada. I am told that those who have settled there are happy and prosperous. Far from closing our doors to colonization I think we should set our shoulder to the wheel and continue the work of our forebears, not with any lack of faith
in our great Dominion, but with that confidence in the future that will cause us to ask others to share in the work of to-day and in the successes of to-morrow.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I suggest to the minister that if he wants the truth about Canadian farming to be spread abroad in England he send to that country as his immigration propagandist the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien). I would ask the hon. member if he thinks that we should secure national development at the expense of any one particular class, whose work would go to the benefit of others who did not participate in it?


Thomas Vien: I do not see that the views
I have advanced would involve detriment to any class.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Before we are through
with this little exchange of courtesies, I want to say that for my part I am not without hope for Canada, and I am certainly not without hope for the future of farming in Canada. But the people who understand farming, who are farmers at heart and who have a real desire to help all those who are already on the land as well as those who may come afterwards and go on the land, will yet come here in greater numbers and with greater strength and will change the policies of the nation not only with regard to immigration but with regard to many other things. Some day the people in my hon. friend's riding will realize that if their views are to be given proper expression in this House they will have to come here themselves and express them.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is wrong
when she says I do not understand anything about fanning.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I did not say that.


Thomas Vien: That is the impression she
conveyed to me-that I did not understand much about farming. Well, I think I have a farm which is much larger than hers. I do not think my hon. friend ever tilled the soil or learned about farming as much as I have. I was born on the farm. I own a farm now, and all my forebears have been farmers. I am proud to descend in direct line from the first settlers in this country. My people'settled on the farm, and I was brought up on the farm. The farmers I am representing in this House have found that I know the conditions under which they live, and they have sent me here to defend their interests, and I think I do it to their satisfaction.
Supply-Immigration


Thomas George McBride: I think we have spent
about time enough on this question. However, I do not think I would be doing my duty if I did not make a statement or two in connection with what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has said. He refers to people being idle in Canada from one ocean to the other. I am here to state that last February in the city of Vancouver we had to let our horses stand in the stable for want of teamsters. We could not get a man to drive a team for $4.50 a day. Only a little time ago I got letters from the foreman on my farm wanting help, and I had to apply to the Immigration department here to get men to send out to British Columbia and work on the	farm.	I	paid their way	outthere and to	that I	had	no objection. Somepeople might say:	What are you paying?
I was paying $40 in the winter and $50 in the summer, with board and lodging. Is not that a fair wage? When I came to this country first I worked for $30 and was glad to get it and get a start, but there is a certain number of people in this country who seem to think the government should supply them with a wet nurse all their life.


Mr. BOYS:: Can	the	minister give us	thenumber of arrivals	in	Canada month	by
month, giving the nationalities, for the present year and last year?


James Alexander Robb: While the deputy is looking
up that information I desire first to answer the question of the hon. member for York-Sunbury regarding some seven Czechoslovakians who came to this country and were detained. My hon. friend pointed out that something should be done to see that people were properly treated if they were detained. May I remind him that that was the very reason we amended the Immigration Act last week, and put in a provision that the steamship companies should take care of just such cases as he has mentioned? It was not strictly speaking, through a technicality that these people were detained, but through lack of a proper vise under the immigration regulations of this country, which have been framed for the protection of the people of Canada. If the facts are as stated by my hon. friend, there was certainly negligence on the part of the booking agent and the people at the port of embarkation in not having the passports properly vised. We will have the case very carefully looked into, and if the facts are as stated, try and establish where the responsibility lies. From the statement of my hon. friend I would judge it is on the steamship companies. We will try and deal fairly with these passengers.


Robert Forke: I called the attention of
the Immigration department to this case six weeks ago.


James Alexander Robb: May I remind my hon. friend that in order to get at t'he facts of this case we have to communicate with people overseas, on the continent, and then follow the matter up to Liverpool, where, as my hon. friend points out, these passengers were transferred. We must get the details in order to establish just where the fault was. Repljdng to my hon. friend from South Simcoe, I have a long list here showing the immigration by nationalities, and with the unanimous consent of the House I might have it placed on Hansard for the information of hon. members generally. Does my hon. friend want the details of all the nationalities?


William Alves Boys: I may say to the minister that I am asking this on behalf of another member, and his request was that we should get the information for this year and last, month by month, and the different nationalities.


James Alexander Robb: I will put the information on Hansard with unanimous consent.


William Alves Boys: I should be delighted to have it put on.


James Alexander Robb: The first is a statement of
immigration to Canada, by nationalities, during the four years ended March 31, 1924.
Statement of Immigration to Canada, by Nationalities,
during the Four Years ended March 31st, 1924.
1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24English	47.687	23,225	19,188	37,030Irish	6,384	3,572	3,668	9.719Scotch	19,248	11.596	11,071	25,057Welsh	943	627	581	1,1131 otal British.. ..	74,262	39,020	34.508	72,919African, South ..	63	32	41	60A banian	6	6	Arabian	8	2	Argentinian .. .	4	4	Armenian	85	70	59	486Australian	90	76	67	112Austrian	26	14	23	82Belgian 	1,645	503	316	1,662Bermudian	8	2	7	Bulgarian	4	27	19	267Chinese	2,435	1.746	711	674Cuban	Czecho-Slovak. ..	308	152	101	2,757Dutch	595	183	119	1,149Egyptian	9	2	3Esthonian	12	51Finnish	1.401	274	1,171	7,640F rench	861	332	281	370German	137	178	216	1,769Greek	357	209	177	292Hebrew-	Hebrew, N.E.S..	920	2,336	659	948" Austrian	1	1	1	1" German	1	5" Polish	1,600	5,216	1,379	1,208" (Russian.	242	851	753	2,093
Supply-Immigration
Statement of Immigration to Canada, by Nationalities, during the Four Years ended March 31st, 1924- Concluded.
1920.21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24Hindoo	10	13	21	40Hungarian	23	48	23	364Italian	3,880	2,413	2,074	6 379Jamaican	18	13	30	24Japanese	532	471	369	448Jugo-Slav	89	180	136	1,306Latvian	1	11Lettish	6Lithuanian	19	106	236Luxemburg	16	5	3	85Maltese	140	34	57	148Mexican	1	1Negro	144	42	42	42Newfoundland ..	1,042	367	1.552	5,346New Zealand. ..	40	25	33	50Persian	1	9	1	5Polish	4,061	2,707	2,921	4,211Portuguese .. ..	4	2	Roumanian	969	759	427	1,431Russian	
Scandinavian-	1,077	321	222	3,058Danish	511	541	382	1,355Icelandic .. ..	50	31	21	27Norwegian.. ..	429	480	507	2,424Swedish	715	442	948	3,536Spanish	202	6	15	39Swiss	235	187	152	1,585Svrian	443	123	91	286Turkish 	8	3	3	27Ukrainian	
U.S.A. tOitizens,	491	89	36	832via ocean ports	110	67	32	134Venezuelan .. ..	1	6West Indian.. .. Total Continental	110	24	44	37etc	
From the United	26,156	21,634	16,372	55,120States	48,059	29,345	22,007	20,521Total immigration	148,477	89,999	72,887	148,560
The next is a statement showing the immigration to Canada, by nationalities, during April and May, 1924:
Statement showing Immigration to Canada, by Nation' alities, during April and May 1924.
April	May	TotalsEnglish	,. 4.408	5.627	10.035Irish	.. 2.342	1,708	4,050Scotch	,. 2,510	3,340	5,850Welsh	.. 150	186	336Total British.. ..	.. 9,410	10,861	20,271African, South.. ..	.. 5	7	12Armenian	.. 47	40	87Australian	.. 28	42	70Austrian	.. 9	17	26Belgian	.. 314	286	600Bugarian	.. 21	7	28Czech o-Slovak	.. 797	325	1,122Dutch	.. 296	470	766Egyptian	2	2Esthonian	.. 11	15	26Finnish	.. 916	890	1,806French	.. 64	48	112German	.. 488	373	861Greek	.. 12	19	31Hebrew- Hebrew, N.E.S	.. 87	93	180** Polish ..	.. 79	19	98" Russian ..	.. 282	259	541Hindoo	.. 2	18	20
Statement showing Immigration to Canada, by Nationalities, during April and May 1924-Concluded.
Hungarian	April 251	May 155	Totals 406Italian	346	687	1,033Jamaican	6	6Japanese	60	75	135Jugo-Slav	463	343	800Latvian	2	2Lettish	2	2Lithuanian	14	16	30Luxemburg	20	5	25Maltese	4	4Negro	5	5Newfoundland	394	348	742New Zealand	21	33	54Polish	390	39	429Roumanian	538	533	1,071Russian	106	116	222Scand inavian- Danish	553	297	850Icelandic	1	19	20Norwegian	865	566	1,431Swedish	452	442	894Spanish	1	1Swiss	95	170	265Svrian	20	23	43Turkish	5	1	6Ukrainian	5	4	9U.S.A. Citizens via ports	ocean	17	11	28West Indian	5	4	9Total Continental, etc...	8.082	6.834	14.916From the United States	1,838	1,799	3,637Total Immigration..	19,330	19.494	38,824Returned Canadians had been absent U.S. six months more	who in or	4,087	4.936	9,023I hope the	hon.	member for	Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) will not consider me discourteous, but the committee will observe that there is a division of opinion regarding what should be the immigration policy of this country. We have just had a complaint lodged on behalf of a certain part of the country by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, that the department was too exacting in its regulations. He was supported by the hon. member for Brandon. The hon, member for Centre Winnipeg, if I understood him aright, would keep people out altogether. The department went very carefully into this question last fall. We called a conference of representatives of all the provinces, and all the provinces sent their representatives. I recall particularly that the representatives from the Maritime provinces wanted increased immigration, and a certain class of immigration. They complained that they had not been properly taken care of, that all the immigration was going to the West, and they wanted us to divert some immigration to the eastern provinces. Ontario was represented by Mr. Martin, the Minister of Agriculture, and surely if there is any person in
Supply-Immigration

the province of Ontario who is authorized to speak for the farmers of that province it should be the Hon. Mr. Martin, its Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Martin was most insistent that we should double our efforts to secure immigration to this country. Both he and Mr. Lyons, the Minister of Mines and Minerals in the Ontario government, were insistent upon a more energetic immigration policy. The province of Ontario has an immigration agent of its own in the United Kingdom. The province of Manitoba was also represented at that conference, the province of Saskatchewan, by the Premier of that province, and the province of Alberta, by the Minister of Agriculture of that province.


Mr. GRAHAM:: In a farmers' government?


James Alexander Robb: In a farmers' government.
The Minister of Agriculture of the province of Alberta was more insistent, I think, than anybody that we should increase immigration for Alberta. He went a little further and mentioned the kind of people they wanted in their province. He was very anxious to make it clear to us that while they wanted British stock who would go on the land, there were no better settlers, he said, than the Ruthenfans and the Galicians, who would go on the land and remain there.


William Irvine: Was that contention of
the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta unqualified? What I mean is this: No one will dispute that we need immigrants in Canada if all the conditions are satisfactory, but does the minister say that the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta unqualifiedly demanded increased immigration?


James Alexander Robb: In view of the discussion we
had of this question in the House last session, the department wanted to be sure of its ground before launching upon an immigration policy, and that is why we called the conference. The Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta was most insistent that there should be more immigration for that province. I have the record of what was said at that conference and my hon. friend can get a copy of it if he wishes.


William Irvine: I am not disputing that.


James Alexander Robb: The record is there and will
establish the fact that the Premier of Alberta specially mentioned the Galicians, the Ruth-enians, the Danes, and other nationalities that are good farmers. Why should not men of the type of the Premier of Alberta urge immigration to this country? Why should they not 
invite Britishers, their own people, to come to Canada. The Premier of Saskatchewan is an Englishman who came to this country a poor boy and, on his own statement I think, worked for $12 a month or some such sum as that. To-day he is Premier of his province. The Premier of Alberta came to Canada as an immigrant, the same with the Premier of British Columbia. I believe the same can be said of certain hon. gentlemen sitting opposite to me.


Robert Forke: Sure.


James Alexander Robb: And they are not the least
industrious members in the House-in fact I believe they are the most industrious members we have.


Mr. SALES:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: They came to this country
as immigrants. I wonder what would have been their fortune had they remained in their native land? Would they have done as well?


William Irvine: Not half as well.


James Alexander Robb: But some men are selfish, they do not want their brethren overseas to enjoy the advantages which this country offers. Is that why they are opposing the government's immigration policy? I believe the people of the Dominion do want immigration, and it should be our policy to encourage immigration. Just now we are trying to attract to Canada only agriculturists. There is no man who comes on this invitation but is placed and placed speedily. Let me say-confirming the statement of my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride)- that every day the department has demands from people who want additional1 farm help. No later than yesterday a gentleman in my own county wrote asking me to try and get some help for the farmers in order that they might take care of their hay; and I believe the same demand exists in most of the agricultural districts in eastern Canada. Furthermore, I venture to say that if Providence is good to us and we have an average crop in western Canada we shall have the same demands for help from that part of the country that we had last year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The trouble is they
want our hired men from the Maritime provinces.
Mr. TO'LMIE: I think everyone will agree that it is necessary to bring immigrants to this country but certain things are essential. One is that we must make the people who are in the country satisfied with their lot before we bring in others. Unless we do that

Supply-Immigration
I feel that we shall simply be making Canada a stopping place for immigrants on their way to the United States. With regard to the necessity of bettering conditions, particularly for the farmer, I think one thing that should be taken care of immediately is to improve our markets to the greatest possible extent providing every possible outlet and establishing the shortest routes to the sea where that can be done.


Robert Forke: Hudson Bay?


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I have never been up there. We should also lower the freight rates. Cooperative marketing is another thing that would be beneficial. I mention just a few things but I cannot discuss them at any length because of the limited time now available. There is one other thing that is very necessary, and that is to make the farm support the family located on it. That is a plan that was followed by the pioneers in the early history of Canada, and yet in some sections of Canada it is utterly neglected today. I remember that in the early days of British Columbia that plan was absolutely necessary-we lived off the farm. On the Pacific coast at that time there were no export markets, and no railroads; we simply had to sell our produce in the nearest town which made a very limited market. Now if the farmer can produce food for other people he surely ought to be able to produce enough for himself. As to the success or failure of people who come from other countries and go on to the farms of Canada I think we will always find that while one or two fail others make a success of farming. After all it depends a great deal on the efforts of the individual who is occupying the farm. The farmer can help himself a great deal in this connection by adopting the best methods of farming; selecting those lines that will bring him the best and most profitable results, and eliminating live stock of poor quality. On one or two former occasions I brought to the attention of the House the fact that our dairy cows yielded an average of less than 4,000 pounds of milk per year, when any intelligent farmer knows that it requires at least six or seven thousand pounds, unless there is a very high content of butter fat, to make a profit. Then again only about 16 per cent of the hogs going to market realize the highest price, showing there is great room there for improvement in the quality of our pork. The same thing is true of our beef cattle. Only a small percentage are good enough, if they
were made into chilled beef, to be exported to the Old Country in competition with the Argentine. That is about all that I have to say on that phase of the question.
I really rose to say a word or two on the oriental feature of the immigration question. As far as the British Columbian is concerned he is absolutely satisfied that we do not want any more orientals in the country than we have now. We feel that we must be practical about this thing. We have reached the point where we are practical in British Columbia on this question, because we know that we cannot compete with these people; we have tried it. We cannot hope to compete with the oriental and maintain the standard that is to be desired for the Canadian worker. To keep oriental immigration down to its proper level it is necessary to have proper restrictions, but it is useless to have these restrictions unless they are going to 'be effectively applied. We must enforce these regulations-not only this gentleman's agreement but other regulations that are in existence-and see that they are carried out absolutely in accordance with the law. These restrictions are placed on the statute books simply because we desire them to be there, and because it is felt the country needs theim. They certainly should be enforced to the very letter. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the Prime Minister sa;d on this important matter. I think he made a very reasonable speech and one that fits the occasion pretty well. But when we have these regulations we should have the assurance that they are being enforced to the limit, that we are getting results, and that these orientals shall not continue to leak through. It has been pointed out several times in this chamber that the regulations are not working perfectly, and they will continue to be ineffective unless they are perfected and enforced by the government to the very best of their ability. British Columbia members in this quarter of the House have stated on previous occasions what their feelings are in regard to this question. I do not need to say anything more except that the large birth rate of the orientals who are in the country at the present time should be a further indication to the government of the necessity of applying the regulations as strictly as possible.


George Perry Graham: A mighty good example.


Mr. LADNER:: I wish to say one or two
words on this question from a British Columbia point of view. I observe that in applications made for the entry of immigrants
Supply-Immigration

into Canada there has been an established custom that the applicant must be one who is aiming to settle on the land or engage in the farming business. If the applicant has not that purpose, no matter how good his qualifications may be, he has not much of a chance to enter Canada except with the gracious permission of the minister within the exercise of his discretion. Now, in the interest of British Columbia, where we have diversified interests-such as lumbering, fishing, mining, agricultural pursuits and manufacturing-there is necessity for some scheme of immigration which would enable the people of different occupations to come in. Such a policy would be advantageous not only to British Columbia but to the whole Dominion. We must get people here if we are going to carry the debt and shoulder the burdens of taxation that face this country, there is no doubt about that. To erect barriers, to adopt resrictions, that would exclude from this country classes of people who are likely to make good Canadian citizens is a dubious policy.
As to the oriental question, we members from British Columbia deem it to be our duty and a necessity to bring this matter constantly to the attention of hon. members because Asiatic immigration, or the Asiatic population by immigration or in some way, continues to increase. The other day I had returns with respect to the number of Japanese women entering Canada, and I find that for the last four yeafs the number coming in is about the same each year. I do not know what the restrictions are to which the women are subjected, but they are coming in in fairly substantial numbers, and then we find that under the classification of "labourers" there are comparatively few Japanese immigrants coming into Canada. Under the classification "Japanese, other than labourers and women" the number is larger and seems to be about the same each year. My suggestion to the minister and the Department is that governmental restrictions on this class of immigrant should be applied to their fullest extent. It is not necessary to stress the well-known fact that, so far as the coast is concerned, that class of immigration has got to be kept down, and the rest of Canada would appreciate our point of view if they had gone through our experience.


Edward Joseph Garland: Last year
I had the honour in this House of expressing my point of view in the matter of immigration. I made it very clear that I had no objection to immigration. I have no objec-
tion to any man or woman who voluntarily comes to this country, knowingly of his own will, but I did object, I do object and I will continue to object, to the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers of this country on a forced immigration policy, a policy of dumping the people in, largely irrespective of their suitability for the country or their knowledge of conditions in Canada. It is a waste of public money, a complete and utter waste of public money. We should send to the United States of America a bill for three and a half million dollars on account of last year's immigration policy in Canada. We have lost all we brought in, or a number equal to all we brought in, and worse than that- and let this point sink home to those who are real Canadians and have the Canadian national spirit as I have-we are losing real Canadians and we are displacing and replacing them with Europeans who know nothing of the conditions and who are not by any means of an equal standard with them. I would rather have one Canadian who understands conditions in Canada, who is acclimatized, accustomed to our methods, naturalized, a part of our civilization, than six Europeans.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. member allow
me a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.
Mr- VIEN:	Was it not the result of this
colonization propaganda which enabled my hon. friend himself to know about the riches of our country, and which induced him to come here?


Edward Joseph Garland: Although
my hon. friend is asking a personal question, I have no objection whatever to answering it. The reason why I came to Canada was that I had unfortunately failed to pass an examination, and I decided I would come to Canada because it was the closest Dominion to where I lived.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman tell
[DOT] me when it was?


Edward Joseph Garland: In 1909.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman not
very happy to be in Canada to-day?


Edward Joseph Garland: Very happy to be able to fight for the people I am trying to fight for.	.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman not
happy to be in Canada, and are not the people for whom he fights happy to be in Canada?

Supply-Immigration


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid there are only too many of them that have been so, shall I say, oppressed and beaten down by conditions in this country that, though they wanted to stay here, they were compelled to leave Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. member regret
that he came to Canada? Would he be any better off had he remained in Ireland?


Edward Joseph Garland: Why do
people ask these absurd questions?


James Alexander Robb: I admit it is absurd.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
piffle, and have nothing to do with the subject.


Thomas Vien: Surely there is a concrete
example confronting us in this House, of the attractiveness of the country and the happiness of those who live in it.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is such utter bunk that it is not worth replying to. I hate to be colloquial, but these foolish utterances compel me to be so. Walking along the street in Ottawa I find a straight-looking, clean built young man coming to me and saying, "Say, can you spare me the price of a meal? I have been hunting work in Montreal for three months and cannot get it. I have come up to Ottawa, beating my way; I want to try and get a job." What am I to think? I say to the man, "You are worse off here than in Montreal."


Thomas Vien: I was asked the very same
question in the city of New York.


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly. That is entirely different from the situation in Canada, with its vast spaces and its immense natural resources to be developed. The fact of the matter is-although this may be better dealt with in my closing remarks- that we have a vast condition of unemployment and misery in this country because of the fact that there is a small class at the top, who are squeezing every drop of profit out of the people of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is old stuff.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not old stuff. That sort of stuff is never old and will never be old until the condition is remedied.


Charles A. Stewart: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I listened to a good deal of this talk last year, and I think I am entitled to have something to say this year. Does the hon. gentleman know a country in the world where conditions are any better than they are in Canada?


Edward Joseph Garland: Not one, but that is no reason why we should sit idly by with a fatuous optimism, watching the condition of the people of this country without attempting to remedy it. That is the foolishness I complain of. That is the sort of thing I am trying to fight, and let me indicate to my hon. friend who has just spoken, that there is no healthier optimist in Canada than I am. I am not one of those who stick their heads in the sand and say, "Oh, it is going to come all right in time. We have had it before. This sort of thing comes in cycles." Just because conditions were depressed before and became better they think that present conditions will cure themselves. That is not logic; it is not reason. That is the argument of the mentally lazy. In answer to the minister who rather insinuated that the province of Alberta was bursting itself in an effort to secure immigrants, may I allude to him-


James Alexander Robb: I did not insinuate that. I made the statement that the minister representing the government of Alberta demanded more immigrants.


Edward Joseph Garland: We all know the insinuation, especially when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) wanted to know whether the government of Alberta was of the farmer brand. May I read to hon. gentleman a resolution carried at one of our last conventions?


George Perry Graham: What one?


Edward Joseph Garland: The provincial convention of the United Farmers of Alberta. It reads:
Resolved that the United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled go on record as being opposed to any Canadian moneys being spent for the bringing into Canada of more farmers (under present conditions).


James Alexander Robb: What is the date of that?


Edward Joseph Garland: The last convention.


James Alexander Robb: What is the date?


Edward Joseph Garland: The convention is held somewhere in the week following 15th of January each year in the city of Edmonton.

Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: Who moved that resolution?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no idea.


James Alexander Robb: Was it in the spring of 1924? Mr. GARLAND (Bow River): Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Then they should censure the Minister of Agriculture for the province.


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly they should, that is the point, if the minister has represented the point of view of the Minister of Alberta correctly. Let me read to the House a few quotations, because I do not wish the House to get the idea that I am by any means alone in this point of view. I share this view in common with large numbers of others who are not content to sit back and say things are better here than anywhere else in the world, and that present conditions will improve.


Thomas Vien: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I must ask your protection. I can never get through my speech if I am to be continually interrupted, although I must say that, as a rule, I enjoy the hon. member's interruptions. This country is never going to get anywhere as long as we allow a condition of unemployment to continue and flood people into it. Let me read from the Brantford Expositor which says:
It means nothing more than that we will become a labour warehouse, where the Yankee agents will be assured of the best picking to be had, at any time, and on short notice.
Is, then, our immigration policy shaped to bring men and women, content to settle down and become worth-while citizens, or is it bringing merely " birds of passage?"
Let us make united effort to find out who is responsible for these periodical outbreaks of " jazz immigration," urges the Brantford Expositor. If they are " interested parties," then they should be given to understand that their particular line of business must be run just as cautiously, and with as much sincerity, for the welfare of the country, as the every day business man has to run his affairs during these anxious days of waiting and uncertainty.


Thomas Vien: Is that the echo of the "Whisper of Death"?


Edward Joseph Garland: Really the hon. member is amusing sometimes.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What is the context of the paragraph which the hon. member has read?


Edward Joseph Garland: This is the whole of this report in MacLean's Magazine of June 15, 1924.


Harold Putnam: The hon. member read only a short excerpt.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is all that is printed in MacLean's Magazine, and certainly MacLean's Magazine is not a "Whisper of Death".


Thomas Vien: This one is.


Edward Joseph Garland: I will join the "Whisper of Death" then, but I will join them, I hope, in the same spirit in which some of our forefathers went to death, in the hope that they might save Canada.


Thomas Vien: Not ours. They built this country and we are happy to live in it. They did not slander it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that anybody is slandering the country?


Thomas Vien: Certainly.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the hon. . member explain?


Thomas Vien: It is a slander against the
country to say that the people cannot live in it either on the farm or anywhere else. A man who has a heart in his breast, who has the activity and muscles and who is healthy, can live and develop this country and make a success of any kind of undertaking. My hon. friend can look around him. My hon. friend has asked me to explain. Will he let me do it?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member is doing very well. I am enjoying it.


Thomas Vien: I am sure my hon. friend does not enjoy it or else he will change his mind about what I am saying. My hon. friend has been whispering the "Whisper of Death". He has been giving simply an echo to all those who slander our country. He has not considered all those around him who, whether old or young, have come to this country, set themselves to develop it and made a success of their undertaking. If he will visit the various provinces of this country, he will see in every province hundreds and thousands of people who have started with small beginnings, but who, with courage, endurance and perseverance have made a success of any undertaking. If my hon. friend, instead of discouraging people, would set his mind to encourage people to work for the development of our country, he would help his surroundings much better than he is doing now.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
remarks of the hon. member will be intensely cheerful to those unfortunates who have attempted to make a living in this country and who have been driven out of it through

Supply-Immigration
force of wrong economic conditions. I could tell him of hundreds of cases of men and women who fought against overwhelming odds-


Thomas Vien: How does my hon. friend
explain his own success?


Edward Joseph Garland: There is no use in going into a personal history. The fact of the matter is that there are staring the hon. member in the face to-day conditions in this country that have compelled the emigration of 100,000 of our returned soldiers, that have compelled the exodus of tens of thousands of our best citizens, our own Canadian boys and girls, our own farming people, and l^e makes a foolish speech of this kind in regard to the situation. It is really not explaining the condition and it does not offer any reasons. When he talks to me of slandering the country, I must most emphatically resent and reject the suggestion. The country is all right. It is the condition built by men of his stamp that drives the people out of the country, not the country itself. We can grow the finest wheat and we can produce the finest beef in the world and-


Thomas Vien: People of my stamp have lived in this country for three hundred years. I am glad to follow in their footsteps and I hope my children will follow in mine. People of my stamp will not cause others to desert this country.


Edward Joseph Garland: As I think I told this House on another occasion, at every meeting at which I spoke last summer -and I spoke at some forty-I urged the people to stay in Canada for conditions could not be made better by going elsewhere, and to continue to fight the battle for better conditions. I believe the country is all right, but I do not believe the conditions are right under the control of people who understand the country as little as hon. gentlemen opposite do.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member wants a change of government?


Edward Joseph Garland: I want a
better understanding of conditions.


Arthur Meighen: May I suggest to the hon. member that he would find a good deal of ammunition for his purpose if he would read some speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite of about two and a half years ago?


Edward Joseph Garland: And if they have made less than the prairie farmers during the last four years I will tell t'he House and the world they have made mighty little.
Accordingly, whatever shortcomings may be associated with grain farming on the prairie, relief is not to be secured by an imitation of the methods now in use in eastern Canada.
The proof of this is shown by the much larger income taxes which the farmers pay on the prairie as compared with those in eastern Canada.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) was boasting of the condition of the farmers who live in log shacks in his constituency. Those men I admire in their simplicity but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with them. In one sense I envy them their peace and enjoyment, for I think it is wonderful to be satisfied to live in a log shack, to be content with what one can get out of the soil, to have no desire to expand, to become a real builder. It is not enough to live on the past


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend contend
that the farmers in my province are not real men and real citizens?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, by all means they
are.


Thomas Vien: Real citizens-the best that
can be 'had.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enter into a personal controversy with the hon. member-


Thomas Vien: Then do not make such assertions.


Edward Joseph Garland: *-but my ideal of a man is one who wants to build up the country, a man who is not content to live in a log shack.


Thomas Vien: They are no kickers. If that
is one of the characteristics that my hon. friend wishes to see in the citizens of this country, I grant that the farmers in my province lack that quality.


Edward Joseph Garland: After citing in his article the number of farmers who pay income tax from year to year in each of the provinces-and the farmers of Quebec and Ontario do not rank very well with the farmers of the prairie provinces in this respect-Mr. Hopkins goes on to say:
It is apparent from these results therefore that improvement of farming on the prairie cannot be found by adopting eastern methods. The greatest single factor, no doubt, which causes the good results on the prairie is the much larger size of the farm. In the east, the farm is too small, and hence the overhead charges of machinery and management are much too high.

I hope we will hear a little less in the future about that panacea for all the ills of farming in western Canada, the mixed farming cry, because it will not work, as we know from practical experience, even without the advice of Mr. Hopkins. Yes, it is somewhat of a surprise to me and others to hear the hon. Minister of Agriculture still pounding at the old story.
Now, to continue some other quotations, let me read an article from the Free Press. This paper has not been a "Whisperer of Death," Mr. Chairman. It has this to say:
It is evident that Canada will have to give earnest consideration to this question of stopping the drift of population to the south. It is a national problem of the first importance. The situation must be regarded in the light of an emergency and all our national policies must be so shaped as to reduce to a minimum this loss of Canada's life blood.
That simply means providing better opportunities at home through stimulating every phase of her economic development.


Thomas Vien: And we are doing it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I will deal
with "doing it" in a moment. But that is not the article of a whisperer of death, it is an article in a paper which supports the government of my hon. friend. Now, a little while ago we had an outburst of oratory here on the fact that in Canada no man need be unemployed, that any man willing to work would get it, that any able bodied healthy husky man who wanted a job could get it. That is as false-well, I do not know anything falser, I do not know anything as false. Let me quote, not from a whisperer of death, either, Mr. Chairman, but from the mouth of the hon. Minister of the Interior, the hon. gentleman who is acting as Postmaster General. He said:
But in Toronto the situation is entirely different. The day after the strike took place we recruited 600 new men. There is no trouble in securing men for this work; there are more men offering themselves than we are able to take on, except in Windsor only, where there is apparently a disposition on the part of the citizens to back up the strikers in their attitude that their demands must be met before they return to work.


Thomas Vien: The lure of the government
dollar.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. minister went on:
There will be inconvenience for some little time, but we now have almost 1,200 men recruited in Toronto.
In short, the fact of the matter is that the moment opportunities for employment were offered thousands of men were available, and

Supply-Immigration
are to-day available in Canada. The figures given by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) need no corroboration, they are official figures. Thousands of men are seeking employment and anxious to get it. They are not of the type described by the member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) the type that won't work. I am glad to say that I believe Canada has fewer of that type than any other country in the world. Most of these people want to get jobs, but there are none available for them. Let me quote again. This is from the West, the other quotations were from the East. This is from Regina, Saskatchewan, and is dated June 23, 1924:
" It is a regrettable situation and it is serious. Hordes of men are working East looking for jobs and hordes of men are working West from the East with the same object in view"-
Note, June 23-just before haying starts out there.
-is what Magistrate Heffernan had to say in city police court to-day after he had dealt with 13 cases of vagrancy, a record for recent years in Regina. Not a man in the lot but walked from court a free man and each man had a good meal tucked under his belt.
" There is not much use in meting out punishment to you, who have to find employment," said the magistrate, " as I am pretty well convinced there is no work here, or near here for you. There is not a man among you I would call a tramp."-
And I can bear out that statement, for although I never saw those men, there are thousands of others who are not tramps and want to work. He continues:
"-You all appear to be men who would work if you could get work to do."
That is from the Ottawa Morning Journal of June 24, 1924, and is an authentic report of an occurrence in a magistrate's court in Saskatchewan.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend might read the report of Premier Dunning's speech in London which appears in the Morning Journal to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: I read his budget speech-something which I do not think my hon. friend has done-in which Premier Dunning stated the farmers of Saskatchewan had received for their product last year, 1923, although it was a greater crop than that of the preceding year, 1922. $60,000,000 less. You cannot take 860,000,000 out of Saskatchewan with a population of 750.000 and not burst industrial and agricultural conditions there. That is the sort of thing my hon. friend is ignoring. Let me again quote what the Minister of the Interior has to say on page 3847 of Hansard:
We could put fifteen hundred men on the work in Toronto if we had the men to train them .... It is not lack of men. Lord knows, there are more men unemployed in Toronto than we can employ, but the difficulty is in training them.
Now, why will hon. gentlemen fatuously talk about the magnificent conditions for artisans and labourers in Canada when a minister of the Crown himself makes that statement in the House of Commons? It is perfectly absurd. Why do hon. members go overseas and in speeches at public meetings tell their audiences to come to Canada, that there is no unemployment here? Tell the truth; that is the best thing to do. We have nothing to be ashamed of in Canada. We can tell them honestly of our climatic conditions and not give them half truths such as are found in the wretched immigration publication I have in my hand. Tell them the truth; we do not fear it; we enjoy it. Tell them the conditions of labour and agriculture and tell them they are welcome to come here if they want to, but do not pay men to go out and get them under false pretences. Do not go in for a wretched slavery system something like that which obtained when Kaffirs were brought down to the mines in Transvaal at a pound a head. That traffic was mighty lucrative for some people in the old days, and it is a traffic that apparently is still a lucrative one so far as Canada is concerned. Who are the greatest advocates of this immigration system? The transportation companies, the great railway companies, anybody who can exploit the unfortunate immigrant after he gets here. The duty of this government is to turn its attention to remedying conditions in Canada and to spend its money in this country, not in Europe, the United States or anywhere else Spend this money in Canada. We are ap pealing this year for something that will help -a long term rural credit system, something that will not only improve Canadian conditions in agriculture and Canadian conditions generally but will also improve conditions for the future immigrant. And how are we treated? Watch the next few days and listen to my forecast: The whole thing will be gently smothered for another year-put off again, and the next year the same, put off again. We have all sorts of pledges when we come down here, such as we had in the case of the single transferable vote.


Thomas Vien: I submit that my hon. friend is out of order. The question of rural credits will be the subject I am sure, of a debate on
Supply-Immigration

a future occasion; it is the subject of a report which has been presented to the House. I do not think my hon. friend should go into that matter, under this item.


Edward Joseph Garland: A moment ago there was an outburst from members on the opposite side asking for a declaration of policy from members on this side. They said, "What would you do with the question? What is your plan?" I am giving mine. Is it in order?


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend knows very
well that any scheme of rural credit is impossible for the time being.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend must be attempting to make some capital with very little ground for it.


Thomas Vien: It is the psychological effect;
that is all the hon. gentleman wants.


Edward Joseph Garland: There are
many provinces which are prepared now to accept the co-operation of this government in a rural credit scheme. If this government does not come to the rescue, large numbers of unfortunates will be driven out of the country by the pressure of their creditors, if there is a weak crop this year. The government do not stand to lose very much by making the attempt, but they may save thousands-I say it advisedly-of Canadian farmers to Canada if they will take some action in the matter. But they have not had the courage to act since I came down here; I have seen nothing but weakness and vacillation, nothing but lack of initiative. The government have to be pushed into a decision every time. I feel so deeply about this matter that I could speak for a long time on it, but I do not wish to tax the patience or the generosity of the members of the House. But I do submit that the problem before Canada and before this government is to solve the question of the outgoing population and of unemployment. It is not enough to say, "Oh well, they are all coming back," because many of our Canadians are not coming back. It is not enought to say that conditions will be all right five or six years hence, because they do not know. Conditions do not promise to be better, certainly in agriculture, five or six years hence. I would ask hon. gentlemen to study the statistics of the increases in agricultural produce in Europe during the last few years and to have regard in particular to the very reasonable expectations of Russia in wheat production in the next few years, and then to say whether it is sufficient merely to let things alone; whether a policy of that kind [Mr. Vien.J
will remedy the condition of agriculture in Canada. The government will have to strive a little harder, think a little longer; it will have to make some real effort to meet these conditions. Tickling the tariff, as I have said on another occasion, will not be enough; they will have to do more than that. Simply sitting still and letting things drift will not be enough; they will have to do more than that. I would urge as one real attempt at solution-not by any means a complete solution, but at any rate a step in the right direction-the introduction of emergency rural credit legislation this year. I earnestly ask the government to consider this question. Next winter-if they decide to stay in power that long; they may not-they will be faced with such a condition of unemployment as they have never had to face before: In the month of June of this year, a summer month when unemployment is usually slight, unemployment has been greater than it has been for many years, greater than it has been at any period since before the war. The after effect of an election in the United States is a certain amount of depression, and that depression is already commencing in that country. There is an unsettled air about the whole business of the nation. The boom seems to have disappeared; the bubble has burst, and our cities and all parts of the country will soon be filled with more unemployed. It is the problem for this administration. It is not enough to say, "Oh well, we asked the provincial governments and they said they wanted immigrants." It is not enough to say that to the unemployed. A conference on employment is to be called by this government for October of this year, itself an admission that a serious situation is in prospect. I earnestly invite the government to consider, before that conference is called, the possibility of stemming the incoming flow of immigrants and checking the outgoing of emigrants.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I see that a chief
immigration officer was appointed for China some time ago. What are the duties of this officer, and who is he?


James Alexander Robb: This officer is Mr. Featherston, whose appointment was provided for in the act of last session. The item is to provide for the administration of the agency at Hong Kong in accordance with the act. The increase in the item, which we have not reached yet, is for administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


Arthur Meighen: Was he appointed under the Civil Service Act?

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: He was a member of the civil service.


Arthur Meighen: Was his transfer to
China the act of the Civil Service Commission?


James Alexander Robb: He was appointed by order
in council, but he was a member of the civil service.


Arthur Meighen: That does not matter
at all. Simply because a man is in the civil service he cannot be transferred where-ever the government likes.


Jacques Bureau: He can be transferred.


Arthur Meighen: If the government is
acting that way under the Civil Service Act you might as well repeal it. What was the real idea the government had in sending Mr. Featherston to China? Was he a narcotic expert?


James Alexander Robb: The Opium and Narcotic
Drug Act is administered here. As my hon. friend will recall, under the amendment to the Chinese Immigration Act of last session, it was arranged that we should open an office in China and Mr. Featherston was selected by the government to go there as commissioner. Mr. Warner, who was the immigration agent formerly at Fort William and Port Arthur, and latterly at Fort Frances, was sent over as his secretary.


Arthur Meighen: Did the government have him named in the estimates to get around the Civil Service Act?


Charles A. Stewart: We had a
full discussion of this last year, and my hon. friend will remember that one official wTas to be chosen from the ranks of the service.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says, "he
was to be." What does he mean by that?


Charles A. Stewart: The act provides for it. One of the positions was not under the control of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: The act provided for his
appointment? Oh yes, because the government put the act through in such shape as to evade the Civil Service Act.


James Alexander Robb: He was appointed from the
Civil Service here.


Arthur Meighen: And a whole lot more,
and so the merry work still goes on. The minister has said quite a little, but he has
not told us yet what work Mr. Featherston is doing there. He has told us that he is in charge of the office. He hinted once that he was connected with narcotic drugs, but then he said no. What is the office for?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend from Kingston asked about the agent in China, and I noticed when we came to that vote there was an increase, and I said part of that increase was to provide for the office in Hong Kong and the other part was to provide for the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Act here in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: What is Mr. Featherston doing in China? What is this office for?


Charles A. Stewart: The amendment to the Chinese Immigration Act of last session provides for the examination in China of Chinese who are coming to this country, just as we have a preliminary examination on the Continent of people who are coming to this country from Europe. We have officers stationed at various points on the Continent, and Mr. Featherston was appointed to fill this position in China and have charge of the examination of Chinese seeking to enter this country.


Mr. HOEY:: There are no Chinese entering Canada now, are there?


Charles A. Stewart: Some are
still coming in under the act.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Not very many. He will
have a very easy job over there.


Arthur Meighen: I think we could have
had a Chinaman do it for nearly nothing.


George Perry Graham: Would not that have
been a terrible thing for Canada I What would our British Columbia friends say?


Arthur Meighen: In China I do not think anybody would object.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the
British Columbia members would trust the examination of Chinese to a Chinaman.


Arthur Meighen: The British Columbia
members would be quite content if you had nobody there or anywhere else, and simply closed the door. Why an office should be needed in Hong Kong to examine half a dozen immigrants coming to this country is a mystery to me, and why a man would be sent .over who was secretary to the minister here to take charge of that office is still more
Sup-ply-Immigration

mysterious, and that the Civil Service Act should have to be evaded in order to make sure that he was the man despatched-all this is circumstantial evidence of something, and I would like the minister to tell me of what.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing mysterious about it. Mr. Feather-ston was the one man in the service with Mr. Blair and Mr. Little who had control pretty largely of the whole immigration.


Arthur Meighen: Was he not the minister's secretary?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
when the change of departments was made, I thought it would be better for him to remain attached to the Immigration department than to come over with me as private secretary. I wish to say frankly that he was giving splendid service, but as hon. members know, in the event of a government going out of office the private secretary to a minister is not in a very desirable position if he leaves the department to which he was attached. That department was going from me and Mr. Featherston, therefore, decided to remain in it.


Arthur Meighen: What does he get?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say. When the amendment to the act was made last year, it was left to the discretion of the minister to choose one official from the service for this position. There is nothing mysterious about that. The whole thing was fully explained last year.


Arthur Edward Ross: The point that
struck me was this: I think we might follow the same course in examining the Chinese that we do in examining immigrants on the Atlantic coast, coming from Europe. If those immigrants do not meet the requirements they are returned at the steamship company's expense. But for our immigration on the Pacific coast we are appointing a high-salaried official in China to look after the two or three dozen Chinamen coming to this country. It looks like a big waste of money to me. I do not know anything about Mr. Featherston, but I think that an official on this side, at very much less expense, could see that all the regulations were complied with.


William Irvine: I would like to ask the
minister how much of this vote goes for salaries, and how much for colonization societies.


James Alexander Robb: Vote 55, which is under consideration, is entirely for salaries.


William Irvine: Does this $1,579,000 go to
colonization?


James Alexander Robb: We have not come to that.


William Irvine: I just wanted to be sure
before I made any remarks that I was dealing with the right item.


George Newcombe Gordon: I understand the question the hon. member puts refers to the next item.


William Irvine: I had intended to go into
this matter very fully, covering the whole problem of immigration into Canada and its relation to unemployment and various other problems that interlock therewith, but at this late hour, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg and the hon. member for Bow River have covered the ground very thoroughly, and presented to the committee a vast amount of figures dealing with the situation in Canada, I shall not take up the time of the committee by covering their tracks, but shall content myself more or less with a remark or two arising out of the data they have furnished to the committee.
I think the most astounding thing that has been apparent to me throughout the discussion of this item has been the attitude of the government and of hon. members who have taken part in the discussion on behalf of the government. I would feel somewhat encouraged if it were possible to make the government realize that there is a real problem, but they seem to be entirely unconscious of it. If they could see that there was something wrong, there would be a hope, but they are unable to see that there is anything wrong, even when confronted with figures which their own officials have presented to the country, and with the facts of the situation that exists throughout the country. They obstinately refuse to admit that it is so. For such a government there can be no hope. This now is the third year I have looked across the floor in hopes that they would at least recognize that there was a real problem, and make an attempt to meet it, but in the third year of their regime we find them still unaware that there is a problem, and not only that but loudly claiming that there is no problem. Then I say it is utterly hopeless to look across the floor of this House for the solution of a problem that the government believe does not exist. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was extremely

Supply-Immigration
anxious that we should mention a policy. I am extremely sorry that he is not in his seat now. If he were here I would give him one or two policies that it might be of interest to him to Consider. Other hon. members have spoken on this question denying the existence of an unemployment question in Canada. For example we had the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) claiming that there was no doubt about the fact that there was lots of work in Canada for every man. What was his authority?


Thomas George McBride: Every man that wanted to work. .


William Irvine: His authority was that he
had a team of horses and he could not get anybody to drive that team. After listening to my hon. friend on labour matters I am not surprised to learn that he could not get a labour man to drive his team. But consider his own argument? In the face of all the statistics compiled by our own Bureau of Statistics the hon. member for Cariboo affirms that there is no unemployment in Canada, because forsooth he could not get a man to drive his team. Is that the kind of reasoning the government are going to take? Or will they rather take the fiery eloquence of my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), or the cold calculated figures of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth)? Or will they take the figures from their own Bureau of Statistics? What arguments are they going to follow?
Now, as to who wants immigration in connection with which this government are proposing to spend an enormous amount of money. Notwithstanding the fact that we ought, according to the government's stated policy, to be practising economy, they are going to pay over a million and a half of dollars to colonization companies. The Salvation Army gets some of this; I do not know how much. Land companies that have called themselves patriotic organizations get some of this. I think, perhaps, that we will have to change the name of the Salvation Army if this kind of thing is going to continue. We will have to call them the "Starvation Army" if they continue to bring people into this country for whom there is no employment. I submit to the government that the transportation companies, the land companies, and the 'bondholders are back of the immigration policy of this country. These are the people that the government are giving their ears to-not to the farmer, not to the labour people of Canada, but to the bondholders, the transportation companies and the employers of labour generally. Let me quote a letter which has
been written by a company interested in bringing labour to Canada. This is in the form, I believe, of a circular and was written from Toronto. It reads:
Gentlemen,-We believe it to be the right time now to write you about your labour question for 1924. An institution like yours, we hold, would like to see that the main factor of the production of wealth, "labour," is plentifully available when needed: and it is our aim to put ourselves at your service in this respect.
Being connected with all the steamship lines operating between this continent and Europe, we can take your orders with the fullest assurance that we will fill them, no matter what the nationality or the number of men you may require. Moreover, we can promise that each and every man will pay for his transportation right to the job, and our service to you is free.
Our work is more of a patriotic undertaking than anything else

Let me put in an interpolation here: God save Canada from some of her patriots.
-as we wish to bring to this country the best elements of settlers and workers which can be brought over according to present immigration laws.
You may feel inclined to think that it is early yet or that there are many people unemployed at the present time, but if you consider the number of men required by the C.P.R., the Canadian National Railways and other big concerns employing vast numbers of men, you can easily deduct that the little surplus now available will be quickly and shortly absorbed.
Please place your orders now, advising as to the length of the job, the kind of work to be performed, wages to be paid, nationality of the men wanted, and approximate time when you want them to report on the job-and we will do the rest.
We will submit cheerfully any information you may desire on our service, and awaiting the pleasure of an early answer we wish to remain.
Yours very truly,
The International Exchange Co.
A. M. Salviata.
This communication would seem to indicate that the government need not trouble to pay out a million and a half of dollars to get people to engage in an immigration policy for Canada when they have such able, patriotic advocates as these willing to give their services and bring in all the men that are required, no matter what nationality and no matter what number may be necessary. It may not be out of place to point out to the hon. the Minister of Labour in this regard, that the International Labour Organization under the League of Nations in 1919 recommended the abolition of private employment agencies, I believe that the Employment Service Council of Canada, created under the Civil Sendee Act, is opposed also to private agencies of this character.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Does my hon. friend
know that the federal government has nothing whatever to do with the creation, maintenance, or discontinuance of private employment agencies?
Supply-Immigration


William Irvine: I am glad to be informed in that stentorian voice.


James Murdock: *1 asked did you know
that.


William Irvine: I will tell my hon. friend if he will just wait until he is a little calmer. I would reply to him that I did not know that the goverment has nothing to do with private employment agencies, but I think they ought to have something to do with them.


James Murdock: I do not disagree with that thought only you, and I, and others who feel the same way had better get busy and change the British North America Act upon which this Dominion is founded.


Edward Joseph Garland: Introduce a bill.


William Irvine: I am not opposed to changing any act-


Edward Joseph Garland: Let the
Minister of Labour make an issue of the question and we will soon get action on it.


William Irvine: I am not opposed to altering any act that stands in the way of progress, but the hon. minister is true to the government which he is representing at the moment: There is always some other act to blame for their inactivity. This or some other act stands n the way of their doing things. Then, I say irhat the leader of the opposition said some time ago: If these acts stand in the way make new acts. Do not shelter yourselves behind acts because, the people of Canada will laugh at you if you take that position, and I hope to enjoy their laughter in a very short time. We cannot go on in this way, placing responsibility upon the British North America Act or any other act. What is necessary is that we should act and act now. My point is that when the government announce that they are so anxious to get immigrants that they are willing to pay irresponsible organizations, not even known to the people of Canada, one million and a half as a sort of bonus for bringiing people to this country, then private employment agencies think that they have got a very good excuse to boast of their patriotism in offering to bring in men for nothing. Then in that connection, since they have nothing to do with private agencies of employment, since these agencies are willing to bring m men for nothing since they are

so patriotic and able to do it, and since they cannot be abolished, let me ask the government to wipe out the million and a half dollars for these colonization companies and allow the private agencies to do the work.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. member
vouch for the responsibility of the man who signs the letter he read?


William Irvine: I have quoted the circular
letter that was sent out to important employers of labour in this country. Perhaps they have vouched for the authority of this gentleman. I have nothing to do with it further than to quote the circular.
I now come to another phase of the situation. The hon. gentleman from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was very anxious to know what could be done to improve the situation in Canada. The situation in this country needs to be improved. I am willing to admit that the situation in all countries needs to be improved, but I am not willing to adopt the attitude of the government which says that since Canada is no worse than any other country we ought to let things drift. If the hon. member who put forward that weighty argument was suffering from a fever, it would not make him any better to be told that there were a hundred other men even sicker than he was, but that is the logic with which we have been treated to-night. Having been asked to suggest something that might be done to keep in Canada the people who have been brought here from time to time and to be an encouragement to immigrants, which everybody will admit Canada can handle if circumstances were what they ought to be, I want to put before the government something very definite which might be done. I expect the Minister of Labour will be inclined to look for some act as an excuse for not taking my advice. Nevertheless I will give it. We have had recently some great mergers in this country, and every merger that takes place is used as an excuse for filling up the watered stock with more water. I am going to quote from the Monetary Times of January, 1914. It is a very difficult thing for us to get an accurate account of all the watered stock in any country, and perhaps more difficult to get it in Canada than any other country, but let me direct attention to the fact that we have had a very large number of mergers in Canada. The following table shows the names of a few of them, the capital of the compan-

Supply-Immigration
ies absorbed, and the capital authorized to be issued by the mergers:
Name of Merger	Capital of Companies Absorbed	Number of Companies Absorbed	Capital Authorized to be issued by Merger
			s
Amalgamated Asbestos			
Corporation		3,550,000	5	25,000,000
Ames-Holden McCready			
Ltd		3,500,000	2	11,500,000
Belding Paul Corticelli			
Ltd	895,000	3	3,500,000Canada Bolt & Nut Co...	935,000	5	3,500,000Canada Cement Co	17,750,000	11	38,000,000Canada Bread Co	575,000	5	5,000,000Canada Car & Foundry	Co	11,200,000	4	20,000,000Canada Consolidated Felt	Co	340,000	3	2,500,000Carriage Factories Ltd...	900,000	4	5,000,000Dominion Glass Co	1,400,000	3	11,000,000Dominion Manufacturers	Ltd	1,475,000	5	3,550,000National Breweries	4,475,000	11	12,500,000Ontario Steel Products-	600,000	3	2,100,0001,324,000	21	12,500,000Sherwin Williams Co	2,500,000	3	12,000,000Standard Chemical Iron	& Lumber Co	2,400,000	3	4,000,000Steel Co. of Canada	9,969,500	4	35,000,00063,788,500	206,650,000
Look at the tons of water. It has been said that we have a lot of water power in this country. There can be no doubt about it, and this is only a drop or two in the great ocean of watered stock the burden of profits on which the Canadian working people and the fanners and artisans of Canada are carrying on their backs. The increase in capital values of the above companies authorized under the Companies Act, which I would ask the hon. Minister of Labour to have changed immediately is: $142,861,500, an increase of watered stock of 324 per cent, carrying an annual charge upon the industry of this country allowing only a 5 per cent profit of $7,143,075, and that is taken away without putting anything into the business at all. That is simply a hand out which the act referred to permits them to take away. Then we hear hon. members talking about the amount of money which was received by the bricklayers of this country, and talking about the wages which are paid as a reason for the high cost of living in Canada. Let me give the House a few more figures to show the results of the watered stock in this country, and to show also the absurdity of hon. members who argue that the high cost of living in this country is due to the high wages that are being paid. I am going to quote some figures from the Labour Gazette. I will not quote all of them, although I know hon. gentlemen are very much interested in them and would like to listen to them. They are taken from a
number of industries; for instance the cotton yams and cloth industry, the boot and shoe industry, macaroni and vermicelli industry, the clothing industry, the men's furnishing industry and so forth. Perhaps I could give the House a summary of the information which appears in these figures. The average per cent of salaries and wages to the total production of the industries which I have mentioned in Canada is 20 per cent; that is to say in these large industries which I have mentioned, the wages paid amount to 20 per cent of the total production, but in the United States for the same years the percentage of wages and salaries paid was 45 per cent of the total production. Does the government wonder why people leave Canada and go to the United States? One reason why they do that is that in the United States a workman gets 45 per cent of his total production whereas in Canada he gets only 20 per cent of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: My hon. friend laughs at figures. If he will read a certain book, he will find a reference to certain individuals that laugh and their laughter is said to be like the "crackling of thorns under a pot." That kind of thing does not get one anywhere. The fact of the matter is that the stem figures stand before us and say that in Canada a workman gets only 20 per cent of his total production, whereas in the United States a worker gets 45 per cent of his total production. Therefore, we have an emigration that exceeds our immigration, notwithstanding the fact that the government is spending an enormous amount of public money in order to keep our population at par, so to speak. Does the government want advice from this side of the House what to do? I say: Bore a hole in the bottom of this vessel of watered stock and run out the water; stop the charging of enormous amounts of interest and profits on money that does not exist and allow the labouring classes and the business people of this country, to get what is going now to those people who are claiming it without putting one ounce of energy into the production and claiming it on stock that does not exist. This may be regarded as a negative policy, nevertheless it is a very essential one. If the government will take my advice in this one particular, they will bring more immigrants to Canada than they will as a result of their present policy; but, in addition, when these immigrants come to Canada, they will come into better conditions than if they were brought over under the present method and in view of the present situation.
Suppl y-Immigra tion

Let me be a little more specific with regard to employees, wages and so forth in Canada. I want to quote the number of employees in certain industries in 1922, the amount of wages they received, and the relation of those wages specifically to the cost of living in Canada as estimated by the Labour department:
Name of Industry	Number of Em- ployees, 1922	Amount of Wages, 1922	Average Yearly Wage for each Employee19,941 18,504 659 11,968 140 541 4,781	% 14,635,249 12,529,766 514,747 10,237,400 85,549 465,850 2,699,525	$ 739 677 750 855 611 861 565Cotton yarns and cloth....	
Macaroni and vermicelli... Cocoa and chocolate	 Men's furnishings				
Or yearly average for all employees engaged in seven industries				
			5,058
			.722
			
This living allowance of $722 must be compared with the estimated standard of living for a family of five which is to be found on pages 431, and 433 of the Labour Gazette of May 1924. It is estimated there that the living standard in Canada for a family of five requires a wage of $1,783.60. If the government will explain how $722 can purchase goods to the amount of $1,785, they will know why immigrants move out of Canada into the United States. The standard of living has been estimated by various authorities. If anyone should dispute the figure which I have given, I will back it up with numerous other estimates made by competent authorities.
I do not suppose that I am enlightening the government at all. I do not suppose that any appeal of mine would make the slightest difference to the administration. That is the pathetic thing about being a member of parliament under party government. I have, however, at least discharged my duty in some respects in placing one or two simple facts before the present government. Under conditions which now prevail in Canada we have an undoubted unemployment problem; the wages paid in relation to the standard of living is not half enough, and yet in the face of these facts which cannot be denied, the government goes blindly ahead encouraging more immigration, taxing the people further to pay for that insane policy. I have discharged my duty to some extent when I bring these facts, if not before the government, at least before the country, and I hope that if my pleadings fall upon deaf ears to-[Mr Irvine.]
night, it will not be long until we shall have a government that will face these problems, admit that they are there, at least, if they are not able to find a solution for them. That is all that I wish to say about the immigration problem.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.
Mr. IRVINE; The hon. member should not be too enthusiastic about his "'hear, hear". I am just laying aside my papers and there is a great wealth of data that I would like to present. I am stopping out of consideration, not for them, but for myself, because the hour is very late. One minister of the Crown, I believe, rises in his seat and says: Behold the premier of Alberta; he was an immigrant; therefore, all immigrants may be premiers of Alberta; tell them to come over. Every male dhild born in the United States may become President of the United States, but no one is so mixed up in his reason as to imagine that they will all become presidents. That is the argument that is put up to gloss over the incontrovertible fact that we have an alarming problem of unemployment in Canada. As has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), the unemployment situation is going to be worse in the winter that is coming than it was last winter. Through (he more or less intelligent manipulation of credit facilities in the United States they were able gradually to get over the inflation caused by the war and thus have been prevented from sinking suddenly into the depression which Canada was launched into through our inability or incapacity to control credit. But that has its limits also.
The United States industrial condition is not entirely in the hands of that country, it also is affected by the world situation, and the effect of industrial depression in the United States on Canada will be very decided. We are told that already immigrants are beginning to turn their steps away from the United States and are looking for shelter in Canada. This means the United States next winter will not be able to take the same percentage of the overflow of unemployed that it did last winter. Therefore I want to warn the government now that if I am here next year-which is probable, if we do not have an election in the meantime-I shall take the opportunity, if the unemployment problem is as serious as I expect it to be, to in some way bring the situation before the government and plead that they shall feed the people they have brought in and not employed. So please do

Supply-Immigration
not tell me when that day comes that you were not warned in time; do not tell me when that opportunity arrives that I am trying to alarm the people of Canada, that I am trying to slander this country, that I am trying to create political capital. I am telling you before the time comes that it will come, and anyone who understands the situation at all can see it. Let me plead with the government, then, to be reasonable in this matter. Surely you may allow immigrants to come in if they want to, but do not spend this enormous amount of money to induce them to come in under false pretences, when you know that in doing so you are increasing your own problem at home. Let me cnce more tell the government-if it does not know it-that the best immigration policy is a sound economic policy. Put that into effect, and you will not need a futile immigration policy of the type that you are now pursuing.


William Charles Good: During the last twenty-four
years since the beginning of this century Canada has spent somewhat over $24,000,000 on immigration. The effort represented by that expenditure has been futile or worse than futile to retain our population. And it does seem to me that that fact which stares us in the face ought to give us some reason for pausing before we authorize the expenditure of over $3,500,000 a year.


Harold Putnam: I do not think that fact
is admitted.


William Charles Good: Well, if it is not admitted it
can be easily proven. I think it was proven by the statistics which were submitted last session. On the occasion of a similar debate last year a large amount of statistics were submitted which were not challenged. Those statistics and the pamphlets which I have in my hand abundantly prove that the effort we have made during the last twenty-four years has been practically useless.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I join with the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in stating that I am not opposed to immigration, but I am distinctly and emphatically opposed to the expenditure of such a large amount of money as we are spending at the present time. I presume that as long as we are receiving any immigrants at all we shall have to look after their entry and maintain examining stations at the ports of embarkation and of debarkation, but beyond that it seems to me we should be very careful indeed about spending one cent on immigration. During the course of this debate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) referred to certain representations which were made by the Hon. John S. Martin, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, on the immigration policy. Mr. Martin is a very estimable gentleman and I wish to say nothing derogatory of him, but simply to quote the resolution adopted by the United Farmers of Ontario in their convention last December. It is as follows:
Whereas prices of farm products have fallen below the cost of production and the prices of what the farmer has to buy are out of proportion to what he has to sell; and whereas the native population is leaving the land and the majority of immigrants who have come to this country have found their way into the United States;
Therefore be it resolved that we, the United Farmers' organizations of Ontario in convention assembled do hereby vigorously protest against the present immigration policy of the federal government which has for its object the bringing out of immigrants to be placed on the land only.
Whether or not the declaration of the United Farmers of Ontario in convention assembled or the opinion of the Hon. Mr. Martin represent the viewpoint of Ontario I shall not discuss; I leave it to be inferred. But I would suggest that among the farmers of Ontario and her citizens generally, although there is a desire for farm help of a certain character, so far as my observation and information go, there is a very serious question as to the advisability of spending on immigration anything like the amount of money that we are spending at the present time. I mentioned a few moments ago that during the last twenty-four years we have spent on an average at the rate of one million dollars a year. During part of that time our policy was certainly a very vigorous one. And yet during last year and tMs year the amount spent has been in excess of $3,500,000 per annum. I do not think there is any reason to believe that we have one single individual here as the result of that expenditure. In short, we are throwing the money away. Let us have immigrants who will come here voluntarily and put up with whatever difficulties may confront them. Conditions existing in this country are serious-they are serious in all countries, but that does not justify us in not attempting to remedy the situation-but if we are to receive immigrants -and I am not opposing their entrance, nor am I wishing to limit them to those of a particular occupation-then I say we are going to get a very much better class of immigrants and save a lot of money if we wipe out the biggest part of the expense which we are now incurring. I spoke to the same effect two years ago. I registered my distinct disapproval of the continued expenditure of this vast amount of money.
Supply-Immigration

This is not a simple problem, nor is it a problem which one can solve with reference to the situation existing this year, last year or next year. It is a very complicated problem. In this connection I will quote one or two sentences from a pamphlet which I referred to on a previous occasion, written by Miss Whitton, who was formerly assistant secretary of the Social Service Council, and who has made an exhaustive study of immigration. Here is one short paragraph on page 2 of the pamphlet entitled "Some aspects of the Immigration Problem," published in 1922:
This problem of immigration is inextricably bound up with our questions of emigration and of unemployment. That is not to say that unemployment is caused by immigration, but it will be folly of the Simple Simon type for this country to embark on any scientific and expensive immigration policy, unless hand in hand goes some effort to check the heavy emigration of the recent years. It is a ludicrous but tragic prospect to contemplate our government pouring floods of carefully picked immigrants into the national vessels, only to learn from our neighbours that they and our native born are leaking out faster than we can fill the reservoir.
In connection with this extract I should like to relate a little incident that came to my attention not many months ago. I was speaking with a relative, a farmer in my own district, and he told me about receiving an immigrant from the Old Country through some government department. The man was most incapable; and he was hardly bearable in the house. He stayed about two days; they could not tolerate him. But during that time he admitted that he was using this country as a back door to the United States. He came out with the intention of going on a farm only for a short time, being headed for New York. I do not know how many of such there are, but it is possible that a very considerable number .of people, whether desirable or undesirable, are using the advantages and facilities which we are providing in order to make their way to the United States. That has no reference whatever to the numerous immigrants who come in here with the intention of staying but who find the conditions more satisfactory to the south of the line and drift over there. It is also without reference to those of our own kith and kin, our native bom, who are displaced by immigrants from abroad.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. member
differ from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) when he says that conditions here are better than anywhere else in the world?


William Charles Good: I was rather inclined to differ from that remark when it was uttered.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend's attitude is
quite excusable, because the hon. member (Mr. Garland) himself contradicted it before he got through.


Edward Joseph Garland: Contradicted what?


James Alexander Robb: His own statement that this
was the best country in the world to live in.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the minister is mistaken. He must have been dozing. Someone whispered in his ear.


Harold Putnam: The whole House heard
the hon. member.


William Charles Good: I recall the remark which the hon. member for Bow River made and I questioned it at the time, because I have had the opinion that in the United States during the last two or three years industrial conditions generally or on the average have been better than in Canada, due very largely, I believe, to the more enlightened financial policy which they have followed. But that is of course another question.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps
the hon. member, (Mr. Good) did not quite understand me, like the Acting Minister of Finance. I was speaking at the moment of agricultural conditions I have always first in my mind, of course, the interests of those whom I so earnestly try to represent. I think the hon. member for Brant is quite right; industrial conditions in the United States during the last couple of years have been better than they have been in Canada.


William Charles Good: I think that is sufficient of
an explanation to show that there has been no serious misunderstanding; I am quite prepared to accept the explanation and to agree with the hon. member. I want to refer now very briefly to another pamphlet by Miss Whitton entitled "The Immigration Problem for Canada," published this year under the auspices of the Department of Political Science of Queen's University, Kingston, a very excellent and thoughtful study of the whole immigration problem of Canada. I had intended to go into the matters dealt with here in some detail, but I shall not do so at this hour. I would however commend to hon. members a very careful study of this pamphlet and of the books and publications referred to in it, because there is in it an extensive bibliography. I would particularly commend it to the attention of the minister. These difficult and complicated problems are not very easily solved without intensive study

Supply-Immigration
as, for example by a committee. I think that the business of this House is often badly bungled, not deliberately but because the machinery we have provided is not suitable for solving the problems we find ourselves confronted with at the present time. Here we have one of the most difficult and complicated problems and it ought to be closely studied by a committee of the House, but we have left it entirely in the hands of a minister who is already seriously overburdened, and who cannot give it the requisite attention. I do not know whether there is anybody in his department who has given this matter serious, thoughtful and comprehensive study. I submit that a matter of such far-reaching importance, bearing a direct relation to the problem of unemployment and to the problem of our economic policy, should be given special study by a select or special committee of the House.
Last year or the year before the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), referred to a certain pamphlet he had read in which it was stated that the immigration which had flowed into the United States had resulted only in the displacement of the native bom, or in a reduction in the birth rate of the old stock, and not in any increase of the population of the United States. I have read the pamphlet, which was issued by an organization in California, and I found it a very thoughtful and suggestive treatise on the subject. The argument was based upon a study of the vital statistics in the United States and the immigration figures covering the hundred years from about 1820 to 1920. I do not know that the argument was faultless but it was a strong argument based upon undeniable facts and it went to show that the only result of the tremendous flow of immigration into the United States was to lower the birth rate of the old stock or to replace one type of people by another type. Whether the succeeding type was better or worse than the preceding type does not matter.


Harold Putnam: Even if that were so,
would the hon. gentleman apply any lessons from that to our very sparsely settled country?


William Charles Good: There are perhaps several
lessons in it for us, but I think the immediate lesson is this: That perhaps one of the results of our immigration policy has been to displace our native born and to send them somewhere else.


Harold Putnam: You said they all went
to the United States?


William Charles Good: In this case there is somewhere they can go to, but as far as the United States is concerned, the effect apparently was a reduction in the native birth rate, and if our people were circumscribed and had only this territory to reside in, it is not unlikely that the effect here would be the same, that is, a reduction in the native birth rate.


Harold Putnam: I understood my hon.
friend to say that had been effected here.


William Charles Good: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. I did not allege that the effect of our immigration policy had been to decrease the birth rate in Canada; it may be so; I do not know. There has been no study made, and possibly the immigration into Canada has been so recent that it would be difficult to arrive at any conclusions that would be at all sound. I simply referred to this particular study that was made of the United States situation to show that this is a problem that we ought to study intensively, and that we ought, perhaps, to get some expert knowledge of. I bring it in by way of illustration, not so much for the lessons it may convey to us, as to show that before we go spending millions of dollars on any policy we ought to know what we are doing, and we cannot know what we are doing until we study the problem. I want to emphasize that this is a problem that needs to be studied, and it takes a lot of time to study it, and so far as I can see we have made no provision for studying this very complicated problem.


Harold Putnam: I think the hon. gentleman went too far. He is surely not taking the superior, academic position that government after government does not make a most serious study of this question, which a very large wing of public opinion says constitutes the hope of our future, namely, the bringing of immigrants into Canada.


William Charles Good: I hope that-shall I say-my estimate of the amount of study given by the department to this matter is wrong, but I am very much afraid, at least I have had no assurance, that there is any one in the department who would even give the matter the study that has been given in this document. I would like to be assured that such is not the case.


Harold Putnam: I do not suppose that you are admitted to cabinet meetings.


William Charles Good: No, I have not had the privilege of attending the cabinet meetings, but I am rather inclined to think that our cabinet ministers have rather too much to do in carry-
Supply-Immigration

ing out their ordinary duties to go intensively into a matter of this sort, and as to getting assistance outside, I have had reason to discover in the last couple of years how little some of our busy parliamentarians and civil service officials know about certain matters they ought to know a great deal about.


Harold Putnam: I must respectfully ask
the hon. member not to take the patriarchal position that the government do not make a most serious and earnest study of this question.


Edward Joseph Garland: They have not time to. They are too busy-making political speeches.


James Alexander Robb: No, we are listening to them.


William Charles Good: I do not want to take any
superior attitude at all, nor to reflect on any cabinet minister or civil service official. I want simply to state that we have a number of complicated problems to study and to decide, and this is one of them. I do not believe our present machinery is fitted to undertake the investigation of this particular matter. The other day we had up for consideration the appointment of an advisory 'board to study taxation methods, and it was admitted,, I think, by the minister in charge of the department, that neither he nor his officials had time to undertake a special investigation of that sort. I am inclined to think-I hope I am wrong, and I would like to be assured that I am wrong-that in the ordinary routine of the department there is practically no study given to the fundamentals, no comprehensive view taken of the significance of the problem, and of its various implications and ramifications. I do not wish to reflect upon any of the ministers of the Crown. They probably do all they can. They are very busy, and are worn out, very often, with the multiplicity of duties they have to perform. I am simply suggesting that we have appointed several committees of this House to go into special questions, and here is a question which is certainly worthy of some very intensive study: That is the last suggestion I have to make.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many immigration agents have we now in Great Britain?	-


James Alexander Robb: Thirty-nine temporary and part-time employees, for 1924-1925.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the total salary list?


James Alexander Robb: In Great Britain, $26,816.


Robert Gardiner: What are the other
expenses?


James Alexander Robb: There would be the different
agencies, rentals, and so forth.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Where are these agents
in Great Britain located?


James Alexander Robb: At London, Cambridge, Bristol, Liverpool, Birmingham, Southampton, Glasgow, Bangor, Inverness, Cardiff, Dublin and Belfast. In addition to that we have agents who go about attending the different exhibitions that are held in the United Kingdom. Whenever there is a fair those agents attend on behalf of .this country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister stated
earlier in the evening that the province of Nova Scotia was very anxious to get settlers, and that certain ministers in the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta had also asked for settlers. Would he inform the committee how many settlers were brought into Canada and placed in the various provinces last year?


James Alexander Robb: We have that information;
the hon. gentleman may find it in the annual report. My hon. friend will also recall that I placed that information on Hansard earlier in the evening at the request, I think, of the chief whip of the opposition. However that may be my hon. friend will find the information on Hansard when the next issue appears.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration contingencies and general expenses, including grants to immigration or colonization societies or associations, as may be authorized by the Governor General in Council, $1,579,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister state
the amounts of money he has paid to the various colonization associations, the number of immigrants that these associations have been responsible for bringing into the country, and what class of immigrants they brought in?


James Alexander Robb: The Salvation Army $25,000; other societies $5,000; the Scottish Emigration Aid Society, $5,000; grant to provincial governments for repatriation, $15,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Which provincial
governments are those?


James Alexander Robb: The grant to provincial governments for repatriation is in the estimates for this year.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister
answer my second question as to how many immigrants these organizations are responsible for bringing into the country?

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I have
the information for my hon. friend. No, I have not got the details with respect to the different organizations. I could get that information for my hon. friend; I have no doubt it is available in the department.


Robert Gardiner: It was stated that the
Canada Colonization Association had brought in 35 families but that was contradicted. Will the minister give the correct figures please?


Thomas George McBride: Carried.


Robert Gardiner: No, it is not carried. There is a question to be answered.


James Alexander Robb: I have the details during the period that the Canada Colonization Association was operating. There were 28,378 persons brought in. That is during the period that money was being paid to this association. I have details, if my hon. friend would like them of the immigrants coming in from: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. From these states there came in a total of 14,733 in 1922-23, and a total of 13,645 in 1923-24.


Robert Gardiner: Under the arrangement made with the Canada Colonization Association it was presumed that they were to bring settlers in and settle them on the land. Certain arrangements were made to finance the settlers that this association were going to bring in. They were also to look after the settlers once they got them on the land, and see to it that their community surroundings were of the very best. Can the minister give any information as to what their activities have been along those lines?


James Alexander Robb: They were not satisfactory to the department. That is why the arrangement was cancelled.


Robert Gardiner: And# there is no intendon to give any further grants to this organization?


James Alexander Robb: No, the arrangement has been cancelled.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is the association still in existence?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say. They get no grant from the government and the arrangement with them has been cancelled.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was one of those who, a year ago, criticised the government's immigration policy with respect to the Canada Colonization Association and we ourselves were criticised for taking that stand. Tonight it has been demonstrated that we were true prophets because it seems that the arrangement of the government with that association was not a profitable one. I have here a resolution passed by the Farmers' convention held in Alberta that year which reads as follows:
That this convention very much disapproves of the whole western Canada colonization association sciheme and calls on our government to give it no financial support.
This was the attitude we adopted last year but it was ridiculed. It is worth while reminding the government that the stand we took then was correct, and that what we prophesied at that time has come true. In reply to a question the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) put on the order paper some time ago he was informed that the Canada Colonization Association was paid $200,000 between the government and the railway companies and that they had brought in 35 families. At a later date the Minister of Immigration said the figures were not correct. I have never heard the correct figures given and I would be very glad if the minister could give them to us now.


James Alexander Robb: The total amount paid was $140,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: And how many settlers were brought in?


James Alexander Robb: A few minutes ago I gave the number of families that came in during the time this company was operating. My hon. friend will agree with me that it was impossible to determine whether the association should be credited with all those or not?


Robert Gardiner: I quite realize that the hour is late but nevertheless representing as I do an agricultural constituency in western Canada, I believe it to be my duty to express my views with regard to this immigration problem. Personally I do not know any better country than Canada. That is quite apparent to any one who has travelled to any extent through the Dominion. Furthermore there is no question but that this country could take care of a much larger population than we have at the present.


James Alexander Robb: That is the kind of stuff I am
prepared to stay here and listen to.

Supply-Immigration


Robert Gardiner: Until what time would you like to stay?


James Alexander Robb: Any time if my hon. friend keeps on in that way, that is the kind of stuff I like to hear.


Robert Gardiner: There is no question
then in the mind of any member of this House as to the character of the country we live in. Nor is there any question as to the ability of Canada to sustain a much larger population. Why is it then-we must ask ourselves seriously-we cannot retain the people we bring to Canada and also the natural increase in population?


Jacques Bureau: They are chased out by "The whispers of death."


Robert Gardiner: Confronted with this
situation we must ask ourselves this question very seriously. If we are not sincere in this matter then we will not ask it. Now, I propose for a few moments to give the House a statement of the conditions which prevail in the constituency which I represent and in western Canada generally. It has been the policy of governments in the past to hand over our natural resources mostly to speculative interests, instead of making them available to the people who come to the country to develop them. We should get the people who come to Canada to engage in the development of its natural resources instead of their paying large sums of money to these speculators who have been allowed in the past to get control of those resources in a large measure. Rather than do that, people who come here must pay these speculators large sums of money before they are allowed to go to work and produce the wealth that we should like to see them producing. Another extraordinary feature, so far as the policy of Canada is concerned is this: The policy in the past has been to give a great deal of attention to secondary industries. We have had that policy for 45 or 50 years, and where do we find ourselves to-day? We find ourselves to-day spending three and a half million dollars of money, going out into the highways and byways of the world asking people to come to this country. I am satisfied that if the policy of this country in the past had been to take care of our basic industries, instead of our secondary industries, we would not have to spend a dollar to get one immigrant to come to Canada. They would be glad to come of their own initiative, because they would know that once they arrived in Canada there would be some opportunity of making a home for themselves and raising the families they no doubt would 
like to raise. Governments in the past, instead of looking after the immigrants when they were here and assisting them to get settled, have handed them over to the tender mercies of the exploiters. Because of that fact we find to-day people who have been from 15 to 25 years in this country who are no better off than when they came here. Most of them have lost what little capital they brought with them, and have taken the first opportunity to get out of the country which has treated them so shabbily. As far as I can see at the present time, it would seem to me to be a poor policy to bring into this country any others than farm workers and domestics. In so far as mechanics and other industrial workers are concerned, I believe we have sufficient and more than sufficient in this country at present to produce all that is necessary. I should like to call the minister's attention to a statement made at a Canadian Manufacturers' Association meeting, quoted in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 6 of this year, and it is a matter of record of the proceedings of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It deals with the number of people employed in a certain year.


Thomas George McBride: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to suspend Hansard for a while? We could then get on with our business.


Robert Gardiner: This statement deals
with the number of employees in. certain industries, and with the value of the products of the labour of these employees. In the year 1900 in these particular industries there were employed 339,173 workers. They produced in that year goods to the value of $481,053,375, or an average product per employee of $1,412. In the year 1921 there were employed in the same industries 512,141 employees, but they produced the enormous total sum of wealth of $1,747,926,675, or an average product per employee of $5,313. Hon. members will see the tremendous increase in the productive capacity of labour in the 21 years, because machinery has been improved to such an extent that to-day one man can produce much more than he could 20 years ago. The situation seems to be this, that there is no question but that the people of Canada to-day can produce all and more than they can consume. Yet to-day we find thousands, yes hundreds of thousands, of people who are producers, who are on the verge of the bread line almost all the time. If that is not a situation that should appeal to the government and induce them to give some real attention to it, then I do not know what sort of a situation would have to be created before the government would give it any attention.

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend presents a most interesting argument and I agree with a great deal of what he has been saying. I would like him to follow up that manufacturers' association meeting, because I fancy they must have some remedy. I would like to know if he concurs in their views in regard to a remedy, or the means of producing better conditions in Canada.


Robert Gardiner: I am not particularly interested as to whether they suggested any remedy or not, but I am interested in what the government of this country proposes to do about it. We cannot look to the manufacturers to remedy a condition which they have been largely responsible for bringing upon this country. That is the function of the government and the sooner the government realize that it is their function the better it will be for the present government, the future governments, and the people of Canada as a whole.
I desire now to take up the question of the situation of the farmer in this country at the present time. We in Canada last year produced a tremendous crop. The province of Alberta from which I come produced the largest wheat crop we ever produced in our history-something like 170,000,000 bushels of wheat. The total production of Canada last year amounted to 470,000,000 bushels of wheat. I was a member of the special committee which sat last year taking evidence as to agricultural conditions, and on more than one occasion the farmers of this country were asked by witnesses to produce more, and sometimes they were even asked to save more. But what was the amount of production in wheat last year? It was 470,000,000 bushels of wheat. Perhaps very few members of this House realize what that actually means. Let me put it in a way that will perhaps be more readily realized by the members of the committee. Suppose that we had not sold any of that 470,000.000 bushels of wheat which we produced last year, had kept it all in Canada and consumed it ourselves, what would it have accomplished? It would have fed the present Canadian population for between 9 and 10 years to come, and we would not have had to grow one kernel of wheat in all that time. Yet gentlemen who are not very well acquainted with agriculture and the conditions under which the farmer is working come round and pat us on the back, and say, "You are fine fellows, but you ought to produce more, you ought to save a little more; and if you would produce more and save a little more, there is no reason on earth why you 2781
should not be prosperous." If we took the production of wheat in Canada for the last two years and kept it all in this country, without selling a bushel outside, it would have fed the present Canadian population for between 16 and 17 years to come. That is a tremendous production, but that is only one phase of agricultural production. We must take into consideration all the other products that the farmers have produced during the past two years, and I ask hon. members of this committee in all seriousness, where is there any other class in Canada that is producing so enormously as the farmer is doing at the present time? You cannot show me any one class producing so enormously as the farmers are doing; yet people tell us that we should produce more. The trouble with the farmer is that we do not get anything for what we produce. If you take statistics, go into them very thoroughly and compare the price level say in 1914, with the price level of the present day, what do you find? We find that agricultural products are down to about the same level as in 1914, but the prices-


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will not argue that wheat is down. Wheat sold at 85 cents a bushel in 1914 prior to the war. I think it was 87i cents a bushel the day before war was announced and it jumped up rapidly. My recollection is that to-day it is around $1.15 a bushel.


Robert Gardiner: I will take the cost
of living index and we can get at the matter, perhaps, a little better in that way. I will take the index as between 1914 and the present time. While the price of farm products might be indexed at 100 units, the prices of other commodities vary anywhere from 150 to 175.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit that.


Robert Gardiner: Under those conditions
how is it possible for farmers to be prosperous? I ask that question in all seriousness, and that is a problem that this government should have tried to do something tangible to solve. As long as those price levels remain as they are, the government might just as well throw that $3,500,000 into the river for all the good it will do in bringing out immigrants.


James Alexander Robb: What did it cost my hon.
friend to thresh wheat in 1914 and what in 1923?


Robert Gardiner: The cost of threshing
wheat is determined in a large measure by the cost of the machinery.


James Alexander Robb: No; labour.
Supply-Immigration


Robert Gardiner: I will admit that wages are, perhaps, higher than they were then, but in the final analysis the cost of machinery is the prime factor in keeping the price of threshing where it is at the present time. As I have stated before, I see no possibility of farmers being successful just as long as we have those variations in price levels. If the farmers are going to be successful, the only way I see is to accept a much lower standard of living than we have now. I can assure the committee that as regards the farmers with whom I am acquainted, we have no anticipation of attempting to accept a lower standard of living than we have at present. Our object is to get a higher standard of living and to get more of the comforts on the farm such as they have in the cities to-day.
During the last two years the district which I represent has gone through very hard times, one reason, of course, being the low price level for agricultural products. Unfortunately, we have had it rather dry in that district. I know scores of farmers there who have gone through hard times, such as I never expected to see in western Canada, in order to try to make good and stay on their farms. In the particular locality in which I live myself, we were able to retain our population almost exclusively until this spring. Since I have been attending the sessions of this House, I have had letters from home which state that practically 50 per cent of the people have left that district this spring. I received just this morning two letters and I am going to read one in order that the minister may realize the situation as it is now. But before I read that particular letter, I may say that some three weeks ago I received from a place close to Medicine Hat a communication in which it was stated that they thought the crop was not going to come through; that it was likely to be burned out. Many of the people of that district were desirous of being transferred to some other locality where conditions might be somewhat better. I approached the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to see if it would be possible for farmers, who had shown that they had tried to do their best, who had been in the district for, say ten to twenty years, to get any assistance to transport their machinery and stock to some other part of the province in order that we might retain those settlers. The Minister of Agriculture told me that there was no possibility of getting any assistance along those lines, and that is the reason why I am going to read this letter so as to let the committee know exactly the feeling of the people of those districts who were unfortunately settled on land that never fMr. Robb.]
should have been settled. I think it was under a Liberal regime that this particular country was settled, the Hon. Frank Oliver was	responsible	for	opening it up.	TheDeputy Minister of the Interior told me himself two years ago that he pleaded with the Hon. Frank Oliver not to open up this district, but Mr. Oliver proceeded to do so and the consequence is that to-day we have in this district thousands of people who are absolutely ruined, although they have been there fourteen or fifteen years trying to make a living. This letter comes from a settler in the Cavendish	district just	south of the	Red	Deer
river:
Dear Sir,-At a meeting held in Cavendish, I was requested to write you in reference to the critical condition of this district. The crops are dying fast; all of the spring ploughing and new breaking crops are past help, and if the weather remains hot and dry a	few days longer, it	is thought	the summerfallow	crops will be	dead	too. Crops	have	never
looked so bad at this time of the year.
After being located here from twelve to fourteen years most of the people will have to go; some may ride, others walk out, as not a few are worse than broke.
The query is: Where will they go?
It looks as if the United States of America will get most of them.
At Jenner and Atlee good horses and cows were sold last week, also implements, for $5 each, in order to give men enough to take them on the train as far as it will take them until they find work. The settlers have worked and fought against terrible odds, until they impress one as men without hope, and they are too. It will be a horrible crime if those men and their families are allowed to drift, without a helping hand, losing all they have. The country will lose a valuable asset as we are all experienced farmers. There are in this district alone forty families with cultured, well educated women, hard-working men, bright British-born children who will be turned on the road, when the price the government paid to bring in one Dago would save us all and our equipment from ruin as about $150 per family would move them to a good district.
There is no need for me to read any more. I have another letter also received this morning which tells the same story. Now the question for the government to consider is whether they prefer to save those experienced farmers who have been in the West fourteen or fifteen years by giving them some assistance, or to bring in Dagos at the same cost. That is the problem I am putting up to the government right now, and I trust they will be able to give it favourable consideration.


James Alexander Robb: I presume that when my hon. friend mentions Dagos he is referring to Italians.


Robert Gardiner: Well, that class.


James Alexander Robb: The government are directing all their efforts to keeping out that class of Italians, and they are only admitted when they

Supply-Immigration
have certificates as farm help or when a demand! is made for them for railway construction work. I am bound to admit that there have been some requests for them for railway building in western Canada. But we do not spend one cent to bring in Italians; indeed the Italian government does not allow Canada to have an immigration agency in that country.


Robert Gardiner: I think the reference
in the letter I read to the committee means that class of immigrants, not particularly Italians. Let me deal with conditions as they are to-day and as they were when the Laurier government instituted its immigration policy in the early years of this century. At that time we had much vacant land in western Canada, many immigrants came in, and consequently conditions were more or less favourable. But when we come along to 1913 and 1914 we find that conditions in the West begin to get bad, and the reason was that most of the farmers had mortgaged their land for all they could get on it. The very fact that free homesteads were available to homesteaders after three years' residence and the performance of certain settlement duties, and that thereupon they immediately mortgaged their holdings, to all intents and purposes created a fictitious prosperity in western Canada, which was reflected throughout the rest of the Dominion. But the government must realize that we will never have those conditions again, and they must also realize that the only possibility of retaining immigrants is by instituting a policy which will make agriculture attractive. With such a policy in effect there is no reason why we should not get the very best type of immigrants in sufficient number to fill up our vacant lands.
We in western Canada have always suffered from high rates of interest and from high transportation costs, including express charges. I do not know the reason, but it seems to be the policy of the railroads and the express companies to charge "all the traffic will bear" in so far as western Canada is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of building the railroads and equipping them in the West is much lower than it was in eastern Canada. I direct the quotation which I am about to read to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture because he is very favourable to the farmer going into the milk industry as a means of making a livelihood, and we know that if we Ship cream we must ship it by express, otherwise we get docked very heavily as the cream sours in transit. This citation has to do with express charges in western
Canada as compared with those obtaining in eastern Canada, and is as follows:
To charge the consumer in Calgary, Alberta, $2.40 to bring his fruit from Okanagan Landing, by the carload, 358 miles away, while the man in Montreal can get his fruit from Grimsby, Ontario a distance of 390 miles, for 95 cents, any quantity, is a fairly good reason, I submit, why fruit is not moving to the prairies in any substantial quantities.
I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Cariboo to this question.


Thomas George McBride: If you direct the attention of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) to cutting this discussion short it will please him a whole lot more.


Robert Gardiner: To continue:
It is true the rate applicable to Calgary is a blanket rate extending as far east as Winnipeg, but that does not justify the fact that the consumer in Alberta has to carry the load in order that the producer in British Columbia may extend his market to Manitoba, even if the latter rate were a low rate, which it is not, as compared with the rate applicable in eastern Canada. For instance the rate from Okanagan Landing to Winnipeg, 1,190 miles, is $2.40 per 100 pounds, while the rate from Grimsby, Ontario, to Halifax, a distance of 1,183 miles, is $1.50.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: When were those
rates levied?


Robert Gardiner: That is part of the
evidence given at the hearing this Spring when express rates were being discussed before the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Richard Motherwell: May I draw my
hon. friend's attention to the fact that just a year ago last April in a case appealed from the Board of Railway Commissioners to the Privy Council the rates on cream were reduced 10 per cent?


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, are we
discussing railway rates or immigration?


Robert Gardiner: These rates have
reference to fruit.


James Alexander Robb: That is just as good to feed
up Hansard with as anything else.


Robert Gardiner: Well, I am in no more hurry than the minister is. As far as I am personally concerned, I am absolutely against the government spending money on immigration until they attempt to bring down a policy that will tend to make conditions in Canada better than they are to-day. There is no question that we are able to produce abundantly, and if there was anything like an equitable division of the wealth produced in this country among those who produce it we would not have such adverse conditions as we have to-day; and until there is such a
Supply-Immigration

reasonable division of our wealth it seems to me that it will be impossible for us to hold the immigrants we bring in and we are likely also to lose a good deal of our native population.


Mr. KELLNER:: I think the remarks of
the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) in regard to moving the settlers he called) attention to are well worthy the government's very serious consideration. I think it would1 cost only a small amount of money to give effect to the hon. member's request, and there is plenty of evidence to show that the country those people are now in is not practical for farming operations. I notice from the list of immigration offices in Europe read by the minister to-night that they are practically all in the large cities. That is about the last place on earth they should be.


James Alexander Robb: Those are the headquarters;
they work from there into the surrounding districts.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: You cannot get a better class of farmer than those fellows in the south who are anxious to be moved up to the northern part of Alberta, and as has been stated here there is no doubt that if something is not done we shall lose the whole bunch of them. It would be ridiculous to permit that large number of farmers to cross the line and go down say to Bolivia.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Has the province of
Alberta not been moving some of these men from the vicinity of Medicine Hat?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am not sure whether
or not the provincial government gives them any assistance; I do not think they do. Some of them went on their own initiative.


John Pritchard: I know that a friend
of mine connected with the department there was doing that work.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I have seen quite a number of them trekking up there. They come up in a deplorable condition; they usually have an old team of horses and perhaps a cow tied behind, and a little bit of furniture on their wagon; that is all they have. These people could be given a start with $100 or $200, and it is a shame to let them go across the line and have no word for Canada but a curse when they get there.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister said a few
moments ago that Italians are not allowed to come into Canada except as farm help.


James Alexander Robb: Or to take land themselves.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is one of the criticisms I have of the government's policy. A lot of people make use of this occupational provision as an excuse to get into the country.


James Alexander Robb: There was an attempt to
do that, but does the hon. member argue that when the farmers say of Ontario and the eastern parts of the country come to us with a certificate and say, "We want these men in here; we recognize them as bona fide farmers," we should not let them in?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am in favour of voluntary immigration of the right sort. We should first of all decide on the countries from which we wish people to come, and .then we could throw the gate wide open to people from those countries, except for a strict medical examination. I am against the public moneys being spent in getting what might be called a forced immigration into this country when we are losing the immigrants as fast as they come here. There has been a good deal of adverse comment against this side of the House for criticising the Immigration estimates, but we criticise them because we think it is money thrown away. We have consistently supported voluntary immigration, but the idea of allowing one class of people to come in simply because they are going to take up farming, is simply utilized as a blind against the immigration authorities.


James Alexander Robb: I know an attempt has been
made to do that, and it requires a considerable staff to prevent those people from coming in.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How can the authorities
check up the people when they come here and are supposed to be on farms?


James Alexander Robb: They come first to assured
employment. We inspect every application, and if in respect to any particular case we find that the immigrant is using the occupation as a blind, then we cut that man out; he does not get any more permits.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But you cannot cut out
those who have already come in. The practice of the department to encourage only farmers is wrong, because you cannot force people to farm or do anything else; once they get into the country they will do as they see fit.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend suggest
that we should take down the bars altogether?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No, but I would let
voluntary immigration come in from the

Supply-Immigration
countries from which we should reasonably feel like welcoming settlers, every immigrant, however, to undergo strict medical examination.


James Alexander Robb: No other restrictions?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Let them come only
from the countries from which you want settlers.


James Alexander Robb: What countries would my
hon. friend suggest?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I believe the government has expressed itself as in favour of encouraging the entry of settlers from northern Europe, Great Britain and Ireland, and that is a good policy. But it is a mistaken policy, in my opinion, to have forced immigration. A great deal of money is spent on highly coloured literature which brings people here under such expectations that they are disappointed; they have come on a false basis. When voluntary immigration takes place the people will come here expecting hardships and they will be ready to put up with them. One might think from the speeches made from this side to-night that the criticism is only from western Canada. [I hold in my hand a clipping from a Toronto newspaper which reads:
The continuous emigration of Canadians to the United States and the constant arrival of new immigrants from Europe was responsible for the decision of the board of control this afternoon to seek the co-operation of all the cities throughout the Dominion in protesting against the present immigration policy of the Dominion and provincial governments. Mayor Hilts stated that he had received numerous letters on the subject demanding some action.


James Alexander Robb: What paper?


Henry Elvins Spencer: It is from the Ottawa
Citizen, copied from a Toronto paper.


James Alexander Robb: What Toronto paper?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I do not know.


George Perry Graham: Is that Jimmie Simpson's article?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I do not know as to that. But I read a copy of a letter the other day from the mayor of Toronto in which he criticised the present immigration policy and stated that the support of various cities throughout Canada was being sought.


James Alexander Robb: We received that letter, but
we also received a resolution from the Toronto Board of Trade urging greater immigration into Canada and the settlement of districts in northern Ontario.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Did the Toronto
Board of Trade specify what class of settlers they thought should come in?
Mr, ROBB: Yes, they did. I have not the resolution here, otherwise I should be glad to read it. But I recall that they spoke very favourably of Galicians, Norwegians and Danes.


Milton Neil Campbell: I mean as to occupations. Was it suggested that we should bring in mechanics, or nothing but farmers?


James Alexander Robb: Farmers, woodsmen, or people who would settle the country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: You get a pretty good
idea of the state of public opinion by observing the editorial comments of papers across Canada. There are a few quotations from different newspapers I should like to make. Here is one from the Mail and Empire, Toronto, headed "Why exodus from the farm and Canada?" It goes on to say:
There is no reason why anyone should be mystified about the problem of keeping people on the land. They will only stay there if it is worth while. Philosophizing about it will accomplish nothing.
Here is another one.


James Alexander Robb: I would like my hon. friend
to continue reading that article, because I know the Mail and Empire has been carrying on that campaign, and their solution of the problem is to put up the tariff higher. Is my hon. friend in sympathy with that?


Henry Elvins Spencer: In that respect I think
they are wrong.


George Perry Graham: Their argument is that if
the tariff comes down employment is gone.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The Toronto Globe under the heading; "The needs of Canada is: a rainbow to replace the eclipse," says:
The farmers of the three Prairie provinces produced more wealth than from all the mines, timber, fur and fisheries of Canada.
Why is it the producers of this enormous wealth cannot get a decent living from the land? This is something to ponder over by everyone in Canada. Our oligarchy holds the deck of cards. These are always stacked against the producers.
A recent vigorous editorial in the Manitoba Free Press said, in part:
The problem is to make it possible for the man on the land to live like a human being, and not like a submerged, half-savage peasant.
Again:
The westerners are pretty well convinced that they will not get anywhere by politely asking the folks who are now riding on their backs to get off. A club will have to be taken to the toll-takers of all kinds.
Supply-Immigration

I would like to bring to the notice of the minister another reason why we are not going to get settlers into this country. There are many parts of western Canada which have been badly in need of branch line railways for many years past. I am not blaming this House for the action they took this year, for they did the best they could to get these branch lines that are so badly needed, but I should like to quote an article which gives the western viewpoint very clearly:
Senate Impedes Settlers
The Senate's partisan hostility to the Canadian National Raiiwa>rs is striking a serious blow at the nation's credit. For political motives entirely, the construction of urgently-needed branch lines in the West has been blocked by Tory senators. The lines would be profitable to the Canadian National system; but the irresponsibles on Parliament Hill have political power to thwart Sir Henry Thornton's efficient administration.
The immigration policy of Canada is designed to attract desirable settlers to the western lands. All parties agree that more settlers are an imperative need, to help to distribute the burdens of taxation in this country, as well as to increase purchasing power in the home market and to provide business for the costly transcontinental railways. It is a very poor inducement for intelligent settlers, to stress the need for immigration to lighten the tax load. But it is doubly poor when prospective settlers are told that they cannot have the benefits of the railways, for lack of branch lines.
Little wonder that the settlement of Australia is making rapid strides while Canada is hardly doing more than mark time. With an incubus like the senate on the backs of the Canadian workers, progress is made almost impossible.
In conclusion I would like to state a few reasons why immigrants will not come to this country. When they know that if they come to Alberta or western Saskatchewan they are going to be charged nearly as much for shipping their freight west 640 miles as to ship it east 1,240 miles, they will hesitate to come. When they know that they will have to pay about 8 or 10 or 11 per cent on their bank borrowings, as compared with the 6 per cent they had to pay in Great Britain or on the continent, they will hesitate to come.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend think they will go to the United States on account of a lower transportation cost of wheat?


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is beside the argument. I am talking of Canadian conditions.


George Perry Graham: I might tell my hon
friend that the price of transporting wheat, for export, is many cents a bushel less it Canada than in the United States.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then rates should come down there. tMr. Spencer.]


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister knows his comparison is not a fair one, because the rates are taken from portions of the country where no wheat is produced at all.


George Perry Graham: I stated, and I state again now, that the wheat rates, for export, are for the same distance several cents a bushel less in Canada than in the United States. I will go further and say that per mile, wheat is carried on Canadian railroads cheaper than any other place in the world.


Henry Elvins Spencer: To continue: When they realize that the freight rate on a 1,200 pound steer from Winnipeg to Liverpool before the war was $24 and that to-day it is $42, they will hesitate to come to this country and go into beef farming. When they realize that Canadian manufacturers, who have a very strong hold on this country, are going to support in the future a very much higher tariff if they can get a government to give it to them, I do not think you will find many settlers from Great Britain who will be encouraged to come out here under that regime. When they realize that an act that was passed by a certain western province with the one idea of collecting taxation from large and powerful corporations, which would be hurt veiy little by such a tax, only three cents an acre, was disallowed by the federal government, they will hesitate to come because they know they will be taxed to make up the deficiency. When they realize that as far back as 1916 one of the standard banks of Canada was rotten to the core and that reports had been sent in monthly to the Finance department which were never checked, with the result that depositors lost about $11,000,000,
I doubt whether that will be an incentive to people to come.
I would like to give a few suggestions as to how we might encourage settlers to come.
I think if we did not charge what is known as the mountain rate on the Canadian National Railways, when there is no mountain grade but a grade just as level as on the prairies, it would be an encouragement to settlers to come to the western provinces. I am absolutely sure that if the federal government had made up its mind to go ahead with a rural credit scheme to give people who are so badly in need of it, both long term and intermediate credits at a reasonable rate of interest, you would have people really looking forward to coming to Canada. If a good propaganda had been carried on so as to advertise the benefits of the Post Office Savings Banks and

Supply-Immigration
assure the incoming settlers that their savings would be guaranteed, there is no doubt it would have been an incentive for the people to come this way.


James Alexander Robb: But supposing they cannot
make any money? My hon. friend is arguing that they cannot make any money. If that is the case what would they want the savings bank for.


Henry Elvins Spencer: By cutting down freight rates to the western coast they would be able to save money,


James Alexander Robb: All right.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Furthermore, if they could be guaranteed that the government would not jockey with the dumping clause in future I think people would be more ready to come to Canada than they are at the present time. Again, if the government-and I address my words more particularly to the Minister of Immigration who is also carrying the arduous portfolio of the Department of Finance-would be more willing to give back to the western farmers the money earned in connection with the Canada Wheat Board, money that really belongs to these people, I think he would encourage them with their co-operative marketing schemes. I feel that if the government would follow out some of these suggestions it would not only have a tendency to help people to come to this country but would keep them here after they came.


William Alves Boys: I should like to point out that the committee is sitting upon Saturday July 12, after the House had decided that we should not sit this day.


Ernest Lapointe: The government is not responsible for that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh, yes,
the government is responsible. The government could move that the committee rise and report progress if it wished to do so.


George Perry Graham: The government is not going to move that the committee rise and report progress unless the majority wish it to do so. The Acting Minister of Finance, as every hon. member in this House knows is completing his work to-night and will leave to-morrow for Europe. It is essential that he shall get his immigration estimates through, and I for one am prepared to sit still longer and see if we cannot accomplish that object. I am not saying that threateningly, but simply pointing out the necessity of these estimates being voted before the minister leaves.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
news to me.


George Perry Graham: We have been sitting here all night and I submit-I am not saying this unkindly-that under the guise of immigration hon. gentlemen have discussed everything under the sun. Had the rules of the House been invoked'-which I did not wish to do- this discussion would have had to be confined to immigration. The hon. member who has just sat down discussed every possible question, and said that if the people knew these things they would not come to Canada. Now, if the rules of the House had been invoked that could not have been done. Hon. gentlemen could discuss, in connection with immigration, everything that ever happened since the days of Julius Caesar if they wanted to argue that his descendants were not fit citizens for this country. I am not complaining; I am simply pointing out to hon. members who think we ought to adjourn but that it will be almost impossible for us to do so until the immigration items are passed because the Minister of Immigration is leaving tomorrow.


William Irvine: We will be very glad to sit on; there is no need to adjourn. However, I want to ask a question, and I am asking it in all seriousness and I should like the minister to consider it. It is reported that over 300 farmers are leaving Alberta for Bolivia. Would it not be wiser to devote part of this vote towards the payment of their debts? I understand that the number of settlers brought in last year under this appropriation was something like 25 or 35 families. The minister did not give us the exact figures and I do not know exactly what they are, but it is a very small number. Would it not be better to spend part of this vote in keeping those 300 farmers in Alberta? As a practical proposition would that not be better than to spend this money in bringing in 25 more families who may leave the country next year?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think there is any
such vote. I have not heard there are farmers leaving Alberta. I do know this: It was reported, I think with some truth-in fact I am under the impression the matter was aired in the courts in western Canada- that there had been some land deals in the province of Saskatchewan in which the people had been misled, and I think they were directed to go down to Mexico. Some of them are sorry they did so. I do not see why anybody would want to leave the
Supply-Immigration

splendid province of Alberta. I do not want to delay the committee but there has been some criticism here tonight of the publications of the federal Department of Immigration. Well, I venture to say that we may well take a lesson from the province of Alberta in that regard. I have in my hand a splendid little booklet, with half-tone photographs, giving a description of that province, declaring what a splendid province it is, and stating that last year the farmers of Alberta were better off than they had been for years. The interesting statement is also made which is news to me that they have still more than 15 million acres remaining for homestead entry in addition to the lands already held for homestead purposes, school lands, and Hudson Bay lands. It is a most interesting little booklet and I am bound to say that it presents a very attractive picture of the country.


William Irvine: That does not answer my
question. As a practical proposition does the minister not think it would be money better spent to keep those 300 families in Alberta than to expend this vote on probable immigrants that may not be very good when they come and may not stay in the country?


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to admit this:
When people make up their minds to leave Canada and want to go down to Bolivia-


William Irvine: But they do not want to
leave the country.


James Alexander Robb: -my hon. friend's proposition would be a dangerous one to enter upon because next week we would have another group coming along and saying they were going to leave the country and wanted to be paid to remain. That is not a practical policy.


William Irvine: But these farmers do not
want to leave the country. They are good, hard-working men, honest men. They are unable to maintain themselves under the burden of debt they owe to a land company and therefore they have got to move out. That is a practical case. Supposing you could keep them by utilizing a portion of this vote, would that not be a better immigration policy than what the minister is doing?


James Alexander Robb: I am not going to admit
that there is anything in this vote that would apply to the case.


William Irvine: A dollar can be applied
anywhere if you want to do it.


Thomas Vien: How many thousands would
come for assistance next week if we did that to-night?


William Irvine: If my hon. friend thinks
there are thousands that may come next week for more help then he surely admits there is a very serious situation throughout Canada.


Thomas Vien: I do not think so; but I do
not want to encourage them to come for assistance.


William Irvine: My hon. friend must think
that the men in Canada are very poor or else they are dishonest.


Thomas Vien: Human nature is human
nature.


Charles Marcil: Shall the item carry?


Edward Joseph Garland: Not yet, we want to get a lot more information.


George Perry Graham: All right.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister's reference to publications issued by the government of Alberta tempts me to suggest that perhaps it would be a truer picture of the actual conditions of agriculture in that province if they would include in the pamphlet a page something like this which appeared in both Liberal and Tory newspapers in Alberta :
Millions of acres seized for taxes last winter.
That, perhaps, might be a little more truthful than glorious pictures of lovely homes and that sort of thing.


James Alexander Robb: I am not making any condemnation of the literature issued by the government of Alberta. This publication was issued by a government that is supported by the hon. member and his party. If he desires to condemn them I do not object.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
pictures are beautiful pictures of what are usually surburban homes close to the city. I have seen pictures of the home of an hon. member of this House quite close to Edmonton. It is a beautiful home but it was never built out of the products of the farm.


James Alexander Robb: All I am saying is that this
literature is distributed in the United Kingdom by the government of the province of Alberta and on the authority of the Minister of Agriculture of that province.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
deny that but I am saying that a more truth-

Supply-Immigration
ful picture would be painted if this literature would include the real facts instead of giving generalties or half-truths. I should like to ask the minister if he could give the committee any figures on the value of settlers' effects imported and exported for the years 1923 and 1924?


James Alexander Robb: For the year 1922-23 the imports from the United States amounted to $9,097,077.34, and in 1923-24 to $6,962,739.53.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
exports?


James Alexander Robb: In the last two years they
would almost look to be about balanced. For the year 1922-23 the amount was $6,635,337. In 1923-24 there were settlers' effects exported to the value of $9,846,503.


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not
get the first figure the imports for the year
1923.


James Alexander Robb: The figures were: $9,097,077.34. In 1923-24 the figures were $6,962,739.53.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have in
my hand table No. 6, comparative statement of value of imports and exports of settlers' effects for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1919 to 1924. These figures are taken from the Customs department returns to the Bureau of Statistics, and they do not quite tally with the figures given by the minister.


James Alexander Robb: What is the diffrence?


Edward Joseph Garland: It is quite large. In 1919 there was imported into Canada from the United States, $5,457,273, and there was exported $4,249,831. In 1920 there was imported $8,016,964, and exported to the United States from Canada, $6,587,817. In 1921 there was imported into Canada from the United States, $8,872,413, and exported $7,574,512.


Jacques Bureau: Is that the fiscal year or
the calendar year?


Edward Joseph Garland: The fiscal
year.


Jacques Bureau: That would be 1922-23.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the
year 1922 there was exported to the States from Canada of settlers' effects, $5,346,795; and in 1923 the figures are, settlers' effects imported into Canada from the United States, $4,985,266. There were exported $6,635,337. In the fiscal year 1924, there were imported from the United States into Canada, $4,788,583, and exported to United States $9,846,503. I wish to ask the minister if these figures are correct, because there is quite a difference.


James Alexander Robb: With the unanimous consent
of the committee I wish to put on Hansard the official figures given me by the Bureau of Statistics covering the five years from 1919-20 to 1923-24.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do they
differ very much?


James Alexander Robb: Very materially.


George Perry Graham: Would it be possible that my hon. friend asked for figures for 1923-24, and got the figures for the calendar year?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, the
fiscal year. I am not saying it is not possible, but I am stating that these are the figures given me as the official figures sent by the Customs department to the bureau. It is too bad this conflict should arise so often in the House.


James Alexander Robb: The statement showing settlers' effects brought into Canada from the United States during the five fiscal years ended March 31, 1924, will be placed on Hansard. It is as follows:
Statement showing Wealth (Cash and Effects) brought into Canada by Settlers from the United States during the Five Fiscal Years ended March 31st, 1924

[DOT]	1919-20	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24$ 2,169,890 75 1,355,747 50 1,759,694 65 1,756,821 05	$ 2,911,050 50	S 1,843,173 00	S 1,276,684 20	% 1,234,619 351,679,316 40	1,663,348 00	1,278,644 20	889,802 501,312,499 55	1,560,688 29	756,271 00	618,411 101,365,622 90	1,506,157 00	944,157 34	668,134 401,631,984 00	1,279,958 36	1,136,615 60	1,235,834 15	668,531 001,635,928 75 1,556,549 35 1,664,491 25 706,487 25 578,762 10 938,293 15	1,582,355 40 1,105,209 60	861,938 55	787,635 00	671,252 97726,998 40	675,601 30	540,929 161,012,958 55	755,759 35	566,597 45	427,758 75647,929 45	432,743 18	298,826 15	365,238 10574,431 65	475,455 40	345,669 10	229,057 10954,079 25	351,193 10	245,924 35	208,622 103,753,006 60	2,159,484 30	897,128 65	685,233 10	440,383 00
Totals		19,507,656 40	16,584,895 91	12,211,198 52	9,097,077 34	6,962,739 53
Supply-1 mmigration


Milton Neil Campbell: The question of immigration is a very important one because it is interwoven into the whole fabric of our economic, social and political life. There is no economic or political issue that does not have a very direct bearing on immigration. Therefore, I say, it cannot be considered by itself alone but only in conjunction with many of the other great problems. Primarily, it is an agricultural question. Therefore, its solution is bound up with the fate of our basic industry and no immigration policy can be successful unless its operation is coincident with really genuine and determined efforts on the part of the government to rid agriculture of the many unjust and unnecessary burdens that are resting upon it to-day.
Too much attention is paid by the government to experimental farms and other means for increasing production, and too little to the more important problems of transportation and marketing. I think that the government can very safely leave the question of production to the farmers themselves. Give us the proper marketing and transportation facilities and there need be no worry about production.
While the war was in progress, with half a million in the service, a quarter million more engaged in war work, three quarters of a million taken from their regular vocations, we yet produced more farm produce and more manufactured goods than ever before in the history of Canada. No, there is no occasion for concern about production. Leave that to the farmer, but assist him to secure a market when he does produce. See that his production costs are not enhanced by extortionate prices for what he has to buy, and his returns decreased by excessive tolls levied by steamship combines. Excess rates on the Great Lakes cost the western farmer annually from eight to ten millions of dollars; rates over what would be naturally fixed by fair competition. And1 yet the government has the means at its disposal to deal with this situation once and for all.
Let me say that I think I am correct in stating that no class of agriculturists in the civilized world produce as much per man as the farmers of western Canada.
Obviously, then, the trouble in western Canada is not due to lack of production. So many figures have been quoted during this session showing the seriousness of the exodus from Canada that I will not weary the House by repeating them. Needless to say, however, the real problem with which we must grapple to-day is not how to encourage immigration 
but rather how to stop emigration. The exodus of our own people from the farms has not only been serious but positively alarming. Let me mention one concrete instance. In one of the very best and most productive districts of Saskatchewan, with which I am acquainted, out of a block of land four miles by five, that is 20 sections, which land adjoins a village; twenty two quarter sections have been abandoned by the owners since last fall. All of this land was bought as wild land within the last ten to fifteen years; improvements made necessitating a tremendous amount of labour and expenditure, yet the owners have been obliged to relinquish it to the loan companies or to the original vendors. The immediate cause of so much abandoned land is generally due to pressure exerted by creditors whose claims against the land are in arrears, but the fundamental causes lie much deeper.
During the last three sessions, hon. gentlemen in this section of the House have been denounced in the House, in the press and in the country as calamity howlers, as blue ruin prophets, and as defamers of western Canada when they placed before parliament the actual condition of the agricultural industry in the prairie provinces. Now, however, since the government has made a few minor reductions in the tariff, the calamity howling is coming from the knights of industry and the doleful tales in parliament and in press eclipse anything heretofore heard from the agricultural representatives in parliament or in the country.
Immigration, I believe, Canada needs, and I am not aware that there is any sentiment against permitting entry to all the good settlers who voluntarily come to our shores. If the suffering and distressed of Great Britain and the Continent think that Canada is a better country than the one in which they reside, if they are prepared to come here unsolicited, knowing conditions as they are, I say, we should not say them nay. Let us give them a genuine Canadian welcome and do our utmost to make them feel at home in this, the land of their adoption. But I repeat, it is the utmost folly to spend money on immigration propaganda unless coincident with it the government makes every conceivable effort to retain those now upon the land.
As necessary to re-establish agriculture on a profitable basis, I suggest the following in the order of relative importance.
(1) A rural credit plan that will enable the farmers to spread their liabilities over a long period of years with a low rate of interest.

Supply-Immigration
(2)	Tariff readjustment to place agriculture on a footing of equality with other lines of industry.
(3)	Completion of the Hudson Bay railway to the bay.
(4)	Removal of the discrimination against Quebec on the rates on grain from prairie points, with a view to making it possible to make up mixed cargoes and enable us to use that port for cattle shipments; as well as to establish thereby a reasonable maximum rate for lake and rail transportation on grain.
(5)	Determined effort on the part of the government to increase the market in England for butter, eggs, meat and other agricultural products.
To the professional optimist who objects to a discussion in parliament of the actual conditions on the farms, permit me to say that, to use the words of an American statesman-
The man is not a pessimist who when he sees the funnel-shaped cloud approaching, directs his family towards the cyclone cellar. He is not an optimist, nay, he is worse than a fool who when he sees that cloud approaching neglects the protection of his family and stands rejoicing in the manifestations of nature.
Permit me to say that we have in western Canada, a country to be proud of, a country that, under proper conditions, could be the home of many millions of happy, prosperous and contented people. No country in the world, with the exception of Russia, is possessed of such vast tracts of rich agricultural land; land capable of producing untold quantities of human food. The northeastern part of Saskatchewan where I have made my home is perhaps the richest part of that great country. Large quantities of honey are being produced there to-day, and the output is increasing rapidly. Corn can be raised quite successfully. All the hardier fruits are being raised in abundance and no part of Canada can produce such crops as we are raising there to-day.
Nature has done her part in western Canada in soil, resources and in climate. The government must do its part; the people of the country will do theirs. The country is not to blame, neither are the people. The Creator never designed a richer land and no more hardy, virile and industrious people are to be found upon the globe. It remains with the government to do what it can to bring about the reforms necessary to re-establish agriculture; and when some of these are secured, we need not worry about immigration. It will not be necessary to send1 immigration agents to Europe and to spend three, four or five million dollars annually on immigration.
The immigrants will come just as fast as we can absorb them and that time will come when the government takes means to bring about these urgent and necessary reforms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Empire settlement scheme, $750,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What proportion
of this is borne by the Canadian government and what 'by the British government?


James Alexander Robb: It is on a 50 per cent basis.
It is only on a loan basis. The loan is made to the incoming settler. The British government advances an equal amount, otherwise the scheme does not work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this for the
settler's passage money?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is any given to
help to establish the settler on the land?


James Alexander Robb: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The money goes
largely into the hands of the transportation companies.


James Alexander Robb: Unless the man were to swim -somebody has to bring him across.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are these loans
fully repaid by the domestics?


James Alexander Robb: The experience has been
that about 90 per cent of them are repaid. The domestics repay very well.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is none of this money
to be devoted to the purchase of land?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand that
under the British Empire scheme there was some plan for settling people on the land.


James Alexander Robb: This is not part of the Canadian arrangement. I think they have some arrangement which they made with some of the states of Australia. The British Empire Settlement Board have different arrangements with different parts of the dominions and colonies of the Empire. I think they are prepared to give an amount equal to what the dominion would give.


Milton Neil Campbell: The Canadian government has made no proposal to the British government in regard to land settlement?
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to go too
far on that. I might have something to announce at a later stage regarding the proposition, but it would not help the ideas that, I am sure, hon. gentlemen have in their heads if I were to make any announcement at this time.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has just stated that all this money was in the form of a loan. I do not question his statement in the least, but I wish to ask him his opinion of this Canadian press despatch from London:
A new emigration agreement has been entered into between Great Britain and Canada under the Empire Settlement Act, and it is continued from year to year at the pleasure of both signatories thereto.
Each immigrant is to receive $80 toward the cost of his transportation and the care and expense of his children up to the age of 17 years. This is to be a grant out of hand, not a loan.
In the case of household workers, where necessary, 100 per cent of the cost of their transportation, except on British railways, will be advanced as loans.
And so on. Is that despatch true?


James Alexander Robb: I think there is some arrangement whereby they pay the amounts for the children when accompanied by their father and mother.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not true that in the case of juvenile immigrants coming from farms, the amount paid is a direct gift and not a loan?


James Alexander Robb: That has been going on for
years, but that is not the Empire Settlement proposition. Having been making for some time contributions to that organization, we concluded that the child coming here with its parents had at least as good if not a better chance of a future, and it was less expensive to the state. We have, therefore, extended that feature of the scheme to the child under sixteen coming with its parents.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who actually
selects the immigrant-the Canadian or the British authorities?


James Alexander Robb: They all go through the Canadian authorities. Hon. members will be interested to know that while we are not doing this as fast as we would like, we are gradually Canadianizing the service overseas. When I say "Canadianizing" I mean this:	We found
there were some people in our offices who had only a book knowledge of Canada. We think that our staff over there representing Canada should be composed preferably of those who have lived some years in this country, and certainly they should know the Dominion. We 
have some excellent officials who have been with us a few years, and we think they should at least come home periodically and so be in a better position to tell of the advantages of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What requirements are insisted upon as to occupation, experience and so on, of immigrants under this act?


James Alexander Robb: They must be from the farm,
and our officers judge of their character and make a very careful investigation into their records. This season we have not averaged four a day in the detention quarters, owing to the selection on the other side having been so much perfected recently.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
James Alexander Robb: Half by the British and half
by the Canadian government.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
George Perry Graham: I am informed that as an experiment they have been doing something of the kind indicated, but it is limited to twenty families.


Edward Joseph Garland: The despatch reads:
Five hundred families of settlers for Canada chosen in England.
I do Qot question the minister's answer, but this is what the newspaper despatch states.


George Perry Graham: My information is that
the number was reduced to twenty families when the proposal was discussed on this side.


Edward Joseph Garland: I most
sincerely trust that the minister is correct, because if you take a family of five-a man, his wife and three chidren-and the children

Supply-Immigration
happen to be under 17 years of age, they receive a grant of $80 apiece, or $240, and in addition there is an advance of $1,500 under this family settlement scheme.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is
wrong in that.


Edward Joseph Garland: This statement by Colonial Secretary Thomas has not been contradicted by the Minister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: That is simply what the
newspaper says, it is not Mr. Thomas' statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite right.
I trust the minister will be able to bring down the information. If it is true, we are advancing to each family no less than $1,740-[DOT] a sum of money sufficient to save many Canadians to Canada. It might be just as well to bear this in mind.


Mr. WARD:: I have been informed that
there are a large number of Ukrainians stranded in Cuba who were told by the transportation companies that if they got as far as Cuba they would have no trouble in reaching Canada. I believe representations have been made to the minister to admit a selected number of these men, who have been guaranteed positions on farms in Saskatchewan, but that the government is hesitant about admitting them. As these people will make good settlers, why should they not be admitted?


James Alexander Robb: It has been very strongly represented to me by my colleagues that the Ukrainian makes a good settler, and similar representations were made at the provincial conference last fall. The government place no restrictions upon the Ukrainian coming direct from his country to go on the farms of western Canada. Indeed, I am told there are now one hundred families on the way. As regards the movement from Cuba, there has been so much criticism of the department in connection with it that I think it is only fair we should let in some daylight on what for a time I did not think I would give publicity to. As a matter of fact, it is a bootlegging scheme to get these Ukrainians into the United States by bringing them across from Cuba to Florida, or to New York, or if neither of these attempts is successful there is an attempt made to move them by way of Canada.


William John Ward: But these poor illiterate
people were deceived by the transportation companies.


James Alexander Robb: I am not disputing that, but
I understand that our Canadian shipping companies were not concerned in the movement.


William John Ward: I doubt if the minister's department has that information.


James Alexander Robb: We have the following letter:
Kindly note enclosed copy o-f letter received from our assistant commissioner general, Washington, D.C.. under date of July 1, 1924, containing information relative to importation of Europeans to Canada via Cuba.
It has been felt that the enclosed may be of interest to you.
Will you kindly acquaint me with any action that may be taken by your department in relation to the enclosed.
This is from Washington, D.C., addressed to [DOT]the Commissioner of Immigration, Montreal.
The bureau is quoting below a communication which has been forwarded to-day from the Ellis Island office.
The first word in the next paragraph is a name which I do not think I will give; I will call him Blank.
Blank leaves 10.45 p.m. to-day for Ottawa obtain permit introduce 1,000-1,500 Europeans into Canada, ultimate destination United States.
Blank represents stoick company organized Havana for purpose and carries strong recommendations prominent politicians to give philanthropic character to project.	.
Charge immigrants $150 per capita. Transportation costs $46.50, leaving $103.50 head profit, $41 to promoters of company and $62.50 per capita to political friends who furnished letters to give appearance of government support to idea.
In the face of such evidence I believe if my hon. friend was sitting in my seat he would turn down all this business coming in from Cuba. There is nothing to stop the simon pure Ukrainian who comes from his own country from entering Canada, but the Immigration department is not going to be a party to a combination having an organization to make a profit of $103.50 a head out of the poor immigrant who is going through Canada on his way to the States.


William John Ward: I would feel like commending the minister for his stand on this question. But does he not think it would be the part of wisdom for his department, if those people are now stranded in Cuba-I am given to understand they are suffering from the heat, and that they are out of work-and if they are good settlers, to select them there and bring them to Canada? There is no better settler than the Ukrainian for the frontiers of this country and it might be good business tc bring these people from Cuba to Canada wit! the idea of providing labour for the farms ol Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Superannuation-to provide for retiring allowances to former employees of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $47,500.
James Alexander Robb: This is to provide for superannuation arranged prior to the Calder Act of 1920. They are gradually disappearing from year to year and it is estimated that in two years there will be nothing more required. Item agreed to.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding any thing contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and the staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation o.f the said act-; and salary of $10,000 for the Commissioner of Taxation, $2,000,000.


James Alexander Robb: There is a decrease of $200,-
000.
.Mr. WOODSWORTH:	Is this another
set of positions to be created outside of the Civil Service Act?


James Alexander Robb: No. This was under the act
of 1916. When the act was passed under Sir Thomas White, then Finance minister, this was the procedure and there has been no change since that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Provisional bonus allowance for the inside and outside services of the civil service, to be paid to such persons and classes of persons, in such amounts and at such times, as the Governor in Council may determine, $3,800,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this the same arrangement that has prevailed in the past?


James Alexander Robb: There is a big reduction, but
the procedure is the same.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the reduction?


James Alexander Robb: 


James Shaver Woodsworth: What percentage
is that on the salaries?


James Alexander Robb: The Prime Minister placed
that on Hansard some time ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service, $10,000.
Jacques Bureau: This item was left over
at the request of my hon. friends from Weybtim (Mr. Morrison) and Prince Albert (Mr. Knox). There was a letter missing in a return that was asked for by the hon. member for Weyburn. The letter was written by the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan to 
Mr. Wigmore my predecessor, and after hunting through the files we could not find it. Since then I have wired up to Regina and got a copy of the letter, and have seen the two. hon. members and they are perfectly satisfied.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to have more information as to the purpose for which this money is to be used.


Jacques Bureau: It is for secret service, to
pay for the services of the mounted police in connection with the improper use of narcotics and smuggling, for instance. This money is turned over to the Department of Justice to be disbursed by them and accounted for. It is for assistance provided for the Chief Preventive Officer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this amount to
be expended under the direction of the mounted police officials?


Jacques Bureau: Under the direction of the Department of Justice, it may be the mounted police or someone else that is chosen by the Department of Justice to help in the secret service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Several years ago
we had information in the public accounts that certain amounts of this kind were being paid to American detective firms. Are American detective firms being employed now?


Jacques Bureau: I have never heard of any being employed since I have been in office, nor have I heard of any ever being employed on this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supplementary estimates-Department of Immigration and Colonization-to provide for one senior clerk bookkeeper, $1,440.
James Alexander Robb: This is to provide for the
salary of an employee who was ill at the time the Main Estimates were being prepared, and who has since returned to her position.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Finance-to provide for the salary of an Inspector General of Banks and the expenses of the staff and of the administration of the system of bank inspection as authorized by the amendment to Section 56-A of the Bank Act. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $50,000.
Robert Gardiner: I presume in the legislation there is provision made for the return of this.


James Alexander Robb: That is provided in the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Immigration
Civil government, generally-to provide for cases of reclassification, increases and promotions, $56,000.
James Alexander Robb: This is to provide for reclassifications and promotions that may have been made by the Civil Service Commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Empire Exhibition-further amount required, $150,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has this anything to do with the parliamentary delegation?


James Alexander Robb: Not in particular. That was
pretty well threshed out on the main estimates.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just what
is this additional amount required for?


James Alexander Robb: For the same exhibition.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand there would hardly 'be two Wembley exhibitions in the one year. To what purpose is this additional amount to be devoted?


James Alexander Robb: Additional amounts have come in since the main estimates were prepared by Mr. Tolmie, who was in charge of the Canadian exhibit, pointing out the additional cost of the building. My recollection is that there was a strike of the staff, and that he had to pay for additional help to get his exhibit ready in time for the opening. Then there was some additional advertising required.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the total cost of the
Wembley exhibition to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Speaking from memory, it
will be just a little over $1,000,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some sum!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Retiring allowance to W. J. Black, former Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization, six months at $500, $3,000.
James Alexander Robb: I am going to allow this
item to stand to meet the convenience of an hon. member opposite who had to leave to catch a train, but I might explain that it is to provide for a retiring allowance to Mr. Black, who was the deputy minister. When he withdrew from the service he forfeited any rights he had to a pension, and by the way, his retirement from the service was purely voluntary on his part. We exchanged letters, he regretting that he had left the service, and I am bound to say I regretted his having done so, because he had been very useful to me in the short period we were associated together. Mr. Black thought it was fair 279
that he should get this retiring allowance, and I thought it was reasonable, and have put it in the estimates. Hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity of discussing it later.
Item stands
To provide for the expenses of a technical investigation under the supervision of the Department of Insurance into the merits of the various forms of roof coverings from the standpoint of fire prevention, $8,500.


William Irvine: How much was spent on
this last year?


James Alexander Robb: Speaking from memory, it
was about this amount. There is just the same staff, with Mr. Smith at the head. It has been represented to me that the investigation will be completed this year.


Robert Gardiner: Do we get any results from these investigations?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The Superintendent of Insurance tells me he thinks they will be of very material value.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal and other expenses in connection with prosecutions resulting from the failure of the Home Bank of Canada, $15,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the minister give us
the details of this item?


James Alexander Robb: I have not those details before me. We have a legal adviser watching the case for us in Toronto and we had an auditor doing considerable work, digging into the case and gathering up information.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What was the auditor paid
per day, and what are the per diem payments to counsel?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I had better let the
item stand until we have further information. I have not that information now.
Item stands.
To provide for the expenses of a royal commission to inquire into proposed prohibition of restriction of the export of pulpwood-further amount required, $7,500.


Robert Gardiner: Has this commission reported yet?


James Alexander Robb: The report may be ready for presentation. The secretary of the Pulpwood Commission has been endeavouring to see me all the afternoon but I was not able to leave the chamber. I told him I would try and see him this evening about ten o'clock, but I have not been able to leave the chamber since ten. I am not sure whether he wished to deliver the report to me or not.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Robert Gardiner: I would take it then
that the minister indicates there is some hope this commission will finish its labours in a very short time.


James Alexander Robb: I hope it will be off the pay
list before I leave.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the advisers
engaged in tariff inquiry. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, 430,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I think this item
should stand.


James Alexander Robb: I do not see why hon. gentlemen are opposed to the government making inquiries into the necessity of tariff reform.


Thomas Sales: We have no objection if the idea is to lower the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: We must have information
before we decide what shall be done.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think the item should stand. Not that there is any objection, but we want to know the details in connection with the vote.


James Alexander Robb: I can give my hon. friend all the details that are available now. It is proposed to have an inquiry. It was intimated in the Speech from the Throne, I think.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Not on this subject.


James Alexander Robb: It has already been intimated to the House. What information do my hon. friends desire?


William Irvine: I should like to know where you are going to inquire and how you are going about the inquiry? Is it to be confined to Canada or will it be extended to all the countries in the world?


James Alexander Robb: No, in Canada.


William Irvine: Are you going to appoint
a committee to do the inquiring or a commission?


James Alexander Robb: We are going to have an inquiry made for the advice of the minister, and the government of the day will assume the responsibility for whatever is done.


William Irvine: I think it is a fine idea, I am not opposing it but I should like to know a little more about it. I am not very clear about what is going to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide for the expenses of a royal commission to inquire into the proposed prohibition or restriction of the export of pulpwood (Governor General's warrant of Jan. 15, 1924), 430,000.
James Alexander Robb: This is just to make a clean
up; a Governor General's warrant was issued.


William Irvine: Is the report in yet?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal and other expenses in connection with prosecutions resulting from the failure of the Home Bank of Canada, $15,000.
George Perry Graham: Would not hon. gentlemen on reflection consent to allow the Minister of Finance to put through that $15,000 for the Home Bank and we will get the particulars that are desired.


William Irvine: Is that vote intended for
the depositors?


George Perry Graham: We will get the particulars my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) asked for. I will get them from the department.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is this the only vote for the purpose?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is the last. The
department will! furnish the information which my hon. friend desires.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: As long as the minister knows the information I want. I wish to find out how many counsel were employed, how much they were paid, and at what rate. I wish the legal and other expenses divided.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does this vote include
any money for counsel for the Home Bank people?


James Alexander Robb: No, it is for the government
counsel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I am sure it was well worth
staying here so long to have such a splendid ending. I think all my immigration estimates are cleaned up with the exception of one item, and the estimates of the Department of Finance. I am not sure whether there are any other items undisposed of. If there are I hope hon. gentlemen will accord the same courtesy to my colleague the acting minister as they have to myself. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 3.15 a.m., (Saturday).

Questions
Monday, July 14, 1924