1925-05-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization, and moved' concurrence in the report.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the hon.
gentleman explain?


Mr. KAY:: It is a recommendation that
the committee be given leave to sit while the House is in session, and that the minutes of evidence may be printed if considered advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 139, from the Senate, for the relief of Birdie Cohen Gould.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 140, from the Senate, for the relief of Walter Roderick Wilson Robinson.-Mr. Elliott (Dundas).

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

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	When did Mr. Lafleur first commence work on the Petersen contract?
2.	When did his work cease?
3.	When was Mr. Symington first retained in the place of Mr. Lafleur?
4.	Why was Mr. Lafleur displaced by Mr. Symington?
5.	What is Mr. Symington's per diem allowance when the committee is in session?
6.	Is he allowed a per diem allowance when the committee is not in session?
7.	If so, what is that allowance?
8.	Is Mr. Symington still a partner of A. B. Hudson, Esq., K.C., M.P.?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	December 3, 1924.
2.	December 11, 1924.
3.	Was retained 3rd March, 1925, but not in place of Mr. Lafleur.
4.	He was not displaced.

Questions
5,	6 and 7. $200 per diem for time engaged in inquiry.
8. Yes, but Mr. Symington before accepting this employment explained that he would have to get leave of absence from his firm, as they could not share in any fee from the Dominion government, and Mr. Hudson has no part or share in any fee to be paid to Mr. Symington by the Dominion government.


NETLEY CUT
Mr. BANCROFT:: 1.	When was the canal, known as Netley cut, constructed between the Red river and Netley lake?
2.	For what purpose was it constructed?
3.	What amount of money has been spent, to date, in an attempt to close up Netley cut?
4.	What is the estimated cost of completing the work of closing up this canal?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	October, 1913.
2.	To permit of Netley lake being entered by small boats and flat-bottomed scows. The petitioners represented that there is considerable cordwood and hay on the shores of and adjacent to Netley lake, that settlers and others interested experienced difficulty in having taken out.
3.	$5,599.53.
4.	$3,500.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1920?
2.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt during that year?
3.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1921?
4.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt during that year?
5.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1922?
6.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt during that year?
7.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1923?
8.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt during that year?
9.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1924?
10.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt during that year?
11.	What was the net debt of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1925?
12.	What was the increase or decrease of the debt for that year?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	$2,248,868,623.79.
2.	$674,337,591.35 increase.
3.	$2,340,878,983.69.
4.	$92,010,359.90 increase.
5.	$2,422,135,801.73.
6.	$81,256,818.04 increase.
7.	$2,453^776,868.74.
8.	$31,641,067.01 increase.
9.	$2,417,783,274.88.
10.	$35,993,593.86 decrease.
11.	(Est.) $2,419,843,206.88.
12.	(Est.) $2,059,000 increase.


NOMINATED PASSAGE SCHEME
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many agricultural workers have been brought to Canada under the nominated passage plan from its inception to the present time?
2.	What was the total cost to Canada of passage money for these immigrants?
3.	How much of this is still outstanding?
4.	How many juvenile immigrants have been brought to Canada during 1923, 1924 and up to date in 1925?
5.	What was the total cost to Canada?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Number brought forward under nominated passage scheme to February 28th, 1925, 2,961.
2.	Department's share of loans made and repayable, $118,707.35.
3.	$92,626.75.
4.	To February 28, 1925, 4,768.
5.	$120,432.65.


ANTELOPE PARK
Mr. McTAGGART:: With reference to what is known as Antelope Park, situated in the vicinity of the town of Maple Creek, Saskatchewan:
1.	How many acres of land are included in this park?
2.	What is the location of the lands comprised in this park?
3.	Under what department are they administered?
4.	To whom are they leased and for what purpose?
5.	What period does the existing lease cover?
6.	Is the department contemplating issuing a lease for this park covering a period of twenty-one years?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Seventeen sections, or approximately 10,880 acres.
2.	The north half of section 31, township 9, range 25; sections 6, 7 and 18, township 10, range 25; the north halves of sections 33, 34. 35 and 36, township 9, range 26; and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and east half of section 16, township 10, range 26, all west of the third meridian.
3.	Department of the Interior.
4.	Not held under lease.
5.	Answered by No. 4.	,
6.	The department has under consideration an application for the use of this land for community grazing. No term of years has been decided on in this connection.
bevised edition
Banking and Commerce


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	During the year 1924, prior to August 1st, what rate per day was paid to the following officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the permanent force of Canada, namely, general of various ranks, colonel, lieutenant-colonel, major, captain, lieutenant, second lieutenant, regimental sergeant-major, company sergeant-major, sergeant, corporal and private?
2. What was the value in money of any per diem allowance paid or furnished each of said ranks in addition to pay during said period?
3.	What rate of pay and rate of allowance has been paid each of said ranks since August 1, 1924?


BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):	I notice that the committee on
Banking and Commerce has not, through its chairman, presented a report to-day. I would like to inquire if there is any particular reason for it. And is it not a rule of the House that when the chairman of a committee is directed to present the committee's report to the House, that report shall be presented without delay? The committee sat a week ago last Tuesday but no report was presented; there was some slight clerical error which had to be corrected. So there was an excuse yesterday, it being alleged that the report was not quite right. To-day, however, I see no excuse, and I submit that the report should be presented promptly, in accordance with the instructions of the committee.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: I fancy my hon. friend is right with regard to the rule. The chairman of the Banking and Commerce committee (Mr. Vien) is not in his seat. I shall direct his attention to my hon. friend's inquiry.


Mr. STEVENS:: I submit, with all due
deference, that the chairman could very easily deputize another member of the committee to present the report in his absence. The hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I am anxious that the report shall be presented to the House. It contains a very important resolution on rural credits calling for action this session, which requires, Mr. Speaker, some attention on the part of the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Two reports of that committee have to my knowledge been laid on the table. Does my hon. friend refer to the session as a whole-that the reports of the committee have not been tabled?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, Mr. Speaker; I refer to a special instruction given yesterday to the chairman.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that the report will be laid on the table to-day.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS CUSTOMS OUTPORT AT DRUMHELLER
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I wish to direct the attention of the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise to the fact that on April 27, a motion for the production of papers respecting the establishment of a customs outport at the town of Drumheller, Alberta, was passed by this House. I would ask him if he is prepared to lay these papers on the table, and if not, will he inquire as to the reason for the delay?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise):: The order to which the hon. gentleman refers was passed within the last few days, if I remember correctly. At all events, I shall be pleased to make inquiry and see that the report is brought down as soon as possible.


Edward Joseph Garland: The order
was passed over three weeks ago-on the 27th of April.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will see that it is brought down without delay.


YUKON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS-INCOME TAX EXEMPTION
James Alexander Robb: Yesterday on the orders of the
day the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) submitted a question to the government with regard to reports on the income tax as affecting the Yukon. The secretary of the department has communicated with Mr. Breadner, who expects to have the return ready early next week, if not sooner. It may be ready to-morrow.



PRIVILEGE-MR. WOODSWORTH NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL ON MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: I notice in the Ottawa Journal
of this morning an editorial under the caption "The Word of a Minister," which questions the veracity of ministers of the crown with regard to certain statements made on the floor of this House. It seems to me that this is a matter which affects not only

Privilege-Mr. Woodsworth
the ministers themselves but throws discredit on the House, and that it ought not to be passed without challenge.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have not seen the
editorial to which my hon. friend has made reference. I agree with him that any comment of the character he has mentioned is not fitting, but I think that he, along with the rest of us, will have to make some allowance for articles that appear in the Journal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think perhaps I
might be permitted to read the editorial. It is not a long one, and as I say, it reflects, I believe, upon the honour of this House.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
stated his point, and the right hon. leader of the House, who is responsible to -a certain degree for the honour of the House, has declared that he has not read the article, so if the hon. gentleman will give him time to read the article, perhaps then the questions might come up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I not have the opportunity of reading the article, which, as I say, seems to reflect upon the honour of this House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: If it affects the honour of members of this House, certainly it is a question of privilege, but as the article has not been read by the right hon. leader of the House, and as the hon. member concluded his remarks by simply asking the right hon. leader of the House, to make a statement on the subject, I think he should give him an opportunity to at least read the editorial. I do not know the contents of the article, but if it is a question affecting the honour of the House, the hon. gentleman will have to read it first:


James Shaver Woodsworth: The article reads as follows:
In the House of Commons, on Friday, May 15, Sir Henry Drayton put this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
"Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce mean to say that the whole question of the export of Carillon power is a myth and that this government has not been requested to grant it?"
Mr. Low replied:
"I say to my honorable friend without any hesitation that we have had no application for a license to export Carillon power."
Sir Henry Drayton retorted that he couldn't take seriously the idea that nothing had been said to the government about the export of power. Mr. King, the Prime Minister, then said:
"No application whatever that I am aware of has been made to the government with respect to the
217i
export of power. I am making that statement fully conscious of its significance and meaning in every particular."
That was on Friday, May 15. Yet on Monday, May 18, the government, in compliance with an order of the House, tables a return including a tentative contract with the "Carillon Industrial Corporation of Ottawa," expressly dealing with the export of power from the proposed Carillon Falls dam. Under this contract, yet unsigned, the development company is given the right to export all power developed over 100,000 horsepower.
What is the country to make of such a thing? Here you have the Prime Minister and one of his ministers solemnly assuring the House that a certain thing, of which they were both bound to have knowledge, had not taken place; only to have the assurance followed by official documents which prove that they misled the House. What possible confidence can parliament or the country have in the ministry in the face of such an occurrence ?
Nor is this the first offence of its kind. Only last week Mr. Lesueur asked the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Stewart, whether a report had not been made by an official of his department upon the oil fields of Sarnia. Mr. Stewart replied that the official in question had made no report upon the Sarnia oil fields, nor had he been asked to make one. That seemed conclusive enough; but, to the astonishment of the House, Mr. Lesueur arose, produced the report-a very lengthy one -and read it to the House.
Such things should not take place in parliament. Exaggerated statements, misleading statements, are deplorable enough when voiced by perspiring orators on the hustings, but it is a far more serious matter when ministers use parliament for seemingly deliberate misrepresentation. The anarchist could wish for nothing more likely to sap public confidence in parliamentary institutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That article'
seems to me comparatively mild compared to some that I have read in the Journal.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I would just like to interject
that the article is misleading, and so far as I am concerned it is untrue. Mr. LeSueur never read the report in question. The report was handed to Mr. LeSueur by myself. He read a letter from a gentleman in which he said that he knew a report of this character was in the department.
While I am on my feet, I would just like again to state although I made a full explanation when the matter was under discussion, that the report so far as I was concerned was considered a private report. The return that was brought down, which I must confess I did not examine, did make the statement that no report was in existence. All I wish to state is that while the incident is regrettable, and no one regrets it more than I do, I was in no way guilty of misleading the House. That was not the intention at all in any particular.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the minister has
gone rather beyond the rule. I do not want
Privilege-M r. Woodsworth

to imitate his example, but I must crave the privilege of saying that the report was read -of course, after production, upon demand-* by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur).


Charles A. Stewart: That is not what the paper says.


Arthur Meighen: The newspaper report
did not say how he got it; it said he read it, and it was not a letter. That is what I want mainly to say. It was a distinct report in the form of a memorandum, and no letter at all.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. mend will permit me, the hon. member for West Lam'bton did not read the report until it was brought down by me.


Arthur Meighen: I know that. The article does not say he did.


Charles A. Stewart: It does say
so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did my right
hon. friend write the article?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said, did he write it?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, write it? Had I
written it, as respects at least the Interior department matter I would have .made it stronger.


Hewitt Bostock: I may remind the House
that there is nothing before the Chair. I do not consider there is a question of privilege arising out of that editorial. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Woodsworth) maintains his view that there is a question of privilege, I can only say that in my judgment it is simply a matter of appreciation of statements made in the House.



REPORT OF BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I understand that a question was' put before I came into the House in respect of the report of the Banking and Commerce committee that was to be presented to-day when the order for reports from standing committees was called. This report was handed to me only late, after lunch, by the clerk of the committee, and I have been unable to check the translation yet. But the report will be presented at the next sitting.

CORRECTION-Mr. ETHIER
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Laval-Two Mountains) :: I wish to make a correction in Hansard of yesterday. During my remarks in the Carillon debate I stated, in error, that an article I quoted was from the Financial Review of Montreal; I should have said that it was from the Financial Post of Toronto, as my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meigh'en) suggested at the time.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the hon. member was wrong, and I tried to set him right.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Immigration and Colonization-salaries, $250,770; contingencies, $50,000.
James Alexander Robb: I understand there are
a number of hon. gentlemen opposite, and on this side also, who desire to leave early. I want to say to them that we should propose only to put through one item-civil government. There is an increase of eight clerkships for 1925-26 over the number provided for 1924-25. This is due to the reorganization which has been effected by the Civil Service Commission in some of the branches of the department, but especially in the records division. This particular division has been carrying on for a number of years with an ever increasing amount of correspondence to be filed and registered. A large portion of the staff has been composed of temporary clerks only, although a good many of these positions have been considered by the department for a long time as being of a permanent nature. The Civil Service Commission were asked to re-organize this division on a permanent basis, which they did. in order to promote the efficiency so much desired by the department. While there is an increase of eight in the permanent positions, the whole staff of permanent and temporary clerkships combined in the department at Ottawa has been decreased by six, and the amount required to cover the combined salaries has also been decreased by $15,405 as compared with the sum provided for the fiscal year 1924-25.


Arthur Meighen: The increase in the superannuation vote-I do not know what title it comes under but I call it the Calder Act moneys-would make this year's estimate very considerably in excess of last year, would it not?

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: While I would not like to
say that, I imagine that generally speaking my right hon. friend is correct-that a great number of the employees in the service have taken advantage of the Calder Act, more particularly during the last-


Arthur Meighen: Year.


James Alexander Robb: -period when they knew the Calder Act was going to expire.


Arthur Meighen: Those retired by the
government under the Calder Act, would, in a staff of about seventy-eight, certainly involve an annual payment of anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000, would they not?


James Alexander Robb: I ha.e not the figures here. I
do recall that the Treasury board incurred the displeasure of a good many civil servants by not allowing some people to take advantage of the Calder Act because it was thought they did not come within the age limit.


Mr. MANION:: I notice at the foot of the page giving the details of civil government for this department-and I have observed it in the case of the votes for other departments- the statement:
Less saving estimated to be effected through superannuation and re-organization.
While there is a direct saving, I imagine, for the department, the allowance of the man who is superannuated is still a liability, but it is paid out of another fund-out of consolidated revenue, I suppose, or some other fund. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: It is paid out of another fund.


Robert James Manion: It is not paid by the department, but comes from another fund? So that, in connection with the point made by my right hon. leader, although some men have been superannuated they still get a superannuation allowance or salary. Consequently in reality there is no saving at all to the government or to the people as a whole? In fact there is an increase very often, and there is in most cases. Take, for example, the case of a man who is in charge, we will say of a branch at a salary of $4,000 a year. He takes his superannuation under the Calder Act. We will say he is getting $3,000-I am not quoting exact figures, but that will do as an illustration. Somebody else is appointed to take his position who perhaps, will get $4,000 or very nearly that amount; perhaps he will not get the full amount, he starts at a lower salary,' say $3,500 or $3,000. But the two amounts together-the superannuation salary and the salary of the new man-would
increase the expenditure of the government.
Is not that true?


James Alexander Robb: Well. I will go this far with my hon. friend and say that the Calder , Act, in my judgment, has not tended towards economy in the public service.


Robert James Manion: All right. Then, I want
to ask, why put at the bottom of the details of civil government-perhaps it is unintentional but it is certainly misleading-such a statement when there is no saving at all? The same thing is done in the case of other departments and it /may have been the practice in the past. I do not know anything about that; but it does not seem to me to be a reasonable thing to put such a statement at the bottom of the estimates when in reality, or in all probability, there has been an increase in the expenditure, and not any saving at all.


James Alexander Robb: We are dealing now with the
Department of Immigration and Colonization, and each minister explains the transactions of his department when his estimates come before the committee. It is correct that we have effected an economy in the service, but I admit again that in my judgment the Calder Act has not tended towardte economy in the public service. Many people have taken advantage of the Calder Act that I believe were quite able to carry on for a while longer. But the Calder Act was there, although it is not our child, and I suppose it was only human for people to take advantage of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the minister if he will tell the committee just what he means by " an estimated saving of $8,000?" Who estimated it and on what basis?


James Alexander Robb: Well, it is an estimate by the accountant. I direct the attention of the committee to the fact-and I think every hon. gentleman will acknowledge it, particularly ex-ministers who have had to do with the preparing of the estimates and administering public affairs-that under our system when we are compelled to provide for the payment of employees during the year, with the possibility that some of them may drop out, and taking this into consideration as well as the changes that occur, often-times the estimate is more than is really required during the year. But we must make provision for eventualities; otherwise we could not make the necessary payments. For example, take the estimates of 1923-24. The amount voted was $274,845, but the actual amount expended was $233,013.47. The following year, 1924-25, the
Supply-Immigratio n

amount voted to provide for the salaries as laid down by the regulations-and we must follow them-was $251,235, but the amount actually expended was $221,465.91 or about $30,000 less.


Arthur Meighen: As a matter of fact the scheme the government has adopted this year of putting so much saving at the end of the details of civil government for each of the departments is so much eye-wash; the minister knows it right well. Every year since Canada has been a country there would be a certain amount saved from the estimates of any department for salaries by deaths, by resignations, by the operation of the Superannuation Act when we had it, and so on. But we always had to put the full-
_ Mr. ROBB: But my right hon. friend has just said that the Superannuation Act does not result in a saving.


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not say that at all; that is what the minister said. The minister said the Calder Act had not resulted in a saving, and I will come to that in a minute. There has always been an amount that would necessarily be saved in the estimate of any department, but we had to put in the amount of each salary in order that the salary might be paid if necessary.


James Alexander Robb: That is right.


Arthur Meighen: Now, in order to make
the estimate appear less the government has adopted an ingenious device by reducing at the beginning by a certain aggregate which they know will be saved-which always has been saved in every year in the past, indeed it may be a great deal more-making the total estimates that much less, and making it appear like a saving, whereas it is not a particle more saving than has always been the case. It is only a device to improve appearances, something at which this government has managed to develop a wonderful expertness. It is eye-wash and nothing else.


Mr. JACOBS:: My right hon. friend will
admit it is ingenious.


Arthur Meighen: I will admit they are
ingenious in misleading the public. If that is a credit, I am ready to give them credit for it, with a full heart.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is, they are ingenious.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The minister
knows the number of retirements under the Calder Act, and knows that if he takes what is to be paid these men this year the sub' stantial cost to the country is more than last 
year. He cannot help it. On his estimates he cannot help but admit that it is considerably more. And this in the face of the reduced immigration of last year-he only received 111,000, against 148,000 the year before, and as against 148,000 of the last year of office of the late government. But what I want to commiserate with the minister on is the condition of imprisonment he suffers because of the Calder Act. "There is the act," he says, "it is not our child; we are the unfortunate heirs, and because of that act larger expense is heaped upon the government." I would like to give the minister credit, and consequently I will say that he does not believe that at all. He does not need to retire one man under the Calder Act unless he wants to-not one man. He can ignore that act-rthrow it in the waste paper basket. If the Calder Act is an expense to this country it is the fault of the government. They have not the courage to stand up and say no to civil servants who want to retire.


James Alexander Robb: But we have said no.


Arthur Meighen: He has sometimes said
no; but as a matter of expense to the country, it is an admission on the part of the minister of the crown-


Thomas Vien: They did more than say no.
They repealed the act and it is out of existence.


Arthur Meighen: No, the act repealed
itself. It was only in existence for a certain period.


Thomas Vien: It was not extended.


Arthur Meighen: But in the period when
it lived, it lived because of the act of this government; they themselves extended it.


Thomas Vien: They said more than no.


Arthur Meighen: They did not extend it
last year, but they extended it the year before, and if they retired anybody that added expense to the country by the retirement, the fault is their own, for no man's application can go through unless it receives the imprimatur of the government by order in council. So what is the use of the minister saying, "The fact that we are under more expense is due to the Calder Act"? He knows it is due to himself, if such is the fact at all, because he is the Chairman of the Treasury Board. I want the minister to give us the actual retirements in the year 1924-25 under the Calder Act in the Department of Immigration.

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: I have here a summary of
retirements under the Public Service Retirement Act. They are not all under the Calder Act, as hon. gentlemen know. Some of these are not under the Calder Act, and some were superannuated under the regular act. The total number is thirty-nine. I think I checked them over a moment ago, and I desire to direct the attention of my right hon. friend to the ages of some of these people. The ages are as follows: 74, 67, 65, 68, 65, 71, 65, 67, 81, 83, 68, 66. 67, 63 , 67. I would not admit a man should retire at the last-named age unless his usefulness is gone.


Arthur Meighen: Why did the minister
consent to allowing him to go?


James Alexander Robb: Here are some of the reasons:
Lack of employment, ill-health, advanced age, failing health, abolition of position. In the last case the man was eighty.


Arthur Meighen: If it was for lack of
employment the man was let out, I hope the minister did not put another one in.
M,r. ROBB:	No.


Arthur Meighen: In that case there would not be an increase but a decrease.


James Alexander Robb: This is the general service.


Arthur Meighen: In the case where the
vacancy was not filled because of lack of employment there would be a decrease?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: If the government let
out any of these employees on account of failing health and old age, when they should not have been let out, that is the fault of the government. Does the minister think he was quite fair to the House in complaining of an act that is entirely under his control and an act which his own government renewed?	*


Charles A. Stewart: I do not rise to say anything about the Calder Act; it is out of existence now. But I think the provision of the Superannuation Act will now pretty nearly take care of the cost of superannuation-the contributions of the civil servants to that superannuation will take care of it. It is true a very large number of people who are advanced in age took advantage of the Calder Act and asked for retirement before the expiring of the act. That was bound to happen. But, if my right hon. friend will examine the records, he will find that many of these cases were examined by a doctor suggested by the Treasury Board, and were
certified to be ill or physically incapacitated to carry on the work. What I object to is the exception taken by my hon. friend to the reduction. When the estimates have been before the House this year no one has criticized the expenditures more vigorously than my hon. friend sitting opposite, and he has asked repeatedly for the expenditures of previous years; and then if the estimate appears to be larger than the actual expenditure the criticism offered was that we were asking for more than we expended. In order to meet that, to show clearly what the estimated expenditure in my department would be, this system was adopted this year at my request, and I want to take responsibility for it. I asked them to do it in my department. Why should we ask for more money than we know we are going to expend? Why, and inflate the estimates? If there is anything misleading about it, the misleading part of it has been done in years gone by. It was in order to reduce the expenditure-my hon. friend is quite correct-and still have sufficient funds to carry on in the department. That is the reason it appears this year. It was discussed when the estimates of the Department of the Interior were up, and I again reiterate the statement made upon that occasion.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has successfully turned the subject to the phase in respect of which the government is the least guilty. That I admit.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will admit there is nothing wirong about it.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say it was
wrong, but by comparison with other years it was misleading. That is all.


Charles A. Stewart: I take exception to that. A clear explanation was made.


Arthur Meighen: I know.


Charles A. Stewart: And I do
not propose in the future to allow statements of that kind to go unchallenged. It is not misleading. The explanation given the other night was identical with the explanation given to-day.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say it was not.


Charles A. Stewart: But the right hon. member claims it was misleading. I cannot understand how it would be.


Arthur Meighen: By comparison with other years. You can see very plainly it may be
Supply-Immigration

just as good a system, but when we take the estimates of this year and look at the total, and say that the government proposes to spend this year so much less than last year, it is not true. It merely means that you have adopted a different system, not that there is to be less expenditure. Thus, in the comparison, it is misleading to the public. I do not say that if we had started this system from the very beginning that it would not be just as good, but as to this $8,000,000 taken off here, and the $25,000,000 taken off another place, that $8,000,000 and $25,000,000 would have been off last year or the year before, or the year,before that, if this system had been adopted, for the reason that always less is expended than the amount estimated for salaries and retirements and the like. There always will be. All that is done is to lump this estimate together, and so make it appear that the government are economizing. That is all that I pointed out and that is absolutely true. The minister says that when they asked for more than they spent last year, they were severely criticized. If they were, from the mere fact that the amount asked for was more than was spent the previous year, that is an unjust criticism. I never heard it, and the minister certainly never heard me make that criticism. I have been in departments long enough to know that you have to estimate for more than you expect to spend. You cannot estimate for the exact amount. It might be that there is criticism because the margin is too large. The minister has to allow a certain margin even in estimates of salaries.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am a
little puzzled to see just where the saving comes in. The amount voted last year was $251,235 and the amount expended, $221,465. The item this year is $258,770. There is an increase in the total estimate and an increase in the number of employees from 168 to 176. It then becomes possible, under the new system that is inaugurated, to make an estimate of the amount-$8,000-that will not be required for this year. This is entered underneath the $258,770 and deducted from it, showing $250,770. But if we deduct the amount unexpended last year from the total amount voted last year, we find there is an actual increase in this item.


James Alexander Robb: My hoo. friend is possibly
quite right, but when we come down next year with the amount actually spent, we may have spent less. This is an estimate of what we expect to spend.
[Mr. MeighenJ


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister hopes to spend less?


James Alexander Robb: We refer our record of last
year to my hon. friend .to show our method of conducting the department.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know
that, but I also know that a goodly number of old staunch Liberals have been put in the service, such as our friend Mr. MoColl, who was taken out of the Immigration department and put into the Vancouver Harbour Commission. I do not see for the life of me how the Minister of Immigration can claim very much saving over the whole service when all that is done is to take one piece of dead timber from his department and put it somewhere else for a time.


Mr. BOYS:: When was this new system
first adopted? Glancing at the estimates of last year, I find that it was adopted last year. Glancing at the estimates of the year before, I see no similar item to the one under discussion which reads:
Less saving estimated to be effected through superannuation and reorganization.
There are similar items in last year's estimates in different departments, but I can find nothing for the year before that.


James Alexander Robb: I .cannot answer my hon.
friend's question. I am speaking only of the estimates that I have before me. I do not recall last year's estimates.


William Alves Boys: There is not the slightest
doubt there are such items in last year's estimates. Glancing at the estimates for the year before, I do not find any such items, but I will not say that there are not any.
I notice, going through the estimates of this year, not only have we the one in question, but we have in the Department of Mines an item of $8,750, in the Post Office Department, one item of $35,000 and in the Customs department an item of $11,425 and in the Interior department an item of $25,000. That, as the minister has said, was under discussion the other night. There is another item in the Post Office Department of $250,000. The items that I have been able to pick out in a few minutes total $338,175, a pretty big item. I do not know, when it is called an estimate and when, as it says, it is a sum of money that is to be deducted because of some superannuation or reorganization, that the minister would have a right to take credit for any such deduction at all. If it is known that there are going to be superannuations, that certain clerks will not be needed, the

Supply-Immigration
salaries of those clerks should not be provided for in the estimates. If, on the other hand, it is not known and it is proper to provide for the salaries of those clerks, it is surely not proper to provide for a deduction in case they are not needed, and the minister should not take credit for that deduction. The biggest item is in the Post Office Department where in one item the estimates are reduced by $250,000 by that method. This seems to be something quite new, new last year at all events. The committee should have some explanation why this change has taken place in the method of arriving at the total amount required for carrying on the business of the country.


James Alexander Robb: I recall now that when the
estimates came over from the accountant, I sent for the officials and after we had gone carefully through these estimates, this amount of $8,000 was deducted. I blue-pencilled some of the items that are in there. I take the responsibility for making that deduction of $S,000 at that time. We knew we would not require that amount of money.


William Alves Boys: If it was known that the clerks who would receive that sum of money would not be in the service, the item appearing in the estimates providing for them in the first instance should not be there at all. I cannot see how the minister can come to parliament and ask for a certain sum of money, $8,000, which, let us assume, is for four or five clerks, and at the same time ask the House not to provide that money because it is not going to be needed.


James Alexander Robb: May I again direct the attention of my hon. friend to this? This came along to me a couple of months after we had checked through the account. We knew then that the amount would1 not be required, and instead of asking as we intended originally to ask for $258,770, I cut $8,000 off and we are asking only for $250,770.


William Alves Boys: Am I to understand th^t if the minister had known as much when the list of clerks was first made up as he knew at the time he refers to, he would not have asked for the money required for some of these clerks? Is that a correct statement?


James Alexander Robb: I think that is fair.


William Alves Boys: I do not really know if this
is the proper place for me to put this question, but the minister, as Acting Minister of Finance, can probably answer it. Would the same reason apply to the very large item of a quarter of a million of dollars in connection
with the Post Office? I suppose that must be on the same basis.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot answer that.


Robert James Manion: I noticed just while the
hon. member was speaking, an item in the Interior department of $25,000 and an item of $8,750 in the Department of Mines, worded in practically the same way.


James Alexander Robb: The Minister of the Interior
has just made an explanation regarding that.


Robert James Manion: I understand that, but the Minister of Immigration says that he did not realize that until a couple of months afterwards. It was a sort of mistake that was made.


James Alexander Robb: No. These estimates come to the Treasury board. The Treasury board spent about two months going through the estimates, chopping them down here and there, and I am bound to admit frankly that we ran up against some of the officials in the departments. The result of the two months' work of the board, who sometimes burned the midnight oil, has been these reductions which we are now effecting in the estimates.


William Alves Boys: Were the estimates printed at that time?


James Alexander Robb: The proofs were.


William Alves Boys: I can quite understand that;
but one would have thought that when the board was going through the list if they found that this and that clerk would not be needed, instead of showing this reduction at the end they w'ould simply have struck their pen through the names of these officials and eliminated them from the total.


James Alexander Robb: In the administration of the
department, with the Civil Service Commission controlling the classifications, the government is powerless to do that. Some of these clerks are carried for one, two or three months. But the deputies have instructions to get the force down as rapidly as possible without affecting the efficiency of the departments. It is because of the classifications adopted by the commission that we are compelled to come before parliament; and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has admitted that we must ask for more than we really intend to spend.


Mr. GOOD:: I would ask the minister to
give us an assurance that if this item is passed to-day it will not debar members who have had to leave from discusing the general immigration policy of the government.
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: That is conceded at once. If we put this item through I have no objection -I speak only for myself of course and not for the Chairman-to the fullest criticism of the department.


The CHAIRMAN:: I understand the minister to say that if this vote is carried the general policy of the department may be debated on another item?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: On another day?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I think that the explanation
the minister has given could have been given with equal force in 1924 and in 1923; but the method now followed was not adopted then.


James Alexander Robb: "Every day in every way,"
you know, "we are getting better and better."


William Alves Boys: I do not think so. If the
minister says that the same method was followed at that time, and if he says so positively, I shall take his word for it. I have not had the time to make any close comparison but I think the min4 p.m. ister will fail to find in the estimates of 1924, an item such as this. I have looked through many of the estimates of that year and I do not find one item similar to the present one. I do find items in 1925, and it does appear to me from a hurried glance through the figures here at my desk that the change became effective in connection with the estimates for 1925, but was not in force in 1924.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the estimates before me and I am not sure that I have in mind the particular item to which my hon. friend is referring, I thought however that he was discussing a practice. I know that in going over the estimates it was a surprise to all of us to find that it was necessary to ask for more money than would actually be required, but this was due to an arrangement with the Civil Service Commission whereby no man can be put into a different class unless the full amount is voted for that class in advance of the time at which he becomes entitled to enter it. Assume that an official will be made a first-class clerk on January 1: we shall have to appropriate the amount that is required for that clerk just as though he were going in at the beginning of the new fiscal year, although we may not use the whole appropriation. The clerk cannot be promoted to the higher class unless parliament has given the full appropriation in the first instance. 
The result therefore is that the estimates really call for more in the way of an assumed expenditure than will be actually required as promotions are made.


William Alves Boys: I quite agree with the Prime
Minister; but I should like to point out that there is nothing new in that. If you take the estimates of 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, you will find appropriations that are not required in full. But you will no't find in those estimates the method which we see now put into effect. I do not know whether the Prime Minister heard the list I read before, and Which I do not suggest is complete, but I would draw his attention to one large item which I think is worthy of our consideration -the item we are discussing just now is only $8,000, it is true; 'but it is the change of method that I am dealing with, and I want to find out when that change took place. At page 64 of the estimates the Prime Minister will see an item of $250,000 for the Post Office Department and another item for the same department, at page 95, of $35,000, making a total of $285,000 treated in this particular way. So far as I know, the method now adopted in relation to these items was not pursued' prior to .the estimates of 1925, and I presume that there was a time when the government must have considered the advisability of adopting this new system. What I want to find out is when and why that change was thought necessary. The Prime Minister has given me a partial explanation, but my answer to him is that this explanation would have been just as effective in 1924 or 1923 as it is this year. I do not regard it as adequate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) were here, he could fully explain the point raised by my hon. friend. I understand that the Classification of the clerks was completed in the Post Office and Customs departments before it was completed in the other departments, and I recall in a general way that in the consideration of the estimates the Postmaster General explained that, in virtue of that classification, he had to put in a certain lump sum to meet the situation as clerks filled new positions for which they had been classified. In the case of the other departments the work of re-classification is still going on and extra provision is being made to meet the changes that may arise in consequence.


William Alves Boys: Can anyone say for certain
that this method of book-keeping is one that should be relied upon? Let me read the item that appears on page 64:

Supply-Im/migra tion
Less-estimated decrease on account of reductions *which will result from changes in staff personnel throughout the year, $250,000.
Now this is only a suggestion at most; it may or may not be carried out. Yet, so far as the estimates now presented are concerned, there is an affirmed deduction of that sum of money from the total which is asked. The total asked is $15,708,584.40, and from that is deducted this estimated or problematical item of $250,000, so that the amount finally asked is $15,458,584.40. I repeat-and I will not say it again-that this might have been done just as well in 1924 or in 1923 as now. I do not say that there is anything improper about it; it may foe all right. I want however to ascertain Why the government has resorted to this change; when the question was discussed; land Iwhen it was determined to put the new method into practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there has been any desire to make a change in any essential. What has happened this year that did not take place in previous years is that we have abandoned the bonus. We did ask the Civil Service Commission to arrange for a re-classification of all clerks in the service and we are now voting estimates which will apply to the clerks as reclassified. That never took place in previous years, when under the old classification we voted a bonus to supplement the salaries. This year the salaries under the re-classification will have to be met out of the estimates as we are now voting them. That -I think is the explanation.


William Alves Boys: I understand the Prime Minister to say, then, that this applies only to this year, for the reason he has stated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think
so.


William Alves Boys: It did not apply last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


William Alves Boys: Well, I can show the Prime
Minister items in the estimates of last year similar to these.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking
now in regard to a very wide range of classifications. Every year some classifications are made, clerks being promoted from one grade to another, and there must necessarily be provision of a certain amount to meet the adjustments. This year the whole service is being re-classified having regard to something that was not considered previously, namely, getting rid of the bonus and making it a permanent classification. A number of
the subdivisions are being cut out and the service is being reduced to three main classes or grades, and a number of changes will have to be made under that re-classification. For that reason I think a larger margin in the main has to be provided in this year's estimates.


William Alves Boys: I can quite appreciate that that extensive reclassification may have the effect of increasing an item of this kind. But items of this kind do not appear in the estimates of previous years. I would like to find out when it was decided to make this change, because there certainly is a change; and I would like to know also why it was made.


Robert James Manion: Is the minister prepared
to give us a statement of the general conditions as to immigration-how many immigrants we received, what classes they comprised, where they went, and so on?


James Alexander Robb: This is the civil government
estimate. We shall not proceed any further to-day, because many hon. gentlemen on both sides wish to leave. I shall be prepared to go into that matter fully when we come to the other estimates.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I may not be here when
the other items come up, and I am here today. Some time ago I had occasion to make certain remarks with regard to immigration and emigration, and the figures I gave were called in question. I hold in my hand today-it is unfortunate I did not have it then- a report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for the United States, issued by the United States Department of Labor, and the figures given are most startling; they go very much further than those given either by myself or by other hon. members on this side. The report indicates the large number who are leaving Canada for the United States and the very small number who are returning. It gives comparisons for a number of years back, indicating the states the men go to and the states from which they come; so that I presume there can be no question as to the accuracy of the figures. I would like to confirm the figures I placed on Hansard, given under the authority at that time of Mr. Mac-Neil of the Great War Veterans' Association. We all know Mr. MacNeil to be modest on every occasion, but on this occasion he was more than modest; the figures he gave as to those returning to Canada were very much greater than those shown by the American statistics. I do not intend to labour the argument, but I want to give a few of these
Supply-Immigration

figures. The total number admitted to the United States from Canada from 1899 to 1910 inclusive was 179,226. The figures for the different years are as follows:
1S99	   1.322
1900		 390
1901		 540
1902		 630
1903		1	 1,058
1904		 2,837
1905		 2,168
1906		 5,063
1907		 19,918
1908		 38,510
1909		 51,941
1910		 56,555
1911		 56,830
1912		 55,990
1913		 73,802
1914		  86,139
1915		 82,215
1916		 101,551
1917		 105,399
In 1915, 1916 and 1917 a great many of our population went over to the United States for a different reason. We were at war; the United States were not.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and during that same
period a great many Canadians came back to Canada for another reason.


James Arthurs: I will give the number of Canadians returning, if the minister cares to have them. It will be noted that when the Americans went into the war there was an immediate drop. I gave the figure for 1917 as 105,396. The figure for 1918, when the Americans entered the war, dropped to 32,452. In 1919 it was 57,782 and in 1920, 90,025, a total for the ten years of 742,189. Now, I will proceed with the last four years:
1921		 72,317
1922		 46,810
1923		 117,011
1924		  200,690
The total for the last four years is 436,828. Now, we will turn to the other side of it:	"Emigrant aliens departed from the
United States, 1908 to 1924, by countries." We will take the figures for the period from 1908 to 1920, "British North America:"
1908,
1909,
1910,
1911,
1912,
1913,
1914,
1915,
1916,
1917,
1918,
2,629
30.478
34,194
49,373
33,506
46,981
31,818
23,225
15,712
18,994
27,170
These figures bear out to a greater or less extent the remark by the Acting Minister of Finance, because the numbers did increase 
very slightly during 1918, but immediately afterwards they dropped again.
1919		 10,726
1920		 7,668
A total for the period from 190S to 1920, thirteen years, of 265,173. Now, we will take the following years-and this is the most important part of it, because it is in this respect that the figures I gave the other day are questioned. I quote:
1921		 5,456
A decided drop.
1922		
1923		
1924		
4,480
2,775
2,601
Or a total for the four years of 15,312, contrasted with emigration to the United States to the extent of 436,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: In those figures is any estimate made of what is known as bootleg immigration?


James Arthurs: I am not in the bootlegging business so I am not an authority on that point.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no
doubt the hon. gentleman has heard that the immigration authorities in the United States claim that you should multiply the official figures by four, to get any real appreciation of the actual movement.


James Arthurs: I am simply giving to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) whom I now see in his seat, the official figures given by the United States Department of Labor, issued last year by the Commissioner General of Immigration. I now hold that report, which is the official record of the United States, in my hand, and the figures I have given are open to any member of the House.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Has the hon. member
got the figures in that book of the number of Canadians who returned within six months and secured their $8 head tax?


James Arthurs: I have here the number
of immigrants who returned, and who are classified as non-immigrants. They amounted in one year, the greatest year, to 25,000. Any member of the House can get this book in the library and he will find that the American authorities classify those non-immigrants, as they call them, by themselves, that is those who go in there, deposit $8, and secure the deposit back when they return to Canada. These non-immigrants are people, for instance, who simply go there for the purpose of visiting someone.

Supply-Immigration


James Murdock: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. I have just sent out for a file over the signature of the officials of the United States Department of Labor, which I think my hon. friend will not dispute, indicating-


James Arthurs: Does my hon. friend dispute this record, which is the official record of the Department of Labor in the United States?


James Murdock: I say that that record
does not show the number of Canadians who went to the United States and within six months came back and got their $8 head tax refunded.
Mr. ARTHUR'S: It does show that 25,000 returned in the greatest year, and if the minister will give me a little time I will get those figures.


James Murdock: My hon. friend, I am quite sure, thinks that what he states is correct, but as a matter of fact he is mistaken. I have the correspondence from the United States Labor department to prove it to my hon. friend, if proof he needs. The figures were placed on Hansard on 14th April last, showing that over 43,000 Canadians had returned from the United States in 1923 and 1924 and had received a refund of the head tax they had paid.


James Arthurs: In how many years?


James Murdock: In each of those two years. If there is any doubt, I have the official communications over the signatures of officers of the United States Labor department. I have here also a report on the number of Canadians returning from the United States after an absence of six months or longer, during the twelve months ending March 31, 1925.


Mr. CLARK:: Before the minister goes
further: does he suggest that they all received the head tax back?


James Murdock: If my hon. friend would only possess his soul in patience, he would not have to ask unnecessary questions.


John Arthur Clark: You said before that they had.


James Murdock: Those I have just referred to did not receive a refund of the head tax.


John Arthur Clark: You said a few minutes ago that they did.


James Murdock: I said no such thing. Here is a statement of the number of Canadians who went to the United States and returned within six months, each of whom received a refund of the $8 head tax:
During	1923	1924January	.. .. 2,839	3,614February	.. .. 2,927	2,839March	.. .. 3,473	5,503April	5,813May	.. .. 4,418	5.888June	.. .. 4,384	5,030July	.. .. 3,397	3,803August	.. .. 3.376	3,272September	.. .. 2.626	2.218October	.... 3,150	1,610November	.. .. 3,843	1,693December	.. .. 5,250	2,033Total	.. .. 43,432	43,316
Now, here is the manner in which I got those figures. On February 9, the date on which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was indicating to the House how terrible was the number of Canadians who were going to the United States and remaining there, I wired to the Secretary of Labor at Washington-


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister not think it is terrible?


James Murdock: It is not as .bad, under all the circumstances, as it might be. It is altogether a surprise to me that more Canadians are not fooled by the paeans of distress that are constantly emanating from the other side of the House. On February 9th. I sent the following wire:
J. J. Davis,
Secretary of Labor,.
Washington, D.C.
Can you kindly send me statement showing for each month last two years the number of refunds of head tax payments made to returning Canadians? Also please send me result by months past two years of emigration to United States from Canada, Mexico and Newfoundland.
In reply I received a letter under date of February 13, 1925, as follows:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of February 10, 1925, requesting that a statement be sent you showing the number of refunds of head tax payments made to returning Canadians each month during the past two years and the number of aliens who have come to the United States from Canada, Mexico and Newfoundland within the same period.
I am pleased to enclose statement showing the number of immigrant aliens admitted to the United States from Canada, Newfoundland, and Mexico, during the two years ended Decembr 31, 1924, by months, and will forward the other information requested immediately upon receipt of same from our various border districts.
I am,
Sincerely yours,
Bobb Carl White, Second Assistant Secretary.
Supply-Im migra tio n

Accompanying that letter was a statement which in its totals has been placed on Hansard on numerous occasions. Then later I received another official communication under date of March 7, 1925, from the Department of Labor, Washington, office of the Assistant Secretary, as follows:
I have the honour to refer to your telegram of February 10, 1925, and to my letter of February 13th, in which I enclosed a statement showing the number of immigrant aliens admitted to the United States from Canada, Newfoundland and Mexico, by months, during the two years ending December 31, 1924.
I now take pleasure in enclosing a statement showing the number of head tax refunds at Canadian borderland ports during the last two calendar years, by months.
I am,
Sincerely yours,
Robe Carl White,
Second Assistant Secretary.
Accompanying that letter were the figures which I gave to the House a moment ago.


James Arthurs: Does the hon. gentleman dispute the figures which I quoted from the official report of the Department of Labor, Washington?


James Murdock: Not one whit.


James Arthurs: Has the hon. gentleman
made himself familiar with the figures in this book?


James Murdock: Exactly, and I quoted
from them rather voluminously in the statement I made to the House.


John Arthur Clark: Does the Minister say-


James Murdock: My hon. friend asked a
question; please let me answer it. He will not find anywhere in that record a statement showing the head tax refunds that I asked for.


James Arthurs: He will find something
else.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is right. You will find there figures compiled by the department indicating the returning Canadians who came back after six months. But of the returned Canadians who came back within six months, and got their head tax refunded you will find no record.


James Arthurs: Yes we will. The minister has not read the whole report. I gave several sets of figures, all of which were most illuminating, I think, to members of this House, and I am going to give another set now. We have here the returns, under the same authority and in the same book, of the net increase and decrease in the number of Canadians who have gone to the United States during the last two years. This re-
	*
port gives not only those who went over for permanent residence, but also those who are required to get permission to receive back the head tax they have paid-that is those who went as visitors or non-permanent residents to the United States. Now, I can give my hon. friend those figures; they also are more or less illuminating. For the year 1923, the immigrants admitted were 117,011. The nonimmigrants-those who went into the United States openly and above board and had to pay their head tax, I presume-numbered 9,731, total 126,742. Now the number of departed emigrant aliens, that is men leaving the United States permanently, was 2,775, vastly different figures from those quoted by the minister.


James Murdock: For what period?


James Arthurs: For the year 1923. The
number of non-emigrant aliens who returned to Canada in the same year was 21,447. This is how the minister got his figures bolstered up. These were non-residents that returned. These two items make a total of 24,222, or a net increase to the population of the United States from Canada of 102,520 for the year
1923.	We will take the year 1924. Those admitted openly as emigrants from Canada numbered 200,690. The non-immigrants who entered the United States numbered 8,598, a total of 209,288. Now we will take the other side again. The number of emigrant aliens that entered Canada from the United States in
1924,	was 2,601, and the number of returned Canadians, that is non-emigrants, was 25,493. If you add these two figures together my figures and those of the minister are not very far apart. But the result differs very greatly because the Americans show an entirely different set of figures, the net result being that 28,094 left the United States altogether in 1924. In other words there was an absolute net increase of the population of the United States from Canada during the fiscal year 1924, of 181,194. These are the figures of the Department of Labor which the minister himself does not question and which any member of the House can obtain at any time.


James Murdock: I will hand this file
over to my hon. friend, and perhaps he will draw my attention to where this is wrong.


Robert James Manion: After listening to the
Minister of Labour arguing about the number of Canadians coming back to Canada from the United States it seems to me there are two chief reasons why that number would naturally be increased this year as compared with last year. In the first place there are more Canadians over there, there is a marked in-

Supply-Immigration
crease in the number of Canadians in the population of the United States, and naturally there would be a large increase in the number coming back. Then, I think, another important reason why they have been coming back is they have heard in the adjoining republic that in the very near future we are going to have an election in this country, and they want the opportunity to vote against this government that drove them to the United States. I think these may be the reasons for the return of Canadians from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: Then you are glad they are
coming back?


Robert James Manion: I am glad they are coming back because I am sure any of those who were driven over to the United States by lack of work due to the inefficiency and the unstable tariff policy of this government would naturally vote for us.
I wish to submit another reason as against the reasons assigned by the Minister of Labour for people going from this country to the United States. The reason people go there is because they cannot get work and wages in Canada. It does not matter anything about the paeans of pessimism that my hon. friend talks about. Nobody will leave Canada because somebody happens to be pessimistic, and I do not know how anybody could be optimistic under the present conditions. But even if we were pessimistic, a man who has occupation in this country, who has got work and wages, is not going to leave a job here to go to the country to the south.


James Murdock: Will my hon. friend
accept the list if I will get it for him? There are simply hundreds that are in that class.


Robert James Manion: Hundreds of those to
whom my hon. friend points as coming back after a visit to the United States?


James Murdock: No, no, but hundreds
who had jobs here and who desired to look for something else in the United States. There are a good many hundreds of them; I can give two or three right out of my own department.


Robert James Manion: Two or three men?


James Murdock: Yes, and I can give
him a list of hundreds of others if he wants it.


Robert James Manion: According to the ratio
mentioned by the minister the number would not exceed 1,000 but there were 200,690 that went over last year.


James Murdock: I do not know them all.


Robert James Manion: The minister does not
know them all; there would be many more go if he did.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not
possible that the men who left the minister's department did so to accept better positions in the United States?


Robert James Manion: Very probably. However,
I was going on to say what the reason was for these people leaving Canada. There is no question about it to anybody who gives the matter any thought that a large proportion of the people who are leaving this country are doing so because they cannot get work and wages. It is not because they hold jobs or because they want a lower cost of living; it is because they want to be able to earn a living and they have not been able to do that in this country. And the reason they have not been able to do so, I repeat-even at the risk of arousing hon. members to my left as well as some hon. gentlemen opposite -is because of the unstable tariff -policy of this government which is -reducing the opportunities for employment in Canada and driving people who want a living over to the United States.


James Alexander Robb: There is not much chance of my hon. friend dragging me into a tariff debate this afternoon. We have had forty days of that already, and the people of Canada, as represented in this parliament, have already pronounced upon that issue.


Robert James Manion: They will pronounce at
the next election.


James Alexander Robb: I do not wish to break faith
with hon. gentlemen opposite in saying that it is not the intention to have a prolonged debate this afternoon, and as soon as the vote for civil government is through we will go on with the estimates of another department. I want to keep my promise that we would give an opportunity later on to -hon. members who are absent to discuss the whole immigration policy of Canada. I only rose to make this admission: Living as we do alongside the United States there has been a flow of population between the two countries for many years, and there always will be; it cannot be stopped. I venture to say that there are -but few families in all Canada-I am talking now of the native born-that are not represented in the United States in some way by family connections. That has been going on for years, and the representatives of many of these families do not know each other because they
Supply-Immigration

are of the second and third generation. There are times when there is a movement towards the United States; there are other periods when there is a movement towards Canada, when United States citizens come into this country and become good Canadian citizens. Indeed there are some in that category who at present have seats in this chamber. Now it has been said that, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." I want to submit to my hon. friend who has quoted United States records-in good faith, I believe-something that would warrant him in the belief that we must go carefully in accepting these statements.
Mr, ARTHURS:	Will my hon. friend
allow me?


James Alexander Robb: When I get through my hon. friend will have the floor. According to United States records of the Immigration department for the years 1910 to 1920, we find that 742,000 Canadians left Canada to go to the United States as immigrants, but according to the United States census taken in 1920 there were 78,000 fewer Canadians in the country than there were in the previous census of 1910.


Mr. SPENCE:: Were they naturalized?


James Alexander Robb: No, these are the records that were taken of the Canadian-born. When they took the census they would ask a man where he was born. Now I will admit that there was a considerable number of Canadians going to the United States two or three years ago. There was a boom on there, and they were paying carpenters from $12 to $20 a day, and bricklayers, plasterers and masons were getting high wages. Do hon. gentlemen think that a man would go to work on the farm at $2 or $3 a day when he could get $15 or $20 a day as a carpenter in the United States? Now the conditions have changed very much recently. We have here the latest statement of the United States bureau issued on 6th May, which shows that the number of immigrants admitted into the United States for the month of March last, giving Canada or Newfoundland as their permanent residence, was 4,408, as compared with 13,474, in the same month a year ago.


James Arthurs: Are these figures correct?


James Alexander Robb: They come to us from the
United States bureau, they are just as correct as the figures quoted by my hon. friend from Parry Sound. This is a falling off of two-thirds. According to the figures of the United States bureau of the emigration from Canada and Newfoundland from July, 1924, to 
March, 1925, the number was 82,515, as compared with 146,780 in the same period a year ago. So that, admitting all hon. gentlemen say about conditions a few years ago, they are improving according to the records of the United States government.


James Arthurs: The whole thing seems
to hinge on the question of authority, and I want to point out to this House and to the Minister of Labour, that the figures which I quoted, which I hold in my hand, from the American Department of Labor, are signed by this very same gentleman to whom the minister sent his telegram asking for the information, I refer to Mr. Davis, the head of the Labor department of the United States. The figures I gave and the report are the official figures given by Mr. Davis; the return my hon. friend has is not signed by anybody.


James Murdock: I beg pardon.


James Arthurs: There is a covering letter which may or may not be right, signed by the second assistant secretary, but not by Mr. Davis at all. It may be all right.


James Alexander Robb: That is hair-splitting.


James Arthurs: It may be all right.


James Murdock: I have not a word to
say to that kind of argument.


James Arthurs: What possible answer can there be to the fact that the figures I have given are issued by the same authority to whom he appeals? There can be no question at all about that.


Robert James Manion: I wish to answer one argument advanced by the Acting Minister of Finance. I think he is really quoting a statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to these figures of the emigration to the United States. He gave the figures as 742,000 going into the United States. The emigration figures show 742,189 immigrant aliens admitted to the United States from Canada during the ten fiscal years ending June 30. 1920, and yet at the end of the ten years my hon. friend makes the statement-and I think a correct statement according to the figures he has-that there are fewer Canadians in the United States according to their figures than at the beginning of the period.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister made the same statement in the debate on the Address, because this same question was up for discussion then, and at that time I made it my business to write to the Department of

Supply-Immigration
Labor at Washington and I quoted the Prime Minister. I wanted to get the explanation because it seemed to me an extraordinary statement and'this is the explanation in brief from the Department of Labor. They point out these figures are correct as to the number of emigrants going from Canada to the United States, but all those who went from Canada to the United States were marked as Canadians going to the United States; but many of them were British-born, and many of them were Canadians of French extraction, and when they were taking their census the latter may have been entered as French. He does not specify that, but I am adding it because I take it that is wha.t may have happened in regard to Canadians! of French extraction. So that an Englishman who had been living ten years in Canada, and then went to the United States, was entered as a Canadian going to the United States in the emigration papers, but was entered as an Eng'ishman in their census statistics, because he was English born. I would venture to say, although I do not know exactly-that a Canadian of French extraction would probably say he was French, quite off the bat. They would take it that he was French.


James Alexander Robb: The French Canadian is a Canadian, and I recall the day-perhaps my hon. friend recalls it also-that the only people who were referred to in this country as Canadians were the French Canadians.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend need not emphasize that point with me because I married one of them. I admit the French Canadians are the original Canadians so far as that goes. Nobody has any finer words to say about them than I have.


Mr. GRAHAM:: You have to.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps there is something in that-to keep peace in the family. But at any rate I put in the part about the French Canadian because I thought possibly that might happen. But in the case of the man who was Scotch, English, Irish or any other nationality, who came to this country and lived a few years, became a naturalized Canadian, and went over to the States and lived there, the immigration officers would mark him down as a Canadian, whether he was Scotch or Irish or whatever he was. He may have been living many years in Canada. But by the census officers he would be asked his place of birth and would give it. That explains the difference in census and immigration figures. The 742,000 people who went
to the United States were largely people who were not born in Canada. Possibly 200,000 would be born in Canada and 500,000 would be born e'sewhere, and they would give their place of birth, not as Canada, but as Scotland, or whatever country they were born in. That is why the census figures do not agree with the immigration figures.


James Arthurs: I may say in the returns
I was quoting from there is a column giving the country of origin of all immigrants to the United States, and in that column in one particular year which I am carrying in mind now there were given 33,000 French Canadians, 28,000 Irish and the others gave the country of their origin, and they carry out the statistics in that way.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Quite recently I was interested in sending a man whose home was in Texas to Los Angeles twice, and he made his return last Monday to this city. The picture he drew of what he saw there was very interesting. Thousands of people are loafing, and cannot get work. In fact, he said, he never saw as many out of employment. He said if people in Canada only knew the beautiful country they have here compared with what they find when they go elsewhere, they would be content and not leave. He said, " I never saw such a crowd of people, of loafers trying to find something to do, and who were trying very hard to get back into Canada Two or three weeks ago I was told by a man that there were forty-seven vacant farms in the township in which I lived, and he wrote letters to me and told of people who sold out their farms and went to California, and were now wanting aid to come back. He spoke of many people who were whining and shedding tears because they wanted to get back to their own country. They had wasted their money they took with them from Canada.
Is it any wonder that spineless, frightened people have left this country? American born good-for-nothings in time work their way back into the United States, and they are now over there being kept on charity by 'wealthy people who made their money by getting high prices during the war out of those countries which were engaged in that terrible struggle. There are tens of thousands of people who will not work, who have gone there. The rich people say: Have you any poor? if you have, let us know where they are and we will feed them. That country has grown rich, and it is doling out to the shiftless. The Union government,

Supply-Immigration

during its regime, brought down a policy to tempt people out of this country. Time after time they said that it was not the worst thing to be in a country where there was a small population. They would rather have a few people who were thrifty. The guilty people on this question are sitting on the opposite side of the House, il say again, it is not the worst thing to be in a country where we are not keeping a lot of people on charity. We have a fine, vigorous class of people in Canada. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) last night said that before this century closed, Canada would have a population of 100,000,000. It is cheap talk and all tcmniyrot about people leaving Canada, and it is wasting the time of this parliament to talk about it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there no possibility of consolidation of the immigration activities of this government and those of the Canadian National? In response to a question which I asked, the following figures were given me. The cost of maintaining the Colonization department of the Canadian National Railways in Europe during the years 1923 and 1924 respectively was:	For
1923, $28,397; for 1924, $178,329. ' I would call attention to the fact that when we are discussing salaries under this department, we are discussing only a part of the salaries connected with the immigration activities of this country. With regard to the Canadian National, we are not given information as to the size of the salaries; the management does not consider it to be in the public interest that this information should be given to the people. We are not given information as to the expenses connected therewith, but undoubtedly there is a very considerable duplication and unnecessary expenditure. I have had sent me by an Old Country correspondent examples of advertising which is being carried on by the Canadian National Railways side by side with advertising that is being carried on by this department. It may be 'all very well, perhaps, for the minister to take the ground that the Canadian National is conducting its own affairs in its own way, but it as well as the department is subject more or less to this government, and the country is footing the bill. We ought therefore, to see to it that -there should not be duplication and waste.
A good deal has been said recently about what is alleged to be the campaign that is being carried on in the Old Country with regard to immigration to Canada. This is stated to be insidious in character. There are some who claim to trace its source to Moscow
TMr. Baldwin]
or some other district which is supposed to be under the ban. I read an article only a few days ago in which the immigration question was being discussed. This was in one of the leading Old Country labour papers, the Glasgow Forward. I found that the article was basing its statements very largely on Hansard reports of discussions that had taken place in this House. It is quite true that some of the members in this quarter were quoted, but I noticed that members of the Conservative party and members of the Liberal party were also quoted as to conditions in Canada. Among other things attention was called to the situation in Cape Breton. I mention this just to suggest that with the quick * communication which now existed in this country and around the world, it is absolutely 'impossible for us in Canada to try to fool the people either in England or in Europe as to conditions which prevail here.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Anyone who has visited England or Europe knows that conditions there are ten times worse than they are in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I recognize there
are very bad conditions in both England and Europe, but I would reaffirm my statement that it is absolutely absurd for us to think we can fool the people there as to what conditions really are in Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Conditions
here are a great deal better than anywhere on that side of the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In reference to the particular article to which I called attention, the writer of the article who had been resident for five years in Canada, urged his fellow countrymen to remain in England1 rather than to risk themselves over in Canada under conditions that prevailed here. From year to year in this House a good deal has been said with regard to misleading statements which have gone out from our immigration department. I very frankly concede that much of the trouble lies in the fact that Old Country people are not able to appraise properly statements that are made in our literature. Conditions are so different that they do not always interpret the statements correctly. Yet, I would note that we are putting forth efforts very frequently which can hardly be justified. One of our Winnipeg papers recently called attention to the extent to which Scandinavian papers wrere being used to stimulate immigration from Sweden and Norway. The following literature was quoted:

Supply-Immigration
Department of Immigration and Colonization Accounts Branch.
Ottawa, Ont., December 4, 1924.
Sir,-I beg to enclose herewith cheque No. 12731 in your favour for $320 in payment of your account against this department for 4,000 copies of Norrona, account November 15, 1924.
Your obedient servant,
A. R. Morisset.
Accountant.
It would seem, from the information contained in this article, that as regards this Swedish paper published in Winnipeg with offices on Logan avenue and another Scandinavian paper, the circulation of neither paper exceeds very much 5,000 copies per issue. The government takes 4,000 copies per issue. These are distributed in the Old Country, and people, by means of quite highly coloured descriptions, are induced to come to this country. I have in my hand a communication from one of these Scandinavian people who has been here for a number of years and who protests against these statements on the ground' that they were deceiving his countrymen in the Old Land. I would call the attention of the department to this situation and urge that it is more than useless to base a general policy on the circulation of literature which, although the statements in themselves may not be false, gives more or less of a misleading impression as to the actual situation in Canada.
Further, let me ask, is it true that the Canadian government has guaranteed employment to immigrants sent here under the Empire Settlement Act? That has been declared in the British House of Commons by the Home Secretary, the Right Hon. Mr. Amery. I do not know how far that is a correct interpretation of the empire settlement scheme, but I have in my hand the draft, agreement one clause of which states that the Dominion government undertakes to make adequate arrangements for the reception and absorption of immigrants on arrival. I find that some of our people in Canada, who cannot find any employment, consider it rather a strange thing that our Dominion government refuses to assume any responsibility for securing work for our own citizens when, as the British Home Secretary is reported to have said in the House of Commons, the Canadian government guarantees employment to anyone who will come to Canada. I think we should have it clearly put before us by the minister just what is the understanding, and whether or not this is correct.
218i


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the hon. member read exactly what the British Home Secretary says?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not looked
up the original documents; I have taken this statement from a clipping which I saw in a reputable journal which summarizes the statement that was made in the British House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend should not come and make the statement that this government guarantees work to everyone that comes to the country, and this on the strength of an alleged declaration in the British House of Commons, without producing the precise words.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I might have consulted the British Hansard but I took this from a newspaper report.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) will read an official letter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London he will find exactly that statement reproduced in print under the authority of the Department of Commerce in England.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am referring to a statement alleged to have been made by the Right Hon. Mr. Amery.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I took the clipping from a reputable journal which summarizes what was said in the British parliament. The statement was made that the Canadian government had guaranteed employment to immigrants sent here under the Empire Settlement Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not what the hon. member said; he said that employment was guaranteed to everyone that came here from the other side.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall have to
leave the decision of that point to Hansard; I was reading from the slip I held in my hand. Now, I want to know whether this statement is correct or not. Is this the understanding that exists between the Canadian 5 p.m. and the British governments? If it is incorrect I want the minister (Mr. Robb) to say so. I am not criticizing anything that the British Home Secretary may have said, for he is not here to answer; I am discusing an agreement and I am asking whether or not such an understanding as is suggested by the alleged statement of the Home Secretary does exist between the Canadian government and the British government. The statement that appears in the draft agreement with the Canadian government with re-
Supply-Immigration

gard to nominated passages for agricultural workers reads:
(d) Make adequate arrangement for the reception and absorption of migrants on arrival.
Whether that can be interpreted as meaning that the Dominion government will take care of these people and provide employment for them, as apparently according to my information the British Home Secretary believes, is the matter I have in mind and on which I should like a statement from the minister.
I do not wish to enter into any detail regarding the whole question of immigration, but I suggest that at least on the part of a considerable number of people in the Old Country there is coming to be a fuller understanding of some of the social and economic conditions that prevail in Canada. Let me take this opportunity of calling attention to the fact that naturalization certificates amount to very little; under the present act they may be revoked on the authority of one individual. I do not believe that such a condition should prevail. I know that among some of my non-English-speaking constituents, aliens who come to this country, it is keenly felt that if they are once naturalized in Canada they should enjoy the protection which such naturalization ought inevitably to involve. Further than that, there are great difficulties in many sections of the country placed in the way of immigrants who wish to become naturalized. When an immigrant applies for naturalization a mounted policeman is sent to interview him to find out all about his connections and to report concerning him. Inquiries are made as to whether he belongs to a particular trade union or not, and I am informed that very frequently applications have been turned down because the man asserted that he belonged to a particular organization. Is this a fact or not? I have been told it again and again as I have visited different labour camps across the country. I venture to say that immigrants to this country who are in constant communication with their friends in the Old Country are telling them about these things, and it is no great mystery that there is a good deal of reluctance on the part of many people in Europe to come to Canada. I would remind the House that although this present parliament has been functioning now for four years we still have on the statute books an amendment to the Immigration Act placed there in 1919, which has been modified only in part and which has the effect of depriving certain classes of immigrants into Canada of the right to trial by jury. That affects Englishmen and Scotchmen as well as aliens,

and I know, that this matter is very frequently discussed among different groups of labour people who have come to this country, and it is reported throughout the labour papers in the Old Country. The various organizations in England and Scotland, I need hardly remind hon. gentlemen exercise quite a wide influence. In these there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the backward (social legislation which we have in Canada. Englishmen who have been assured of the right to belong to a union and who in the Old Country have been accustomed to the idea of certain social insurance find it very difficult to reconcile themselves to the prospect of coming to a country where such provisions are yet to be enacted.
It is all very well from our standpoint to say to the immigrant, come and help us carry our load. But it is another thing from the standpoint of the man coming here to help carry that load. Some of us who have tried to catch horses at large know that if we carry the halter too' prominently displayed the horse does not always come to our hand. And we have been declaring throughout the country that we wish immigration to Canada very largely to help pay our national debt. I am not at all sure that this is the best kind of immigration literature to send abroad.


Mr. COOTE:: That would not be misleading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not know that it would be misleading.


James Alexander Robb: Will the hon. gentleman quote from any such literature.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Such literature is
being sent over.


James Alexander Robb: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is being sent over there in every bound copy of Hansard that leaves the country. It is being sent over by the president of the Canadian Pacific


James Alexander Robb: The government is not responsible for the utterances of my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but the government is responsible for the conditions that exist, and we in this House are in duty bound to try to remedy those conditions. Instead of continuing to spend, as we have done for many decades, large sums to induce people to come to this country, I suggest that we spend a quarter of the amount in changing the conditions that prevail so as to make life more attractive to the people out on the plains and to the people who come to our cities, particularly to our industrial centres. If we

Supply-Immigration
did that I have not the slightest doubt that we would have more applicants for admission to this country than we could readily take care of.


John Arthur Clark: A great many Canadians
who have become naturalized in the United States are desirous of returning to this country. Many have returned and are discouraged to find that they are unable to regain their status as British subjects until they have resided in Canada five years. This matter was brought up this year in the budget debate by the hon. member for London (Mr. White), and again, I think, toy the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) on the estimates of the Secretary of State. I personally took it up with the Minister of Immigration and the Secretary of State in the fall of 1923, and later with the Prime Minister, and all agreed that the situation should be dealt with. But it was pointed out to me in 1923 that the naturalization acts of all the dominions and the Mother Country had been made uniform in 1914 and that no amendments could be made by this parliament until the matter had been taken up at an Imperial conference. We have had two or three Imperial conferences since then, but I do not suppose the matter has ever been dealt- with. On September 10, 1924 I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister with reference to the difficulty of repatriating Canadians. I have had no reply other than an acknowledgment by his secretary, written when the Prime Minister was in the west last fall. My letter was as follows:
With further reference to my letter of the 30th July and to your reply, I note from a newspaper communication that South Africa has recently passed an amendment to its Naturalization Act, the effect of which is to give the status of British citizenship to Germans who have resided there for a period of six months, should they so elect. If this British dominion has power to make such a drastic amendment to its Naturalization Act, surely the Dominion of Canada has power to amend its act so as to repatriate Canadians within a reasonable period, who have lost the status of British citizenship by becoming naturalized American citizens.
May I once more urge upon you and your government the importance of giving this matter your early consideration so that an amendment along the lines previously suggested may be considered at the next session of parliament.
I realize that this matter concerns the Department of the Secretary of State, but it is of vital importance to our immigration policy that those Canadians who have lost their Canadian status, their British citizenship, by becoming naturalized United States citizens, should be given, every opportunity to regain their Canadian status on their return to Canada with the intention of once more becoming permanent residents of this country.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Every encouragement should be held out to former Canadians to come back to Canada and resume their citizenship here. I have in mind two instances of Canadians who went to the United States a number of years ago, became naturalized, did very well there, but came back to this country and married Canadian women, and they have to remain here five years before they can secure Canadian citizenship. But that is not the worst feature of it; the women they married become American citizens, although they have lived here all their lives. That is a great injustice.


Mr. POWER:: If the hon. member will
pardon me, these women do not become American citizens; they become citizens of no country at all, which is very unfortunate. That matter was brought up last week.


Donald Sutherland: That is perhaps even worse. Anyway, it is a rank injustice that people who have lived in Canada all their lives should lose their nationality on that account. This is a matter that demands the attention of parliament and that calls for speedy redress. I notice that a measure of this kind was introduced into the Imperial parliament during its session this year and that that grievance has been removed so far as they are concerned.


Mr. OOPP:: I quite appreciate the difficulty, if you may call it such, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). But we have to go back a little to get a proper view of the situation. From 1902 up to 1914 the question of the adoption of a uniform naturalization law was the subject of discussion between representatives of this government and of the Imperial government, and in 1914 that uniformity was brought about. It was thoroughly understood that Canada or any other part of the empire could adopt its own naturalization law, but if a similar law was not enacted by the Imperial government those who should become naturalized under the special Canadian law would be British subjects only while they remained in Canada. No one disputes the right of this parliament to amend our naturalization law to provide that Canadians who return to this country may secure all the rights of citizenship without remaining in the country five years, but under such naturalization they would be British subjects only while in Canada. There is much to be said for the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burrard-and he has made it to me privately as
Supply-Immigration

well as in the House. I have had requests from many other people throughout Canada along the same line. Just here I may say that the hon. member for South Oxford is in error, I think, in stating that a bill with regard to this matter has been presented to the Imperial parliament. As I understand it, it was presented in the form of a resolution which has not yet been accepted by the Imperial parliament. I would point out also that when our Canadians left this country and went to the United States they remained there for five years before becoming naturalized, and after giving due consideration to the matter they foreswore their allegiance to this country. We are very glad to hold out the hand of welcome to our friends who have left this country and desire to return, and personally I should be glad indeed if we could shorten the time of their residence here which is a qualification for reassuming their British citizenship, if that could 'be done without interference with the general naturalization act. I do not see how it can be done, but if such an arrangement can be made, and the Imperial parliament will agree to shorten the time of residence in Canada for Canadians who have gone to the United States and then returned, we shall be very glad to pass an act accordingly, but it must first be agreed to by the Imperial parliament before these returning ex-Canadians can become British subjects throughout the empire. Otherwise, they would only become British subjects in Canada. That is the stumbling block, and I do not think it would be wise to have the two qualifications. However, the matter will be given consideration, and if it is possible to shorten the time and have an act passed by the Imperial government, we shall be very glad to amend our act accordingly.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister seen the
act passed -by South Africa?


Mr. COPP:: It has not been brought to
my attention.


John Arthur Clark: I am informed -that an
amendment to their Naturalization Act was passed iby that dominion under which the status of British citizenship was granted to people who had resided there for a period of six months.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When was that amendment
passed?	[DOT]


John Arthur Clark: The only information I have I noticed in a newspaper despatch about the 1st of September last year, and I wrote the Prime Minister then drawing his attention
[Mr Copp.]
to that fact, and suggesting that if another dominion could do it, Canada might do it. I can quite see it may -be desirable, I think it is desirable, to have uniformity in all the British dominions and the Mother Country as far as British citizenship is concerned, but I say this is a very vital matter to Canada, and if it takes over two years to communicate with the other dominions and the Mother Country over a small point like this, I would suggest that as a temporary expedient this country might well pass an amendment to its Naturalization Act repatriating those Canadians who return and give -them British citizenship in a lesser period than five years. Then afterwards, if it requires three or four or five years to get into communication with the other dominions and the -Mother Country over this matter, our act can again be amended to bring about uniformity. I am quite sure, however, that if this matter were taken up with the other dominions and the Mother Country, and if Canada requested that Canadians who have lost their citizenship by reason of being naturalized in the United States, who have returned to us and who desire to live in this country permanently, should be allowed to regain their status, they would1 readily agree because Canada after all is the only one of the dominions vitally affected. We are the only country, except the Mother Country, that is losing citizens to the United States and we are in a different position from the Mother Country in that the Mother Country has a policy of emigration, whereas we have a policy, or should have, of immigration. We are looking for immigrants; they are not. I think we w-ould have no difficulty whatever in securing the cooperation of the other dominions and the Mother Country, and I for the life of me cannot see any reason why this matter has not been taken up by the government if it thinks it is desirable that these people should be encouraged to return and again take up British citizenship; I cannot -for the life of me see why it has taken two and a half years to get into communication with the other dominions and the Mother Country.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to take this
opportunity of expressing my disapproval of the -attitude of the government during the past year particularly in the matter of unemployment relief. I think it is time that this H-ouse made some definite pronouncement on the policy of the government in that connection. I think myself it is very unfair for the Dominion government to carry on an immigration propaganda and bring many immigrants into this country, and then when the

Supply-Immigration
unemployed immigrants become a charge on the municipality say to the cities where these unemployed are:	We have no responsibility
in this matter; you must take care of your own unemployed.
I would like to quote, with approval, for the benefit of the committee a short editorial from the Calgary Herald, as follows:
The Dominion government has disclaimed any responsibility for the care of unemployed in the cities.
Calgary does not ask the Dominion authorities to assist in the care of bona fide citizens of ten months' residence. Calgary is satisfied to accept these as a charge upon the city.
But how about immigrants brought to Canada by the Dominion government, ostensibly to work on farms, who have recently come to Calgary and are now destitute? There is no justice in the Dominion government's claim that it has no responsibility in these cases.
And how about immigrants who are allowed to enter Canada after faulty medical examination, who, almost as soon as they arrive here, have to be sent to hospital? Calgary at present has instances of this sort, men suffering with tuberculosis, being cared for at the expense of Calgary.
If proper medical examination of these people had been made at the port of entry their condition would have been revealed. The Dominion government has an undeniable responsibility in these instances.
There are destitute families in Calgary and there are patients in Keith sanitarium that should clearly be cared for by Ottawa, but when Mayor Webster brings the facts of these cases to the attention of Mr. Murdock, the minister to whom appeal should be made, he coldly ignores them and refuses to make any move.
Mr. Murdock is as unfeeling as he is unfair in this attitude. These people are brought to Canada by the government and then left to starve or to die; the government does not care, it will take no step to save them.
This is not a fanciful picture. It is the sad truth, a truth that can be abundantly proved by the records of the city relief department, of Sunshine, and other agencies of relief.
I know of a case, Mr. Chairman, which occurred in a rural municipality in the province of Alberta.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member seriously contend that the federal government should pay unemployment doles or in any way look after the unemployed who have only been here a matter of five or six montha. and seek to make this country a kind of workhouse for the scum of Europe?


George Gibson Coote: No one who has followed my remarks when immigration has been discussed could accuse me of wanting to do that.


Arthur Meighen: It could not be so bad if it was a workhouse, could it?


George Gibson Coote: In answer to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), if there are people who have been in this country only a few months and who find themselves out of employment, if it can be clearly established that they have come here because of the propaganda sent out by the Immigration department, I say that this government has a distinct responsibility in aiding the municipalities who have to take care of these people. I do not think that can be disputed. If it can, I would ask the minister, when I sit down, to give reasons why they should not assist in that respect.
I want to bring to the attention of the committee a case that occurred in a rural municipality in the province of Alberta of a family brought out to this country by the Immigration department authorities and settled on a vacant farm, and who later came to the authorities of the rural municipality and asked for relief.


James Alexander Robb: What is the name?


George Gibson Coote: I will not give the name.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend gives the name, he knows I have the answer. I gave it to him before, I think.


George Gibson Coote: No, the minister never gave it to me before, but I can assure him I do not think there can be any doubt of the bona fides in this case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then why
do you not give the name?


George Gibson Coote: I have very good reasons for not giving the name. But this is only one case, Mr. Chairman. There are many of them in Canada, not so many in the rural parts as there are in the cities. This particular family had been in receipt of the dole in the Old Country. These people acquire the habit of living on doles, and when work is not very convenient or the wages not entirely satisfactory to them they feel they should receive doles. I want to try and impress upon the committee that we should be very careful in inducing people to come from England where they are getting used to the dole system.


James Alexander Robb: Right here I want to say that instructions have been given that any officer who sends to this country a perpetual dole taker is subject to immediate dismissal. Now will my hon. friend give me details as to this case so that I can have the matter dealt with?


George Gibson Coote: I will endeavour to get the
information for the minister as to when the people came; personally I do not know. This information came through the secretary of a municipality. I know he is a reputable man and that is why I made the statement here.
Supply-Immigration

But the point I want to impress upon the committee is that a great many people in the Old Country are now in receipt of doles, and if they come to this country and the work which they desire to accept is not to be had they are very likely to adopt the attitude that the government should give them doles. I do not think we can afford to pay out doles in this country. I dislike doles but, of course, as I said in answer to the hon. member from Quebec, if the government-insists on bringing people to this country by means of propaganda which it puts out I think it is more responsible for looking after these people than the municipality in which they happen to locate. That is the point I want to impress upon the minister; and I would ask the government if it will not give this committee an assurance-


James Alexander Robb: The answer is that it is
not done.


George Gibson Coote: What is not done? Does
the minister mean to say they are not bringing people to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: We are not bringing dole takers to Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Whether they are dole takers or not, if they come here and inside of three months find themselves in a city with no employment and the city has to feed them, is the government going to say to that city, as it has done in the past, "The matter is no concern of ours, you must feed those people yourselves"? Though the government has itself created such a situation by bringing the people here that has been its attitude in the past. Is it going to continue taking the same attitude?


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend want
an answer now? At present we are considering the vote for civil government, but I may as well answer his question now by saying that the policy of the government was very clearly outlined during the present session. We do not propose in this country, we do not think it is necessary, to pay unemployment doles. As to the argument advanced by my hon. friend I do not believe for a moment, that the people he represents in parliament would support the policy that Canada should undertake an unemployment dole system. I do not think the people of Canada are prepared to adopt such a policy as that.


George Gibson Coote: I hope the minister does
not think I am advocating any such policy.


James Alexander Robb: It is pretty close to that
policy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What else
would it be if you are going to pay money to such people when they are not working?


George Gibson Coote: I will repeat, for the benefit of the minister, a sentence from the editorial already quoted:
How about immigrants brought to Canada by the Dominion government, ostensibly to work on farms, who have come recently to Canada and who are now destitute? There is no justice in the Dominion government's claim that it has no responsibility in these cases.
That is the point I was trying to get the minister to answer. The government thinks it has no responsibility. Does the government think all the responsibility should be placed upon the municipality where these people are? Does the minister deny that various cities and municipalities in Canada have to pay out a great many thousand dollars for relief? I was told w'hen I came through Winnipeg on my way to Ottawa that the city was feeding 2,000 families at that time. What I say is that it is unfair for the government to bring in these people and not to assume some share in the responsibility for taking care of them in the winter time. I think myself the government should stop a lot of this immigration propaganda and then we would not have these unemployed people on our hands. But if they are going to persist in such an immigration policy I should think they ought to share with the municipalities the burden of this relief. I should like to get an assurance of that kind from the government if we are going to maintain the same kind of immigration propaganda.


James Murdock: May I ask my hon.
friend the date of the editorial in the Calgary Herald?


George Gibson Coote: It was published some time during the past winter.


James Murdock: About what time?


George Gibson Coote: I would think somewhere
about the month of December.


James Murdock: Did my hon. friend note a news item in the Calgary Herald of April 3 last in which, under large headlines it is
stated:
Refusing to accept jobs, two hundred men ordered out of labour bureau.
Majority of them alleged to be persistent idlers, and when Superintendent Carnill fails to persuade even one to take farm work, he closes door on them. Civic authorities checking up situation and police are making an investigation. Farm hands may have to be imported.

Supply-Immigration
And then in the same article the acting mayor is alleged to have said:
These men have been hanging around the city the best part of the winter "and it will be necessary for the civic authorities to take some action to see that they either go to work or move on. You can say that we are going to take some action to get these loafers out of the city but we haven't definitely decided what that will be."
I do not argue that that is all correct. What I state is that this news item indicates what the Calgary Herald (believed to be the situation in that city.


Donald Sutherland: The situation is a
very peculiar one. We are spending money lavishly in order to bring people to Canada to fill up the vacant plaees throughout the country, and at the same time there is a dispute between hon. gentlemen on both sides as to the number of people that are leaving the Dominion every year. There is one point as to which everyone is agreed, and that is that the country itself is all right. Nature has made very generous provision for the people who inhabit Canada; I doubt if there is a similar area in the world which holds greater possibilities than this Dominion does. That being the case would it not be well to take the trouble to find out what drawback we are suffering from, because there certainly must be something seriously the matter when the condition which has been alluded to exists. I listened to arguments pro and con between the Minister of Labour and the hon. member (Mr. Arthurs) with regard to the number of Canadians who have gone to the United States and the number who are returning. In this connection may I quote from a despatch in the Montreal Gazette of April 20, last under a Toronto date line:
Immigrant smuggling rings, with agencies in Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and other large Canadian cities, will be broken up this season when they commence to unload contraband cargoes of humanity at the Niagara frontier, say United States government officials who are mustering their forces in Buffalo to stop the traffic.
Shirley D. Smith, for more than a score of years chief of the United States immigration authorities for the Niagara district, asserts his force of 150 experienced officers, all heavily armed, have been ordered to wipe out the business. Aiding the immigration officials will be the United States coastguard forces. Four 75-foot cruisers will be added to the equipment for work among the Niagara smuggling areas.
The smugglers' rates for bringing aliens into the United States from Canada average $75 for each. In some cases immigrants contract to pay smugglers as high as $500.
I should like the Minister of Labour to notice the statements contained in the foregoing despatch.


James Murdock: Surely the article has no reference to Canadian citizens. It is not
necessary for them to be smuggled across the line.


Donald Sutherland: Sometimes it is.


Arthur Meighen: Some of the best of our immigrants.


Donald Sutherland: This article continues:
Aliens whom smugglers' agents "sign up'' in Toronto are sent to rendezvous at the border. Under cover of darkness they are brought across the river or lake and dumped on American shores. Speedy power boat3, rowboats and fishermen's craft are used by the bands of smugglers to transport cargoes of humanity.
Divers other methods of transporting immigrants are resorted to by the smugglers, who in years past have had things much to their favor because of the great shortage of United States officers to keep watch on American shores.	.
This year a force of special immigration patrolmen, armed with heavy pistols and sawed-off shotguns, will maintain day and night vigilance on the waterfront. Mr. Smith revealed that the added force, which went on duty two months ago, is large, but he refused to state the number of men. It is believed at least 50 men make up the special force.
Now surely my hon. friend, in face of this, will not argue that conditions in the United States are so bad as he would have this House believe and that people are coming back to this country in great numbers. We can recall that during the election campaign in the United States last fall the argument put up by the Republican party was that by reason of the tariff which they had established in that country it was necessary for them to adopt the quota law to keep people out of the country, on account of the high wages and abundance of work there for the unemployed of other countries; and on the contrary their opponents adopted the very opposite policy, the very policy we have in effect in this country at this time, which is responsible more than anything else for the conditions which prevail here. What is the use of voting money to increase the civil service and in many instances spending millions of dollars on an idle service? Here we are asked to vote a quarter of a million dollars under the head of civil government. For the outside service there is included in the estimates the sum of $750,000, making a total of a million dollars for officials in connection with our immigration service in this country. That is not all. We do not know how much money we are spending in that direction. I have here the report of the Canadian National Railways for the past year and it seems that they are even going to outdistance the government in this direction. I find the item here:
Industrial and immigration bureau, $770,454.
Supply-Immigration

We have not any information as to what these people are doing. We must not ask for information but we have a right to know what this government is doing in regard to this matter. We are increasing the estimates in many instances, in this particular item there is no increase this year, but that does not tell the whole story. If you turn to page 21 of the Estimates, you will find that under the head of Immigration and Colonization the great bulk of the money which is to 'be voted is not for immigration purposes. I find an item of $250,000 for the British Empire exhibition. Last year the item was $450,000.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will find on
page 21 .that there is a decrease of $708,000 in the estimates.


Donald Sutherland: But there is no decrease in the civil service. The amount under immigration for the outside service is exactly where it was, $750,000, and the amount for the inside service $250,000. That makes a total of a million dollars, but there is considerable reduction in. other lines, where expenditure might tend to promote immigration to the country. If the policy of the government is carried out to its logical conclusion, it would put the whole population of the country under the control of the government and the civil service. You are eliminating competition among the people who are outside the service. You are fixing rates of labour and fixing salaries, and increasing the staff far beyond the requirements of the country in many directions.
I was not here the other night, but I observe that in the Department of Agriculture tremendous increases have been made. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are going out and no attempt to practise economy. If the government have any policy with regard to immigration, I think the people of the country ought to know it. If we cannot keep the people who are coming to this country, we ought to see that some remedy is provided, *and that the conditions which prevent them remaining here are abolished. We know full well that we have lost hundreds of thousands of our people, native-born Canadians who have crossed the line and are residents of the United States. You may say that numbers of them are coming back. Well that is bound to be the case. We have much cheaper land in this country, and with the increase in the price of farm products which has takerf place throughout the world recently, there is a natural tendency to look to the land for some return, which people are not able to obtain in the city. I think 
we have altogether too much nursing legislation. I do not believe that the government should look after every person who is out of employment in this country.


Edward Joseph Garland: How about the industries that are being nursed all the time at the expense of the people?


Donald Sutherland: We have some
sickly looking industries.


Edward Joseph Garland: As a result of the nursing.


Donald Sutherland: No, not at all, as
a result of the medicine that they have to take since the government my . hon. friend supports took office.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River):	What is
the medicine?


Donald Sutherland: The medicine which is administered by the government which is supported by the hon. member for Bow River.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish
there was more of that medicine administered, then they might get well.


Donald Sutherland: There is no excuse
and there is absolutely no justification for voting a quarter of a million dollars for the inside service and $750,000 for the outside service, in view of the results which are being attained under this heading of Immigration and Colonization.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I was going to add a
word to what the hon. Minister of Labour said in connection with unemployment. I have in my hand a clipping from a paper which says:
Fourteen hundred men wanted to do harvest work on
the prairies.
Wages from four to five dollars a day.
Still remain 150 men walking the streets of Winnipeg unemployed.
Does * that look as if these people want to work? There is always a certain class of people who will not work, no matter what ithe conditions are. I am rather surprised this afternoon to hear some of my friends to my right apeak on this question. One class of them says that the immigration is all going to the United States. The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) wants the government to put in force legislation to enable these people to come back. I think if the people are coming back to take up citizenship in Canada again to the extent that the hon. member for Burrard suggests, it speaks volumes for this government.

Supply-I mm igra tion


George Gibson Coote: I would like an opportunity
of saying a word in reply to the Minister of Labour. There is a big difference between the month of December or January and the month of April. In April there is a good deal of work to do on the farm, ibut in the month of December and the month of January there are people who cannot get work particularly people who have just been brought into Canada by the government, who are not used to conditions in this country, not used to farm work and who find it more difficult to obtain employment. I have another editorial from the Cr.Igary Herald, published in the month of January, from which I will quote one paragraph, as follows:
The Dominion government's absolute refusal to have anything to do with unemployment relief is inexcusably harsh. Many of those requiring assistance can reasonably be described as wards of the Dominion government. They are newcomers recently brought to the country by the Ottawa authorities, men who have run upon hard times either through sickness or lack of work. The Ottawa government can not disclaim all responsibility towards these cases and it is amazing to find that the Minister of Labour, Mr. Murdock- who of all the cabinet ministers ought to have sympathy for workmen in the direst distress-is the chief advocate of resistance to the plea for Dominion help.
The Mayor's appeal to Hon. Mr. Murdock has failed. The Trades and Labour Council might with propriety now add their appeal to the Minister of Labour in the effort to lessen the privation of the workless in the city.
I would point out that this editorial says as well:
The provincial government is keeping the promise it made at the unemployment conference at Ottawa, which was to contribute 25 per cent of the labour cost of relief works carried on by municipalities. It is making additional grants to the Salvation Army and to the Board of Public Welfare here.
All that I am asking the government to do is this. If they are going to persist in their immigration efforts, they should agree to share with the municipalities the cost of looking after the hardships which necessarily accrue amongst new-comers during the winter months.


Charles Gavan Power: If the federal government
should foe obliged to look after the newcomers, why should we not look after our own citizens who have been good and honest citizens and are in distress? To carry the argument to its logical conclusion, why should we not establish the dole system? That is what my hon. friend has been driving at all afternoon.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member has asked me quite a lengthy question.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a syllogism.


George Gibson Coote: The newcomers amongst the immigrants are here as a * direct result of the action of this government.


Charles Gavan Power: Did this government ever
advertise that they wanted dole-takers or paupers in this country? They said they wanted people who were willing to work. The hon. member has had it shown pretty conclusively by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) that these men are unemployed because they will not work. We are not responsible for the loafers.


George Gibson Coote: The article quoted by the
hon. member for Cariboo was, I think, dated in the month of September, and the article quoted by the Minister of Labour was dated in the month of April. Those conditions are not at all applicable in the months of December, January and February. My attitude to immigration is this, that the government should not spend one dollar in propaganda to bring immigrants into this country. I am told the United States, which has received more immigration -than any other country in the world that I know of, has never spent one dollar on immigration propaganda. She has spent money on immigration to protect her fiom undesirables. In every province in Canada you will find a considerable number of undesirable immigrants. I think it might safely be said that some of them are not fit to work. As the Calgary Herald says, there are in the Keith sanitarium men suffering from tuberculosis who were immigrants and who had not been very long in Canada. Our immigration policy has fallen short in this regard. We have devoted our major efforts to propaganda to get immigrants here. We have devoted very little money or effort to examining the immigrants carefully. Possibly we have done more in that respect in the last few years. I believe this government are deserving of a certain amount of credit for having immigrants examined more carefully than has been done in former years. But if we do not spend any money on propaganda tending to induce immigrants to come to this country, we shall get the kind of immigrants who will make good. I would not attempt to keep out any man of the right nationality who is willing to come here of his own accord and who is willing to work.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it not mostly the -men
of the nationality the hon. member mentions who are 'here and who are always looking for doles, who, in his own words, are accustomed to doles in the Old Country?


George Gibson Coote: I have not mentioned the
nationality.


Charles Gavan Power: I know what the hon. member means by the "right nationality."
S up pi y-1m migra tion


George Gibson Coote: Possibly the hon. member
does and possibly he does not. It is a mistake and a waste of money to assist immigrants. You get the wrong class when you do so. It is a wrong policy to pay passages to get people to this country. I hope my hon. friend will agree with that.


Charles Gavan Power: Absolutely.


George Gibson Coote: If he wants to know the
nationalities that I do not like being brought here, let him read almost any number of the Canada Gazette and see the names of those who have been naturalized in the past month.


Charles Gavan Power: The kind my hon. friend
wants do not happen to need naturalization.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, many of them would
have to be naturalized. I think a majority of the immigrants we have in our western country had to be naturalized. I do not wish to dwell too much on the fact of a man's nationality. It is true there are certain nationalities that are not very desirable in this country. My hon. friends from British Columbia will agree with that. Let us quit spending money in advertising for immigrants, but let us all get together in trying to make conditions fit for our own people whom the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) mentions. Then we shall have immigrants knocking at the door trying to get in, the same as they do in the United States.


George Perry Graham: We have spent half a day on this one item. I am afraid my prognostications about June 15 will have to be moved on about three months. Could we not allow this item of civil government to go through? This whole question can be discussed on different items of the department when its estimates are brought up again. We have gone over every phase of immigration. While we do not want to stop discussion., these estimates with items purely applicable to the immigration question will be up on another occasion. Can we not make some little progress? We close at six o'clock on Wednesdays. We might let one item through and take up the immigration question some other day.


Edward Joseph Garland: With respect to inspection of immigrants, I notice in the civil government estimates we have provision made for one supervisor and one assistant supervisor of juvenile immigration. Are there any others not mentioned in this department?


James Alexander Robb: There are others.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many
are there and where are they located?


James Alexander Robb: There are six inspectors of
British immigrant children. They are all in Ottawa but they travel. I will get any other information my hon. friend desires if he will put his question now so that it will appear in Hansard.
Mr, GARLAND (Bow River):	What I
want to know is this: How many supervisors or inspectors of juvenile immigrants does this government support? Where are they located, what areas do they cover, what duties do they perform, and how frequently do they inspect the homes of immigrant children?


James Alexander Robb: I will get that.


Donald Sutherland: The request of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) with regard to this item would under ordinary circumstances be a reasonable one; were it any other item I do not think there would be a disposition to discuss it at length. But, seeing that the Canadian National Railway board is apparently taking over the work; also that more than double the amount was spent in 1924 that was spent in 1923; and that we do not know how much has been spent in the past year or how much they propose to spend in the coming year, I think the matter is one that should be carefully considered. If they are to do the work formerly carried on by the department, what is the necessity for this $250,000 under the head of civil government? If it is the policy of the government to transfer the service there should be some reduction in this item. I do not think there is justification for maintaining such an enormous staff in connection with this work.


James Alexander Robb: The staff is not greater but, indeed, less than it was some years ago. I shall be glad to discuss this feature of the situation when we are on the outside vote. The Department of Immigration has nothing to do with the Canadian National Railways, who, I fancy, have land to sell through the Canadian Northern, and are looking after their business just as the Canadian Pacific is doing. The Canadian Pacific Railway has done a good deal of pioneering in this direction; we must not forget that. It has a much larger organization than the Canadian National Railways, and the department must play fair as between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. I am not now entering on any defence of the Canadian National; the minister can do that. But this depart-

Resignation of Solicitor General
ment is not working particularly for the Canadian National Railways; we must show no discrimination as between the railways that bring people to the country.


Arthur Meighen: The moment seems opportune to put in a remark as to the duplication that exists in the immigration service. It is entirely true, as the minister says, that the Canadian Pacific Railway has done a lot in the way of propaganda. That is all right; and the Canadian Pacific did it mainly when it had a lot of lands to sell, and for the purpose of settling people on those lands. But is it not surely the height of folly for us to have in this country two-yes, three- immigration services covering large sections of the globe at a tremendous expense? This is the worst possible form of duplication. The Canadian Northern, I know, has some lands to sell; but it sold more lands when its colonization service was run at a cost of $100000 than it is selling to-day at a cost of $750,000. It built a great colonization service, competing with the services of the Dominion and the Canadian Pacific. Now, this Dominion cannot stand any competition of that sort. Here -we have a three-headed monster piling taxes on our backs. I do not know why the Canadian Northern ever launched out into such extensive propaganda; and certainly some steps should have been taken before it was too late either to have the Dominion government withdraw from the field in favour of the Canadian Northern, or to have the Canadian Northern maintain the service it was carrying on without seeking to expand it to the inordinate proportions it has now reached.


James Alexander Robb: I agree with what my hon. friend has said, but he will be glad to know that the department has been co-operating with the representatives of the railways in an endeavour to reduce the overlapping.


Arthur Meighen: It should never have
been allowed to take place.
Ait. six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Friday, May 22, 1925