1928-06-07

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I desire to lay on the table
of the house copies of files in connection with orders for returns passed on May 14, Nos. 1,
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These were asked for by the' hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer).



FOREIGN DECORATIONS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the table a return to an order of the house for which the hon. member for St. Lawrence- St. George (Mr. Cahan) has been anxiously waiting, respecting honours conferred by foreign governments on persons domiciled in Canada.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: If I
can get the unanimous consent of the house, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Glen:
That the tenth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.
In moving for concurrence in this report of the agriculture committee which has had under consideration the question of immigration, I am not going to detain the house at any length owing to the lateness of the session and also owing to the fact that I may
Immigration-Mr. Kay


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I can simply re-echo to a considerable degree the opinion expressed t,- hon' mwnber for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), who acted as chairman of the select standing committee on immigration and colonization and presided over all its deliberations with great fairness and dignity, and in so doing I am sure secured the respect and esteem of all members of that committee on both sides of the house. Our deliberations were conducted in the most amicable manner, and upon the terms of the report as presented we are largely in agreement, indeed unanimous, I think, except with regard to one particular clause.
It^ seems to me that the matter of immigration into this country is one of the large and transcending questions upon which the public of Canada at present have their minds directed. There is not, I think, a great difference of opinion with regard to the necessity of developing our country by means of immigration into this country, especially from the British Isles. At the Imperial conference of 1921, at which Canada was represented by Mr. Meighen, the then Prime Minister, a resolution was adopted unanimously, as follows:
The conference having satisfied itself that the proposals embodied in the report of the conference on state-aided empire settlement are sound in principle, and that the several dominions are prepared, subject to parliamentary sanction and to the necessary financial arrangements being made, to cooperate effectively with the United Kingdom in the development of schemes based on these proposals, but adapted to the particular circumstances and conditions of each dominion.
At that same conference the prime ministers representing the various dominions of the commonwealth also set forth an unanimous expression of view, as follows:
2. The conference expresses the hope that the government of the United Kingdom will, at the earliest possible moment, secure the necessarv powers to enable it to carry out its part in any schemes of cooperation which may subsequently be agreed on, preferably in the form of an act

Immigration-Mr. Cahan
which will make it clear that the policy of cooperation now adopted is intended to be permanent.
3.	The conference recommends to the governments of the several dominions that they should consider how far their existing legislation on the subject of land settlement, soldier settlement, and immigration, may require any modification or expansion in order to secure effective cooperation, and should work out, for discussion with the government of the United Kingdom, such proposals as may appear to them most practicable and best suited to their interests and circumstances.
At a subsequent meeting of the Imperial conference in 1926, at which Canada was represented by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), a resolution was adopted approving of the resolution of the conference of 1921, the Prime Minister of Canada being present and approving of the previous resolution. First a special subcommittee report was presented, and then the report was considered and adopted by the conference on the 19th of November. The prime ministers of the dominions most closely concerned, Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand, expressed their appreciation of the advances which had been made in practical cooperation in respect of immigration since the conference of 1923, and emphasized the earnest desire of those dominions to aid further in the development of their respective countries with settlers from Great Britain up to the limit of their capacity. The report says:
As was pointed out at the previous conference, however, the rate at which the redistribution of population within the empire can take place must be governed by the rate at which the dominions can satisfactorily absorb new settlers; and it was generally recognized that a sound policy must be based upon scientific and carefully considered schemes designed to secure the settlement of suitable persons under conditions conducing both to their own well-being and to the prosperous development of the dominion in which they are established.
And then, after approving of the three-thousand-family scheme as having been a conspicuous success in Canada, the report proceeds :
With a view to providing inducements to settlers to remain on the land overseas the subcommittee recommended that facilities should be provided for assisting suitable settlers from Great Britain to acquire farms of their own.
Then finally a resolution was passed of which I shall read the last clause, as follows:
It (the conference) endorses the view expressed at that conference that the policy should be a permanent one. It recognizes that it would be impracticable, owing to financial, economic, and political considerations, to promote mass movements of population, but it is satisfied that, by continuous adherence to the
present policy, it should be possible steadily to increase the flow of population to those parts of the British commonwealth where it is most needed for development and general security, and where it will find the greatest opportunities.	,
That series of resolutions adopted in 1921, and reaffirmed and extended in 1926, proves to my mind conclusively that the representatives of this government and of the preceding government were quite unanimous in the view that it was absolutely necessary to have a clear understanding between the government of this dominion and the government of Great Britain with regard to a policy of immigration that would not only promote the transfer of immigrants to this country, but would secure for them employment on a satisfactory basis after they had arrived in this country.
With those reports in view I attended a majority of the meetings of the select committee on agriculture and colonization. But perhaps I was expecting too much under the circumstances. We dealt with the Immigration department in such a manner as to ascertain its workings in all their ramifications. We investigated certain rumours or suspicions which had been spread throughout the country as to the officials of the department being lacking in honesty, and another suspicion or rumour that members of the House of Commons had been trafficking in permits or letters of admission for immigrants from the continental countries of Europe.
At the outset I desire to say that after examining some of the witnesses and listening attentively to the examination of others from the department and outside, I came to the clear conclusion that whatever the department may lack in efficiency as it is at present constituted, there can be no reflection upon the honour or honesty of the officials who are administering that department. I also came to the conclusion that the suspicion created throughout the country with regard to members of parliament trafficking in permits or letters of admission to immigrants from the continental countries of Europe is entirely without foundation so far as any evidence was brought before the committee, and so far as I was able to ascertain by personal investigation of some rumours which were brought to my notice.
I deem it my duty to say that in the investigations which I personally conducted I think I found the real source of these rumours with regard to the payment of money by continental immigrants for their admission into Canada. Those immigrants do not under-
Immigration-Mr. Cahan


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore we must look forward and adopt the best constructive policy adapted to bring about such a desirable result. I am convinced that the department as at present constituted cannot efficiently perform that great public service. Consequently it seemed to me and to some others that the government should now undertake the reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization. Personally, 'at first I thought it might be reorganized on such broad lines as have been adopted in the Commonwealth of Australia, which recently established a development and migration commission for the direction and control of all schemes of settlement. One branch of that commission has the duty to make a complete economic survey of the industrial resources of the Australian Commonwealth, and I believe it has proved an important factor in the recent prosperous development of the Australian states. In this country I find that a number of members are not in favour of the commission method, although the commission would certainly always be under the supervision and direction of a responsible minister of the crown. Therefore I suggest a modified form in which that department might be created, having one branch in charge of immigration and a second branch in charge of the development of employment throughout the country in every form of industry. We cannot under present conditions bring large masses of immigrants into this country and set them afloat without providing here suitable remunerative employment for them. Under the present conditions and during the last few years we have lost by emigration nearly three-quarters of a million of Canadian youth whose places have been largely taken up by immigrants from Great Britain and the continent. We must provide employment in this country of a diversified remunerative character for the sons and daughters of Canada, and also such employment as will

Immigration-Mr. Cahan
enable us to increase our population by immigration from the old world, especially from Great Britain. .
We have at present in the Department of the Interior vast stores of knowledge with regard to our natural resources which are not sufficiently made known to Canadians and to the world. We have in our mines branch, in our geological survey and statistical departments vast stores of knowledge which are very essential to any board or body of men who may desire to undertake the industrial development of Canada. These stores of knowl-ledge should be rendered accessible, and further, full inquiry should be made by a branch of a reconstituted department responsible to parliament under the supervision of a minister of the crown; and that department should seek out and make known to the world all the vast possibilities of industrial development in this country.
I know that when I speak of industrial development in Canada there is always a suspicion that I am talking tariff protection. I regard tariff protection as an incident in the vast undertaking which I have in view and which I believe could be carried out by responsible men of large experience, hi^h intelligence and executive training and ability.
I am not bringing forward this motion as a vote of want of confidence in the government.
I intend to ask that certain matters which I shall bring to the attention of the house by resolution should be presented by the committee to the government with an earnest recommendation that the suggestions therein contained should receive the favourable consideration of the government, because I realize that so long as we have responsible government in this country we can secure the wellbeing of Canada, in the matter Of political administration, only by acting through the government which for the time' being occupy the seats of office. And however much we may desire to remove them at the earliest possible opportunity, we realize that until a general election they will sit stolid and content in the offices which they at present occupy and control.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I can better present my views than by reading the resolution which I am about to propose, because I do not now intend to consume even the forty minutes at my disposal. I move, seconded by Mr. Arthurs:
That the said report be not now concurred in. but that it be recommitted to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions that they have power to amend the same and to recommend that the
following suggestions and recommendations receive the favourable consideration of the government, viz:
1.	The evidence taken by the committee and the reasonable implications of such evidence disclose that in the matter of immigration into Canada, particularly from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, no effective measures are now being taken to secure the active and efficient cooperation, with the Department of Colonization and Immigration, of the Colonization departments of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and of the various other organizations, associations and agencies which are engaged in the work of immigration, colonization and settlement in Canada.
2.	It is evident that the Department of Immigration and Colonization as at present constituted and administered is incompetent to procure the effective coordination and cooperation of all these various organizations in the work of immigration, colonization and land settlement.
3.	The matter of immigration into Canada is of mutual concern to Great Britain, with its congestion of population and prevalent unemployment, and to Canada with its widely extended territory and its sparse population; but neither country may be well served by the mere transport to Canada annually of large numbers of people who are left to make their way in Canada as pioneers in a new country under conditions of life which to them are novel and difficult.
4.	On the other hand, the capacity of Canada for the absorption in large numbers of uew settlers is obviously limited by the existing economic conditions of this country and the possibilities for their speedy improvement. The cost and difficulty involved in the resettlement in Canada of our returned soldiers after the conclusion of the Great War, and their absorption into the economic life of this country, are indicative of the ramifications of the problem of procuring the migration of masses of people from Great Britain to Canada and their resettlement in this country under conditions which will ensure their future happiness and contentment.
5.	Immigration should be carried on contemporaneously not only with land settlement throughout Canada, but also with such development and extension of employment in Canadian agriculture, mining, forestry and manufacturing as will rapidly absorb incoming settlers. Such immigration and land settlement on an extensive scale will eventually require not only large appropriations from the federal treasury for the direction, control and maintenance of such a comprehensive national undertaking, but it will also involve the establishment throughout Canada by private enterprise and by the investment of private capital of such profitable and diversified industries of all kinds as are suitable to our climatic and economic conditions.
6.	The key to the solution of the whole problem of immigration to Canada is the provision of adequate employment, in all branches of domestic industry in Canada, not only for our Canadian people, but also for the large numbers of immigrants from other countries who may be induced to settle in Canada.
7.	If existing economic conditions are more or less completely ignored and opportunities for
Immigration-Mr. Cahan

employment are not widely extended, large migrations of people to this country will inevitably result in increasing the problems of domestic unemployment in Canada, especially in the winter season, and in lowering the standards of life which are at present enjoyed by those resident in Canada who are now engaged in industrial pursuits; both of which tendencies will, in turn, seriously react adversely upon the flow of immigration into Canada.
8.	The committee, therefore, recommend that a department of Immigration, Colonization and Industrial Development be organized forthwith, which shall be under the administration of a responsible minister of the crown and which shall consist of two branches, each under the direction of a superintendent of intellectual strength and considerable business experience.
9.	The duty of the immigration and colonization branch of the said proposed department should be;
(a)	To procure the cooperation of the several provincial governments with the work of said proposed department;
(b)	To coordinate the work of all organizations, associations and agencies, which are now engaged in promoting immigration into Canada, under one supreme direction and control, for the more efficient carrying out of the undertakings which all have in common;
(c)	To ensure, in so far as practicable, that a majority of the settlers emigrating from other countries to Canada shall be such as may be physically and mentally adapted to the conditions of life in this northern country and likely to be readily assimilated by our existing population;
(d)	To make adequate financial provision for the settlement upon the vacant lands throughout Canada, which are suitable for agriculture, of families who appear, with reasonable certainty, to be adapted for agricultural pursuits;
(e)	To provide facilities for the settlement in the more recently organized provinces of Canada of settlers from the older provinces, who, as were thousands of the earlier settlers in the west, are intent upon leaving their homes in the east in search of wider opportunities for self-improvement in the new agricultural and mining districts which are now, from time to time, being opened up for settlement and development in the west; and
{f) To direct, supervise and control all schemes of settlement in the more sparsely settled districts of Canada.
10.	The duty of the industrial development branch of said proposed department should be:
_ (a) To act in close cooperation with the immigration and colonization branch:
(b)	To make a complete economic survey and study of the industrial resources of Canada;
(c)	To advise in regard to the future economic development of the several provinces of Canada and of the Northwest Territories, with a view to the more rapid extension of industrial employment, and
(d)	To direct its attention particularly to the establishment of suitable industries in our smaller towns and villages not only in eastern Canada and British Columbia, but particularly in the three prairie provinces, whence a constantly increasing number of young men and young women, who have no special aptitude or liking for agricultural pursuits, will inevitably

emigrate from Canada to seek other industrial employment in the neighbouring republic, if similarly attractive opportunities are not afforded to them in Canada.
11.	The investigations of the industrial development branch should be comprehensive in character and be undertaken in a spirit of scientific detachment, in order that- it may receive adequate and non partisan political support throughout the whole country.
12.	And the committee are also of the opinion that the industrial development branch by a detailed survey of industrial conditions in Canada, would be able to recommend what new industries for the production in Canada of commodities, which are now imported in considerable quantities into Canada, could advantageously be created in Canada or be transplanted from other countries to Canada, without unduly increasing the prices for such commodities in our more limited markets, and so afford constantly increasing and remunerative employment within Canada for all classes of our population, and thus provide the strongest incentive to suitable settlers to make their permanent homes in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I submit this amendment not in any critical spirit, but I think in its wisdom this house should outline some constructive measures for recommendation to the government for their acceptance, such recommendations to be worked out by the government not perhaps in order to start a new era of prosperity but in order to accelerate the prosperity of Canada by ensuring employment in this country not only to our own population but also to ensure that those whom we induce to enter Canada will find remunerative employment here. Unless we concentrate our attention directly upon the necessity of increasing employment in this country it seems to me useless (to continue to bring large numbers of immigrants into the country and to disperse them from one end of Canada to the other without providing them with the means of earning a suitable living here.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. YOUNG (SASKATOON)


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: 
Mr. EVANS:: The hon. member will get his answer in the ordinary course.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I had been
asked by one of my constituents to take this matter up with the department, and I was investigating it when the hon. member for Rosetown saw fit to butt in. I would like to ask him if I was not entitled to the courtesy of his corning to me to find out about the case. He' never on any occasion spoke to me regarding this matter, never did me that

Privilege-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
courtesy. In so far as this statement refers to me, I want to deny it absolutely. There was no bulldozing, bullying or bluffing of this man to pay this debt. I will go further and say that I have never done that sort of thing with any man, whether a returned soldier or otherwise, m order to get him to pay any debt. I am going to demand that the hon. member for Rosetown retract his statement unconditionally. When he says this matter has been settled for over six years, I reply that it is now under investigation by the department and sworn evidence is to be taken at Saskatoon. These are the facts of the case.
I have lived in Saskatoon for a period of twenty-two years, and had the hon. member for Rosetown made these statements there' I would have no fear of the effect. But inasmuch as he chose to make his remarks in this honourable chamber, with the result that they will be read by a much wider circle and in places where I am not so well known, I feel obliged bo demand, as I now demand, that he retract these statements unconditionally.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I presume I have the 'privilege of defending myself and the statements made last night.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Withdraw the
remarks; that is the privilege you have.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman when he was speaking. In the first place, I want to say that when I mentioned the mortgagee, one Hanson held the farm, and the returned soldier never acknowledged to the hon. gentleman that he owed for seed grain. He called to see the hon. member (Mr. Young, Saskatoon) at hie residence, after. being told by telephone to come and see him on urgent business. It is also untrue that he offered to pay a certain sum, and I will read all the correspondence to show that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Evans: I am also accused


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mir. Speaker-


John Evans: I am accused of offering to pay $300, thereby acknowledging the debt. I never acknowledged the debt, and I never offered to pay $300. I wanted the1 returned soldier to have his title clear, and I went down to the department and offered to pay $300 if Mr. Tubb could settle for that amount; if Mr. Tubb had to pay that amount my cheque was ready there and then. The Minister of the Interior or any department official never intimated bo me that they would take my cheque. I want this house to under-
stand that the debt stands at $826 at the present time, and I want to say that neither the hon. member for Saskatoon nor any departmental official, not even the minister himself, has the authority to settle for the amount mentioned. Again I did not butt in when the returned soldier was accused by the hon. gentleman of having obtained seed and feed on false pretences.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That is absolutely an untruth. I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that right now.


John Evans: I did not interrupt the hon.
gentleman when he was speaking and I would ask him to sit as comfortably as possible while I am making my speech.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am not going to sit and listen to the hon. gentleman saying things like that.


John Evans: The returned soldier came
and saw me. I was an old friend of this soldier, having known him for twenty-two years. I was the first man he met when he came from London, England, out of the great departmental store of Selfridge's in that city. I gave him perhaps the first advice that he received on coming to this country and I have kept him under my eye since then. In defence of my statement last night I wish to read this as the first, letter:
October 27, 1927.
Mr. J. E. Tubb:
1 desire to see you in reference to a seed grain lien for grain furnished by the Dominion government. Please 'phone me and make an appointment to see me at my house.
Yours very truly,
A. MacG. Young.
If the hon. member disputes his signature-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Not at all.


John Evans: -I can send the letter over to him for his perusal if he likes. He asked Mr. Tubb to call on him and I think he did so, but later the hon. gentleman wrote to the returned soldier as follows:
November 18, 1927.
Mr. J. E. Tubb:
Replying to your letter of the 16th instant, I would say that when you saw me here about your seed grain lien it was agreed that you would advise me at once how much money you could pay on this before the end of the year.
I shall be glad to hear from you stating definitely what you are prepared to do.
I take that also as a bit of bulldozing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: 
Alexander MacGillivray Young: May I ask the hon. member what he said about a conspiracy?


John Evans: Because of my solicitations
to the Department of the Interior a move was made evidently to clear up the whole matter. This letter is dated Saskatoon, April 30, 1928, and I will ask hon. gentlemen to follow me while I read it, as it reveals what was done to cover up the tracks of the hon. member for Saskatoon in the mistake he first made in accusing this man of obtaining seed grain under false pretences. Mr. Tubb states:
I received yours at noon to-day. I waited for it because I was honoured by another visit from the gentleman whose card I enclose herewith.
Mr. R. B. Matheson, Edmonton.
He was accompanied by the subagent at Saskatoon, Mr. Collins. They came on Saturday, April 21, and stayed about an hour and a half. This time he, Mr. Matheson, said he was not asking for any money and h^d no authority to accept it, but instead tried hard, very hard indeed, to get a letter from me promising to pay $300.
Which according to the minister's own words he had no authority to do.
He showed me a letter from A. H. Hanson . who promised to pay $300 if the lien was removed from his land. I read the letter.
The subagent, Mr. Collins, followed my wife into the kitchen and tried hard to get her to say she was willing to sign the letter and told her the government could seize the property-
That is the cottage in town which they have struggled six years to pay for.
-and sell it if we did not pay up. My wife is now upset with her nerves over this; in fact, she is ill. I absolutely refused to have anything to do with it.
I hold in my hand an abstract of the title to this property. The date of registry is 1920. There is a seed grain lien placed against the property on the 3rd of July, 1915, five years before Mr. Tubb ever got this property.
I find in connection with the figures "1915," that the two figures that were in the place where the "15" is now have been erased, and "15" placed over it in another hand from that which has written the figures "19".	Mr. Tubb has written on the bottom of this paper:
The seed lien was put on two years after this mortgage was registered. The date is quite wrong.
I want the house to understand from what I am saying that this man does not owe this debt at all for seed grain. He had signed a quit claim to that property on the understanding that the owner was taking back the farm, knowing full well that the seed grain was against it, and the returned soldier was signing the quit claim on that condition. He went to the war, served his country there, and came back.
I have another letter dated 31/3/28. This was in answer to one I wrote regarding some correspondence:	To show how anxious they
were to cover up the tracks of the hon. gentleman, listen to this:
Last Thursday the Dominion lands agent from Prince Albert and the commissioner for the western district called on me. These gentlemen, after explaining that the amount of the lien was about $850, offered to accept one-half and assured me that the government would see that Hanson paid the balance. I refused to consider it, and after a lot of talk they finally told me that if I would give them a cheque for $300 right there they would at once have the attachment to the title removed.

Privilege-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
This was after the head commissioner from Edmonton had told me that he had no right or authority to receive any money whatsoever. If hon. gentlemen think I am wrong I will leave it to them to decide what was behind the whole thing. The letter continues:
They said they had authority from Ottawa for that.
I understand from Ottawa that they did not have that authority. He goes on:
. I absolutely refused to do anything, and they told me that if I did not make the payment within three days the government would take steps to enforce payment for the full amount. I learned the next day that one had gone back to Prince Albert and the other to Edmonton on the night train, and had not called upon Hanson at all.
Here is another letter that is relevant to the case:
Since I last wrote you I have had a visit from the subdivision agent at Saskatoon. He explained his visit was not official-
Not official, this time:
-but knowing I was somewhat deaf, he thought I had not frilly understood the importance of the interview with the commissioner. He said: "If you will take my advice, you will pay the $300 and save yourself a lot of trouble."
Then it was I went to the department here and offered my cheque for $300 if this returned soldier had to pay it:
I told him I fully understood the matter. I refused to discuss it any further.
I want the house to follow this a little further, to see how frantic they now became to clear the hon. gentleman. Listen to this:
To-day the 16th I received a long distance call on the 'phone from the Dominion lands' agent at Prince Albert. He wanted to know what I had intended to do about paying the $300. I told him I was taking no action in the matter. He said he rvould have to make a report to head office about it.
Evidently the report has not yet -been made. Here is another letter under date of May 23, containing a few more facts. I will read what is relevant to the discussion.


Mr. CAHILL:: Who is it from?


John Evans: It is from the returned
soldier. He said:
You will remember I told you he (Dr. Young) accused me of fraudulently obtaining seed from the government and unknown to Mr. Hanson. This is untrue. Mr. Hanson knew the facts of the case as I asked him to finance me, and he refused. I had only signed the contract to buy the farm that fall (1914). Now the department is to try and find out what kind of a crop I harvested in 1914, and what became of the proceeds. This was the question put to me by Dr. Young. I told him it did not concern him or Hanson as I had not bought the farm then.

Not only that, but Hanson himself suggested to the returned soldier to go to the government and get seed grain. The letter continues:
As a matter of fact, I went to Hanson several times about the seed and each time he refused, so 1 told him plainly that unless I had seed I would have to move off his place and it was then, when he saw he was likely to have a vacant farm, that he suggested that I try to get seed grain from the government. He knew positively about the whole transaction and I, thank God, have a clear conscience, but to go back to a time prior to the signing of the contract does not seem to my way of thinking to have anything to do with either.
Another letter that is relevant to the question is dated 16/5/28 and to show you how desperate they were to clear the hon. gentleman of trying to obtain a sum of money, I ask the house to listen to this, and I want to say that this was never authorized by the department either:
Last Sunday morning we received your telegram, and to-day your lengthy letter. We are thankful to you.
Since my last letter to you, we had another visitor from the Dominion lands office. This gentleman took measurements of the lots, number of rooms in house, and assessment of property. This, of course, thoroughly upset my wife, and she said rather than have had all this trouble, and in consequence giving you a deal of trouble, she would have paid the $300 to have been relieved of the worry.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Who is the letter from?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We are listening to documents being read without the names of the writers being given. They have no bearing whatever on the serious charge made by the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) against the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young). Last night the member for Rosetown m|ade a serious charge against the member for Saskatoon. I need read only a few lines of it:
This is one of the most sordid tales of bulldozing and bullying on the part of a member of parliament using his official position as a member of parliament to secure the payment of a sum of money from a returned man which he did not owe.
That is a serious charge against an hon. member of this house. The member for Rosetown is not dealing with the question at all. The member for Saskatoon has denied the charge, and it is up to the member for Rosetown to resign his seat in this house or apologize.	-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Or prove his
charges.

Privilege-Mr. Yovng (Saskatoon)


Frank S. Cahill: Or prove his charges. He
is not reading anything that is relevant to the subject now before the house. He should attempt to prove his charges, apologize or resign his seat.


Hewitt Bostock: Was the hon. member
for Rosetown about to conclude?


John Evans: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I will wait.


John Evans: To do that I have to read
a letter from the department which gives the truth, the absolute truth, of those letters which I have read from the returned soldier. This, I think, explains the whole thing. The letter is dated May 14, 1928, and is as follows:
Dear Mr. Evans,-
As I explained to you on Saturday morning,-
I was there and had an interview with the writer.
-the department feel that there is a grave eonfliction in testimony which should be cleared up before the responsibility in the matter of indebtedness can be fairly fixed.
The minister is, therefore, asking council for authority to have an investigation under oath conducted and, of course, only sworn testimony will be considered.
However, the foregoing has nothing whatever to do with the town property which Mr. Tubb acquired an interest in, which was entirely separate and apart from the seed grain transaction and the department is writing to Mr. Tubb, assuring him that in the event of his taking title to his city property the seed grain charge will not become a charge against such city property, and that should it happen that the registrar places this charge against his city property, then we will forthwith issue the necessary release that will effectively clear his
ty property from any such registration.
This should relieve Mr. Tubb of any embarrassment in so far as the city property is concerned.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who signed it?


John Evans: W. W. Cory. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have gone far enough to prove that what I said was true. I have it on authority that neither did the hon. member nor anyone else have any authority whatsoever to try to obtain $300 from that returned soldier. More than that, I find that the lien was illegally entered against his city property, and that he could not legally bully the returned soldier to pay $300 because it was entered against his city property.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: This is purely a question of privilege and the point is whether the 56103-245
language used was parliamentary or not. If a charge is made against any hon. member as to his dealings with his constituents, that he has violated the amenities of parliament by doing something dishonourable which debars him from being a member of the house, the rule is well known. Such a charge is made on the responsibility of the member making it, who puts his seat in jeopardy. The case is then sent to the committee on privileges, which after considering it makes a report to the house. In the present instance the house is not called upon to decide who is right or who is wrong-the returned soldier, the registrar, the mortgagee or the member. The only question before the house resolves itself into this. In speaking last night in committee of the whole the hon. member for Rosetown used strong words against the hon. member for Saskatoon respecting a certain transaction-but before quoting those words let me say that the privilege of one member is the collective privilege of the House of Commons. To-day one member may be accused of dishonourable conduct, to-morrow another member. These are the words used by the hon. member for Rosetown against the hon. member for Saskatoon:
This is one of the most sordid tales of bulldozing and bullying on the part of a member of parliament using his official position as a member of parliament to secure the payment of a sum of money from a returned man which he did not owe.
That is a clear case of extortion. Such a charge made against a member of the bar would mean the loss of his gown, and he would be debarred from practising before the courts for a limited period of time and perhaps permanently. But that is only the professional side; he would also be liable to arraignment before the criminal courts, extortion being a criminal offence. This is the charge made by the hon. member for Rosetown clearly and openly in this house against the hon. member for Saskatoon. Further, the hon. member for Rosetown said:
I am here accusing the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) of doing this and trying to bluff this man into paying a sum of money which he was clear of for more than six years. _ I think it should be made plain that men in that position, returned soldiers who have since got clear of their debt, who had gone to the war and served their country overseas, should not be bulldozed when they come back into paying something that they do not owe. I have nothing more to say.
I declare that this is one of the most cruel charges that could be made in the House of Commons against a fellow-member.

3874	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
Now, what is the rule in such cases. It is clearly set forth by Bourinot at page 304:
Prima facie, any question affecting a member is considered a case of privilege, but in order to entitle a member to bring it up on that ground he must show that it affects him since he became a member of the house and consequently in his character of a member.
The hon. gentleman concerned, in his character of a member was therefore right in bringing up the question of privilege a moment ago. I am bound to state that the words used by the hon. member for Rose-town are absolutely unparliamentary. I have been in the house for almost thirty-three years, and I must say that I never heard such a charge delivered by a member from his seat against a fellow-member. The charge is clear-as clear as it is cruel. Bourinot says that a member is not allowed to call another member a pharisee, a slanderer or a villain. He says that an hon. member must not say of another member that he has acted either basely or from base motives. Is not this tihe charge in the present instance? Is not the hon. member for Saskatoon accused of having acted basely and from base motives?-basely in that he extorted money, and from base motives, from the' fact that this transaction was carried out at the expense of a poor returned soldier, that the money was not used, and that the hon. member for Saskatoon-according to the hon. member for Rosetown-had no business to deal with the matter.
The hon. member for Rosetown is an old and respected member of this house, and I would ask him to be good enough to rise and accept the denial of the hon. member for Saskatoon. Moreover, I would ask him to accept that denial unreservedly. Bourinot states:
It has been formally ruled by speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself, and particularly within his own knowledge, must be accepted:	but	it	is not unparliamentarytemperately to criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts. But no imputation	of	intentional	falsehood	is
permissible.
Acting under this rule I therefore ask the hon. member for Rosetown to accept unreservedly the denial made by the hon. member for Saskatoon respecting the above quoted charges which	he	made last	evening.	Ishould be sorry to have recourse to the powers that are conferred upon the Speaker in a situation such as this. I regret to say that this is the worst incident of the kind that has come before me as Speaker-the worst I have	known since I	have been	a
member of the House of Commons. I ac-

quit the hon. member of having acted intentionally in the matter, with a view to violating the rules of the house. Surely, however, he must yield to the rule which obliges him to accept, without any reservation, the denial of the hon. member for Saskatoon.


John Evans: I accept.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
accepted the denial and that amounts to a withdrawal of the Charge.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I understood
from the hon. gentleman that I had entered into a conspiracy with some other person, and I am going to ask that that statement be withdrawn. I want to say that, from what I have heard to-day, I really believe that what happened was this: the hon. gentleman from Rosetown has been entirely misinformed-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The incident has
been disposed of. The charges made last evening were more serious than the one made a moment ago in the course of the remarks of tihe hon. member for Rosetown. Of course the words which the hon. gentleman used were out of order; he should not have made use of the expression that there had been a conspiracy. My ruling was made broad enough to include the' whole attitude of the hon. gentleman towards the transaction in question. He has accepted the denial of the hon. member for Saskatoon and therefore the matter should be allowed to drop.




Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: I rise to
second the motion of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) for concurrence in the report of the committee on agriculture and colonization. That report as tabled sets out the conclusions arrived at after many sessions and after a great number of witnesses, twenty-nine in all, were heard. I think it is fair to say that most of the witnesses, while not entirely representative of all interests in Canada, yet certainly did represent a great many interests both varied and vital in every part of the Dominion; and the report as tabled reflects the opinions of the committee. Those opinions, summarily stated in a few Short paragraphs, are rather lengthy; they are mere statements of fact. May I now rather than later say that the deliberations of the committee were conducted in a manner which was a credit to this house. No acrimonious discussion took place on a subject which might well have been somewhat bitter.

Immigration-Mr. Glen


Mr. COOTE:: I rise to a point of order.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to endeavour to preserve order in the house so that the hon. member may be heard. The conversation which is being carried on in the chamber while the hon. member is endeavouring to address the Chair is most undignified.


Hewitt Bostock: I ask hon. members to be as silent as possible.


James Allison Glen: As I was saying, the deliberations of the committee were conducted in a way that must be a pleasing reflection to all of those who were privileged to be members of it. At no time did any hon. member conduct himself in a way other than for the benefit of the whole committee and with a regard for the seriousness of tihe subject under discussion. I believe every hon. member was seriously trying to contribute the best in him to the solution of what must necessarily be a long-drawn out and not easily soluble question. This same feeling which was evident in the interests of the work of the committee will, I think, also be reflected in the house in the present debate.
The reason for the inquiry was attributable to various causes. Some of them were trifling in character as compared with others, but I think the principal reason may be stated in two paragraphs: First, the widespread belief that we were discriminating against British immigration; and secondly, the loss sustained by emigration from our country to other countries and, in particular, to the United States. There were of course other causes, such as the alleged unrestricted flow of continental Europeans with which is allied the question of the activities of the steamship and railway companies. One other question which seemed to overshadow for a time all other matters brought before the committee was the issue of permits. I was glad indeed to hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) make the statement today from his seat that at the conclusion of the inquiry he was satisfied, as I think every hon. member was satisfied, that there was absolutely no truth in the suspicions that had been widespread throughout the Dominion.
I wish first to discuss the principal causes to which in my opinion all other matters will be found to be related and subsidiary. The first is that we discriminated against British immigration. Now from the report it will be noticed that despite the assistance given British immigrants, whatever be the cause, we are finding it extremely difficult to get from the British Isles the class of immigrants we desire, although it was stated in evidence that more money was spent by the depart-
56103-245i
ment in the United Kingdom than elsewhere, the proportion of money spent there being $16.67 per capita for each immigrant introduced into Canada, while on the continent it was 11 cents per capita. Mr. Maoalister of the Canadian Pacific Railway stated in answer to a question that they were spending in the United Kingdom twenty times-it might be as high as a hundred times-more than they spent on the continent. And Dr. Black of the Canadian National Railways corroborated that statement. It is true that only immigrants of the occupational class secured assistance; apart from boys and domestics it was restricted to agriculturists, save those who come under section 7 of PC. 183, which provides that an immigrant may be permitted to land in Canada whose labour or service is required here. And he must satisfy the minister. This is the clause which caused all the uproar and all the talk; it was said to deal with permits, but these properly should be called letters of admission. It must be borne in mii-nd by the house that there is a very limited number of prospective agriculturists in Great Britain; it was stated in evidence that only 5 per cent of the population of Great Britain are employed in agriculture. The British farmer and farm labourer to-day is in a much better position than ever has been the case formerly. He now has am eight hour day with a half-day off each week, and his wages are almost as good as those paid in Canada. You can easily see that the inducements we can hold out to agriculturists would not affect any large body of people, since in many respects conditions there are better than the conditions which obtain in Canada. As a matter of fact, purely along the lines of labour, .they have equal opportunities in Great Britain to those in Canada; of course I say nothing with regard to their prospects beyond the mere point of labour.
Now the question might arise, "How do you propose to people the Dominion of Canada with British immigrants in order to maintain its Anglo-Saxon character if you are not able to appeal to the agricultural class?" There are one or two answers to that question in the report, and with these I now propose to deal. I will refer later to the question of the domestic servants, but first I wish to discuss the major proposition of why assistance is not given to British immigrants other than agricultural labourers. Let me preface my remarks by stating that it does not seem to be generally understood that no Britisher who is physically and mentally fit is prevented from entering Canada at present; he is absolutely free to do so so long as he comes under the regulations which are now in
Immigration-Mr. Glen

effect. There are several reasons in my judgment why assistance should not be given to immigrants from the British Isles, and I think it was the consensus of opinion in the committee that to assist in bringing in a large number of immigrants other than agriculturists, such as artisans, clerks, and professional men, certainly would mean the displacement of a large body of Canadian labour employed here to-day, and it would certainly and inevitably reduce wages. When Mr. Dennis of the Canadian Pacific Railway was giving evidence I asked him several questions along this line, and his opinion was that the policy should be restricted largely to the encouragement of the immigration of agricultural labourers, and in that connection he made a most interesting statement which he claims to be able to prove; he said that each family of five placed in agricultural occupations justifies the employment of 1.73 men in industrial life. Another reason is that assisted immigration of this character would inevitably result in unemployment. At the same time Colonel Dennis stated that he did not believe any large number of the classes mentioned would be rapidly absorbed; the experience of the west to-day, even with assistance to agricultural labourers, only demonstrates that fact conclusively. There can be no indiscriminate dumping of large bodies of men in particular districts without resultant chaos and uncertainty of employment.
The outstanding fact which this inquiry brought to my notice was the paramount need for colonization rather than for immigration. It is recommended in the report that efforts should be made to reduce steamship rates, which reduction when effected will mean the abolition of any assistance to any immigrants other than youths or domestic servants. It might be said that this would result in the indiscriminate dumping into Canada of large bodies of those people whom Colonel Dennis stated could not be rapidly absorbed, but the answer is that that result does not accord with experience. It has been stated in this house even during this session that large numbers of men are migrating to the United States to seek employment. It is an undoubted fact that for several years past the United States have been in the position of being able to absorb a large number of men, and men are just like capital; they seek their best market, and naturally they went to the United States. However, the converse is also true; at present one does not hear the tales about Canada that we used to hear. There has been created in Canada an atmosphere, psychological if you like, that we are on the

eve of a tremendous industrial development; whether or not that be true it is a fact that we are bringing back from the United States men who went there years ago; they are now seeking employment in Canada. The fact is that labour will only seek the place where it may be utilized; if we have employment in Canada men will come here, and the indiscriminate dumping which might be expected through the lowering of the steamship rates will not take place because I am quite sure that no man is likely to come to Canada from the old country without making sure of an opportunity to obtain employment here.
I am not afraid that when passages are reduced to what they were before the war, even if we have a large influx of men and women into this country, we will create any change in the unemployment conditions which have been created under our present system. It seems to me that with this arrangement the question of immigration will resolve itself into a question as to what restrictions are to be imposed against Britishers.
I would like to remind the house that in connection with the immigration of youths the committee have recommended that the ages be from 14 to 19 instead of from 14 to 17. If there was one particular scheme with which every member of the committee was in accord it was that every assistance should be given to youths and domestic servants. These matters are dealt with at length in the report and I do not propose to discuss them; the committee certainly were of the opinion that the age should be increased as I have stated. I realize that in the future there will be a much greater number of these youths coming into the country, and this might offset to a large extent the reduction in the number of agricultural labourers which may be caused through the abolition of the assistance granted. However, I would say that of all the schemes suggested those dealing with the immigration of youths are much more likely to attain the objects so keenly and ardently desired by the people of this country, among them being the retention of the predominant Anglo-Saxon character of Canada. The committee also recommend that the present arrangements with respect to domestic servants be continued. We can assimilate all the domestic servants we can get from the old country, nd I am informed that at no time was there any difficulty in placing them; the only difficulty was to get properly experienced servants.
Some evidence was given before the committee dealing with the large number of men in this country whose families still remain in the old country; one witness, speak-

Immigration-Mr. Glen
mg more particularly of Ontario, said there were 50,000 men whose families were still in Great Britain. At all events, it was felt that if assistance could be given to these men who have established themselves in this country and who are in a position to maintain their families, we as a government should re-unite those families, because most members of this house will realize that there can be no stability in the settlement of these men unless they are united with their families. After all, it is only the footloose who migrate and go to the states. Where you have a man with a family then I think you are likely to get a proper and suitable citizen. For that reason, the committee has recommended that assistance be given for the passage of families of men resident in this country who are in a position to maintain them when they arrive.
There has been a good deal of discussion with regard to land settlement schemes. Experience with these schemes in the past does not make one very hopeful. The soldier settlement scheme is the most recent, and I think this country will be fortunate if we do not lose a sum not less than fifty million dollars on that scheme. The three thousand family settlement scheme, while not the success it has been claimed to be is successful so far as one can appreciate at the present time, but it is still too early to discuss the entire success of that scheme. In this, as in all ventures of this character, you have to deal with so many variable quantities, particularly with human nature, which is the most variable of all.
In my opinion, the government would not be justified in embarking on those schemes unless and until the whole resources and activities of the provincial governments are allied with us. The justifiable complaint has been made by the provinces that we are indiscriminately dumping down large numbers of men in places whose power of absorption and placement is not sufficient to meet the problem. That is the keystone of the whole arch of immigration, and unless and until the governments come in and share with the federal government the question of colonization, I do not think we are ever likely to settle this country in the manner in which it should be. The federal government cannot shut the door absolutely on immigration, and no matter what may be proposed there will always be congestion in the larger centres. There will be surplus in some districts and shortage in others. It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the provinces-I speak of the prairie provinces particularly, who are claiming there is no need for assisted passages, or no need for immigration-must
enter the field in conjunction with the federal authorities and carry on their share of the responsibility and colonization. This is not a new doctrine in the west, because we have agitated that the provinces should devolve some of the duties on the municipalities. The committee has recommended that an effort should be made to enlist the services, resources and activities of the provinces in this matter, and that the federal government shall contribute a large part of the expenses.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


James Allison Glen: When the one o'clock recess
took place I was speaking of the question of provincial responsibility and I was saying that in my judgment the keystone of the whole arch of immigration depended upon cooperation with the provincial authorities. If there was anything revealed to the United States during the war, it was that there had been too great liberality in the admission of peoples of all races and kinds into that country. Millions of them were found to be physically unfit and millions of them also were found to be mentally unsuited to join the army. For this purpose, therefore, the committee has recommended that the government should endeavour to enlist the resources of the provincial authorities and contribute towards the cost of the machinery set up. Let me add that we have throughout the whole of this country large numbers of foreign-bom peoples. They have been invited by us to come to Canada and everyone who knows anything of them and who has had relations with them knows of innumerable instances where they not only have done well for themselves materially, but are proving and will continue to prove good citizens. The door is not barred to them by the present regulations and the committee have not entertained any thought of shutting the door. The same conditions apply now as formerly. Any European from the preferred countries is eligible for entry into Canada provided that he is sound mentally and physically and that he is in a position to maintain himself until employment is assured. Immigrants from non-preferred countries, namely, agricultural workers, domestic servants and those within a prescribed degree of relationship to residents legally admitted to Canada, are permitted to come here from those coutries and, with that, special exceptions may be made in cases in which the minister is satisfied that their labour
387S
Immigration-Mr. Glen

or service is required in Canada. Shortly, there is in the report nothing which prohibits or bars the door more closely against continental Europeans than is already the practice. The distinctive idea throughout the whole of the inquiry is that of offering inducements to the British immigrant.
Just a word in connection with the medical inspection in Great Britain. It was felt that the sudden introduction of the examination by Canadian doctors, the elimination entirely of the roster doctors, the blind spots which inevidently occur in most new schemes, the misunderstanding which usually arises through lack of knowledge and ignorance of motive, all contributed to the idea that the medical inspection was intended to restrict British immigration to Canada. It cannot be too clearly stated by the house as a solemn and serious fact that the Dominion invites and welcomes all British subjects who come within the regulations and has no thought of barring the door against any British subject who can qualify under the regulations governing admission to this country. The committee, in order to allay the misunderstanding that has arisen and to obviate delay and inconvenience, have suggested that local British doctors should be employed to make the examinations and that they should be paid by the government. They suggest that those doctors should form part of the Canadian organization and their examination be subject to the supervision of the Canadian medical authorities. I believe that provision will eliminate the principal objection to the present system and I do not think anyone can seriously object to Canadian medical authorities acting as the final authority from a medical point of view on all prospective immigrants.
The recommendations of the report speak for themselves, but there is one other matter to which I shall refer briefly. It is suggested that the assistance of the provinces should be invoked, but stress must be laid on the extreme importance which should be attached to the measure of support given by the railway and steamship companies and other organizations which devote themselves to this field of activity. The necessity of preventing overlapping and duplication of effort should not require to be mentioned at this period, but apparently it is necessary that it should be. All these agencies ought to be coordinated. I said at the beginning that this peace problem is greater than a war problem and' for those who speak of patriotism the best patriotism will be evidenced by the desire to co-

operate with the department in carrying out its work.
I was in hopes that the report would be adopted unanimously by the house. In the committee there were of course several differences of opinion on particular matters. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) had some objections regarding regulations with respect to homeseekers' rates and I presume he will speak to that in this debate, but I was of opinion that we came to the house with a fairly unanimous view that the report should be adopted. Therefore I was very sorry when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) introduced his amendment this morning. I should like to say this with regard to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. During the whole course of the inquiry he was a most helpful member. I believe I am stating the opinion of all the members when I say that he adopted and maintained the standard which he set out at the very beginning of the inquiry, namely, that it should be on as high a level as possible and without any acrimonious debate in regard to peccadilloes of any individual who might come into the inquiry. During the whole of the inquiry the hon. member has maintained that high level. I might say, in passing, it was a privilege to work with him and to get to know him personally as I did. Therefore I was rather sorry that he introduced the amendment, for two reasons. With regard to the first part of his amendment which deals with the question of immigration, most, if not all of the provisions therein set forth by him, are contained in the report. He speaks in the amendment of the coordination of recruiting agencies; immigration from Britain to be regulated and provision for settlement; assimilation of immigrants from other countries; financial assistance and provision for settlers from the east going west, and direction and control of schemes of settlement in sparcely settled districts of Canada.
Most of these suggestions, Mr. Speaker, are embodied in the report. We have dealt with the 'teen age boys, domestic servants, measures to be taken for the reduction of fares, provision for homeseekers' rates, land settlement schemes and particularly provincial cooperation. While the hon. member was not entirely satisfied with the report of the committee, yet I thought that he was sufficiently satisfied with it that he could support it, and therefore I was rather sorry that he introduced an amendment.
With regard to the remaining part of his amendment, dealing with industrial develop-

Immigration-Mr. Arthurs
ment, it was suggested, and I think agreed to by the hon. member, that the last recommendation of the report dealing with the question of increasing employment, was to a large extent on the lines along which the hon. member wishes to proceed as indicated in his amendment. I might say that the last paragraph of the committee's report was introduced solely to meet the views expressed in the latter part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and I therefore was in hopes that having obtained that statement in the last part of the report, and being satisfied that the other portion of his amendment was already embodied in the report, the hon. member would make this a unanimous report. Not only was I personally anxious to see a unanimous report, but I did think that if this house could only give a lead to the country in the way of a unanimous report adopting the suggestions that have been made, giving a consolidation of thought upon the question of immigration throughout the country, we would be doing a very statesmanlike act, and if in the whirligig of time those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, should find themselves to your right, they themselves would have to administer the functions of government to which they had contributed their counsels.
Might I therefore in closing suggest to the hon. member, as I did in committee, that he forego his amendment? Now that he has made his statement to the house and it is on record, and this whole report will be spoken to by other members of the house, may I suggest to him, without seeming to be presumptuous, that if we could only send this report forth to the country as the unanimous opinion of this house, intended to regulate as far as we can the Department of Immigration, these closing days of the session will have been worth while. For that reason I suggest with all deference and respect to the hon. member that he should consider whether he will not, as he did in the committee, withdraw his amendment so that this report may go forward as the unanimous opinion of this house?


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: The question before the house at the present moment is probably the greatest question before the people of Canada. Thinking men all over this country are discussing the matter of immigration and of the retention of our population in Canada as they probably never have before. The country has been looking anxiously for the report which we now have before us, and I think I can safely say that it will be a great disappointment to those who have the interests of the country at heart.
This report in so far as it goes is all right, but it does not touch any of the essential points in connection with immigration. It is quite easy for us to agree on recommendations regarding, we will say, juvenile immigration. The committee were unanimous that the age limit should be extended to twenty years, as these young men coming to Canada were probably, and I think are now, the most desirable class we are getting into this country. It was equally easy for us to advise the continuance of the policy of assisted passages for domestic servants. There was no question about this at all; we simply all agreed to it. However, there were larger questions at stake. Matters were brought before the committee which are not touched upon in the report of the committee at all.
The proposition was put forward, and I think rightly so, that we should have a survey of all the provinces of Canada to see what opportunities there were for land settlement and for industrial and other employment in the various provinces; that this survey should be made continuous; that it should be made at least annually, and that men should be on the job looking after opportunities in each of the provinces of Canada. I think this is one of the most essential things that was brought before the committee. The appointment of the men in the different provinces I believe should be left to the province itself, but the Dominion government should pay the salaries of these men, the idea being that in that way we would have men more closely in touch with the various parts of Canada. The results of these provincial surveys would be exchanged between the various provinces annually, or more frequently, and could be publicly distributed. I think in that way thousands of our young men in various parts of Canada would be made acquainted with opportunities in another part of the country from the one in which they now live.
There is a peculiar situation in connection with our young farmers all over Canada. I say that advisedly because it has become a question in the west just as well as in the east. A few years ago a young man brought up on the farm, perhaps one of many sons, had opportunities close at home. There was vacant land near at hand probably, which he had the opportunity of taking up and supporting himself, and in other cases there were industrial opportunities in the small towns and villages nearby. But as these small towns grew ajnd th-eir industries developed, the farms were subdivided so that instead of having farms of two hundred acres supplying the needs of one family as previously the same area further subdivided supports half a dozen families but the farm of to-day
Immigration-Mr. Arthurs

with its reduced acreage can support only tile family which is on it at the present time. Unfortunately for us a great many of these industries in the small towns are not as progressive as they were in the past. We have many cases all over this country where there' are five or six young men growing up on the farm, and we know without being told-it is self-evident that unless industries are developed to provide employment for these young men, they have to leave the farm, and the result to-day is that many of our young men are drifting away from the farm and, unfortunately for us, to the country to the south. But if such a survey as I have suggested were carried out, and the opportunities in the different provinces were made known to these young men, I believe we would retain a great portion of our population which we are unfortunately losing at the present time.
I think also that the department should furnish to parliament at the opening of the session, or as early thereafter as possible, a statement by provinces showing the number of immigrants brought into each province for the preceding year, as well as the number of losses so far as that was ascertainable. Tins would give us something to go on.
As the previous speaker (Mr. Glen) has said, coordination is one of the great questions in connection with immigration. We have various agencies all endeavouring to bring immigrants to Canada. We have, for instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which, according to the testimony given before the committee, expended last year approximately $750,000 for immigration purposes. I presume our own railway, the Canadian National, will spend approximately the same amount. Then we have the various church organizations and the assistance in some cases of the provinces. For instance, I know that Ontario spends large sums on immigration agencies in Great Britain. But unfortunately at the present time there is no coordination. The two things we need are coordination and leadership; at the present time we have neither.
Your committee was also practically unanimous in another sense. Although it does not appear in the report, we were virtually unanimous in believing that the assisted passages should be done away with, outside of those already contracted for and the cases I have already mentioned-juveniles and domestic servants. We believe it would be much better to endeavour to reduoe the transportation rates generally in order to assist those from Great Britain who want to come to Canada on their own. There is a certain

class of people in Great Britain, as in this country, who are more or less independent; they do not want to come in as assisted immigrants, but to enter at their own expense and survey the opportunities here. We should make it as easy as possible for them to do this. In fact, we might go further: where a man came here and went on a farm, and proved to the satisfaction of the officers of the department that he was making good, his passage1 money should be returned to him.
We have had various schemes of immigration during the last few years, among them the three-thousand-family scheme. As the report shows, we were undecided as to the actual results of this scheme so far as we could judge from the report of the land settlement board. In that report it will be noticed that in 1925 we received 467 families, in 1926 we received 1,042, and in 1927, 1,122!-a total of 2,631 families. The great majority, probably the whole, of these on the average did not remain on the land more than a year. In spite of that fact there are already 261 losses, most of them absolute. Of these families, 92- have engaged in other than farm work, 45 have returned to Great Britain, the whereabouts of 27 is unknown-probably they have' drifted to the United States, 16 have been deported, 36 have purchased farms independently of the board, and 45 are employed on farms. I might point out that as regards these " losses ", as I term them, under this scheme all but 44 received assistance after arrival. So it is apparent that the loss is serious even under that scheme. Then we had another scheme put forward by the railways called the continental family scheme. Under this scheme 98 families ware brought to Canada. They were composed of various nationalities-Polish, 38; Hungarian, 17; Roumanian, 12; Jugoslav, 10; Lithuanian. 4: Czechoslovakian, 3; German, 3; Ukrainian, 3; Serbian, 2. Six families were of unknown origin-they themselves did not know where they had come from. Of these 98 families considerably more than half have disappeared entirely, 14 have purchased farms privately, 9 are in industrial employment, 7 are not definitely located, and the whereabouts of 26 is unknown. So this scheme was not very successful either. Then we had the Saddle Lake reserve scheme. The land was opened up for incoming immigrants, and they were supplied with horses, houses, bams, 40 acres of land broken, fencing, wells, and so on; all of these things were provided, and yet so far the scheme has not been very successful. We also had the Porcupine forest reserve scheme, where five hundred farms were set aside, ranging from 160 to 240 acres in extent.

3S81
Immigration-Mr. Dunning
This land was eventually thrown open to civilians. But I would point out that this fact was not broadcast throughout Canada. We have a large number of young men in eastern Canada who would have been glad to grasp an opportunity of this kind. It shows the absolute necessity of having a survey, the results of which should be available to all the provinces. Undoubtedly many thousands of our young men in eastern Canada would be veTy glad to have an opportunity such as was afforded to these people from outside. How many of our young men in Ontario, for example, crowded out of the home farm, would be glad to take up 160 or 240 acres of land equipped with horses, barns, houses and so on and be given 25 or 30 years in which to pay the purchase price without interest for the first year. It is only necessary to state the proposition to show how easy it could be worked out.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one clause of the report with which I entirely agree. The reason I am seconding the amendment of my hon. friend from St. Lawrenoe-St. George (Mr. Caihan) is that he goes a little further along this lime and states his reasons more plainly than the reasons of the committee are set out in this report. I refer to the last clause:
Your committee would also recommend that the government make an intensive and comprehensive study of the possibilities of increasing industrial and agricultural development in Canada with a view to attracting capital and providing wider and increased opportunities for employment not only for our own people, but for prospective immigrants.
With this clause I have no fault to find except, as I said before, it does not go far enough to suit me. I believe we should build up our agricultural industry in every way possible. But in order to have a continuing prosperity and keep pace in population, we must also build up our industries. We must keep our young people in Canada by giving them opportunities, apd by all means those opportunities, financial and otherwise, which we afford to newcomers to this country.


Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I do not
desire to take much of the time of the house on this subject. I was not a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization, and having been busy with other committees during the session have not had the privilege of attending the sittings of this committee. I have, however, a peculiar interest in this matter because, as most members know, I was an immigrant to this country some twenty-five years ago, and any
observations I have to make are naturally coloured by my own experience. This country has treated me with wonderful kindness, and has given to me an opportunity greater, I believe, than I could have secured in any other country in the world-an opportunity, which, I believe, she offers to-day to any young man of the age I was-seventeen- who comes out from the old land. I believe the opportunities to-day for immigrants from the old land to Canada are just as great as, if not greater than they were twenty-five years ago when I came here as an immigrant. I wonder whether it is as hard for an immigrant to-day or an immigrant family as it was twenty-five years ago? I shall not offer any apologies for personal references, because the experience through which I passed, and through which members of my family passed, is an experience1 through which many other immigrants have passed and are passing to-day, successfully.
I came here a boy of seventeen and went out to the west to the end of steel at that time. I worked on a farm the first summer at $10 a month and was happy in so doing. I cannot express the great charm that the country had and still has for me; I cannot express the great charm that being entirely self-reliant had for me, of being removed from the congested conditions of the old land and translated into the freedom-freedom in the broadest sense-of the great west. The following year my father came; and by working together during that summer and the following winter at no high wages

wages never exceeding one dollar a day with board -we were able jointly to save enough money to bring to this country my mother and five sisters, all younger than myself. I do not cite this as an achievement because thousands have done the same thing; it was a question of the spirit behind, the recognition by those who were doing that sort of thing of the opportunities which this country afforded them and those of their families who would come after them. And it is being done today, Mr. Speaker, by the same kind of people as we in this house.
Conditions have changed very materially in this country and in the old land since that time. Our frontiers still exist; people are still going in as we went in twenty-five years ago; and there are to-day in many areas of the west, conditions almost exactly parallel with the conditions which I and others had to face at that time. There are differences of course; the radio and the telephone have made a very great difference and

Immigration-Mr. Dunning
so has the automobile. But men and women are still pioneering on the frontiers of this country with oxen just as we pioneered. And they are haippy in the process. I know of no finer spirit of neighourliness than existed then in those parts which we to-day call old settlements, then thirty miles or more from a railway, when nobody who lived there had any money to speak of but all were able to get along and were happy. There was a community life and spirit which it is not easy to find to-day in our larger centres and in our more wealthy communities. But not only in this country have conditions changed; they have changed in the old land. And it is because of that change in conditions in the old country that our problem with respect to immigration from Great Britain exists to-day, in my judgment, in very large measure. Twenty-five years ago, from the old land, British people emigrated to the United States, to Australia, to Canada and to New Zealand. The spirit of emigration was abroad in the old land; everyone was talking about the dominions. But in those days there was no old age pensions scheme in England; in those days there was no such thing as unemployment insurance. The degree of security which exists to-day for the old country man and woman did not exist twenty-five years ago; and the improvement in social conditions affecting particularly the poorer and lower middle classes

that element of security which has come about during the last twenty-five years-has undoubtedly tended to militate against a desire to emigrate and take a chance in a new land; -because, Mr. Speaker, it is quite a decision for a man to make, particularly a man with a family, to pull up stakes and move to a new land.
Now what do we find as a result of this change of conditions in the old land? We find that the British people, particularly since the war, have not been emigrating from that country to any other country in as large numbers as they did before the war. It came out, I believe, during the sittings of the committee that while Canada does not think she is getting sufficient British immigration she is nevertheless getting more British immigration at the present time, and has continuously through the years, than any other British dominion; and with the exception, I believe, of two years, she has received more British immigration during each of the last twenty-five years than has the United States, which is supposed to be the place to which everybody wants to go.


Mr. BENNETT:: Of course there is the
quota there.	,


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking of the last twenty-tfive years. I looked into the figures recently and, if my memory serves me, only in two of the last twenty-five years did more British immigration go to the United States than came to Canada. And as the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) reminds me, even the quota from Great Britain to the United States was not filled last year. I mention these things to show that the problem is one rather of the 'lack of desire on the part of the British people to emigrate as compared with their former willingness and readiness in that regard1 during the period in which I came to this country .
What I have said raises of course two questions which are -bound to present themselves in a country such as ours, needing population to fill up our spaces and develop our resources: Shall we provide great inducements? Shall we try, by offering material inducements, to get those people to come to this country who are now more contented at home than they formerly were? Shall we try by that means to get more of them? That is the first question. And the second of equal importance, is this: Having regard to the nature of our institutions, to the kind of country Canada is, its relationship to the British Empire, shall we limit our immigration from other countries to keep within any stated proportion the immigration which we are successful in getting from Britain? I propose for a moment to discuss each of these questions.
With regard to the first; shall we offer further material inducements in order to get British people to come to Canada? Perhaps my experience ill fits me to advocate schemes of governmental paternalism in immigration. I am quite frankly of the opinion that it is not good for a man to come to this country asking: What will the government of the country do for me? If he comes in that spirit he is very likely not to be a successful immigrant. I make no apology for that statement. I have made it in the old land-and the -people of the old land do appreciate frankness and straightforwardness; they are naturally an independent people. During my last visit to the old country I was struck with the hundreds of people who asked me that question: What will the government do for us if we go to Canada? My answer was always the same: We offer you the same opportunity in our land as we have ourselves. You go there if you wish to help us to make that country, Canada, what we all should like it to be. Help us to build up a country in which you, -prospective immigrant, will have a share, a share which will mean more to

Immigration-Mr. Dunning
you and to those of your family who come after you than their future could possibly be in the land they are leaving. That was my answer invariably, and that is the view I hold now. By that I do not mean that we should offer nothing, that we should not display an interest in securing immigration to this country; not for a moment. We should put the facts before them. And I believe that the facts regarding Canada are quite sufficient without any gilding. The facts of the experiences of thousands of immigrants to this country not only from Great Britain but from other countries as well, are sufficient in themselves to indicate to any man or woman with self-reliance and ambition that this country is still the land of opportunity for men and women who will work and who will cooperate with those among whom they settle.
With regard to the question of employment, simple machinery is necessary to ensure that we do not receive into the country a surplus over and above those for whom work can be provided during a given period. There always has been a problem in Canada in that regard, a problem common to all countries in the northern hemisphere lying as far north as we do. In the nature of things many of our occupations are seasonal in character, and that operates to discourage immigration from countries where employment is more continuous than can be the case in Canada in our present state of development, at least in a number of our industries. However, that condition is gradually improving year by year. The necessary machinery already exists; since the institution of the Dominion-provincial employment service, operated co-operatively by the Dominion and the various provinces, it has become possible for each province to communicate its employment situation to the Dominion government not only in the aggregate but with regard to particular industries and occupations. I believe that we can approximate reasonable certainty with respect to opportunities of employment by the intelligent use of the Dominion-provincial employment service, in co-operation with the federal Department of Immigration. For instance, it is possible for the province of Saskatchewan to say, "We require for seeding, and in fact we require for the whole farming season, from spring until fall, so many -men this year." I will admit that in the west there is always this problem: When the crop is harvested and the grain threshed less men are required than are needed during the rush season. That is one of the problems we have to face, but
it is gradually changing character, although it will be many years before in winter agriculture it will be possible to take care of the number of men who can be successfully used during the summer season. I think every member of this house from western Canada knows that it is possible for a man coming to this country in the spring to get a job on the farm at good wages during the summer if he is possessed of reasonably good physique, intelligence and adaptability, and he can earn enough during the summer so that he can afford to work for low wages during the winter. There are men in this house who, like myself, have been willing to work on the farm during the winter months for their board, when the farmers did not have enough work to justify the payment of wages. I do not advocate such a course; I would prefer farming during the winter to be on such a basis that the farmers could afford to pay fair winter wages, and in many areas that condition is gradually coming about. So I believe that through the use of existing machinery it is possible to adjust immigration to the employment opportunities from time to time in this country.
Now with regard to the second alternative or idea which has been more or less discussed, as to whether we should limit our immigration from countries other than Great Britain because of the fact that our immigration from Great Britain is limiting itself due to the causes which I have discussed, I think I can say that I possess nearly all the prejudices of the average Britisher with regard to other races. I suppose no matter what race we spring from we have an inherent prejudice to the effect that our race is somehow superior to any other, and we may as well admit that none of us possesses that prejudice more strongly than those who spring from British stock. While admitting that, however, I have behind me some twenty-five years of close association with all the various peoples making up the population of the province of Saskatchewan and of western Canada generally, and with regard to them I want to say that in the main these people who have come to western Canada from countries other than Great Britain have become good Canadians and to-day, through the medium of our educational institutions and our school systems, are being assimilated very rapidly into our Canadian citizenshp, especially in the second and third generations. People came to our settlement from lands other than mine and I frankly confess that when they came there, with the insularity of mind which characterizes the average Britisher, I did not much
Immigration-Mr. Dunning

like them. But as I have come to know these people, to know their qualities and the contribution which they are capable of making, a contribution to some extent different from that made by the British immigrant, I have come to appreciate the fact that the Canadian of the future cannot be an Englishman; he cannot be a Scotchman; he cannot be an Irishman; he cannot be a Welshman; he cannot be a German; he cannot be a Ruth-enian and he cannot be a Ukrainian, but out of those different peoples it is possible to evolve, as I think we are now evolving, a type of Canadianism in the middle west which is true to Canada, which has a deep and abiding affection for the soil upon which it lives and which also is acquiring a deep and abiding respect for the institutions of this country, which are British institutions. Through the medium of Canadian citizenship they can be bound together in the empire. I am sure from my experience that it would be a mistake on the part of Canada to say that because we cannot get all the British immigration we may desire we should therefore limit immigration from countries whose population is of a type which experience has shown can be readily assimilated into our Canadian citizenship and can become good Canadian citizens if given an opportunity to do so.
I have just one other thought, and then I am done. The world has become considerably smaller since I came to this country; I mean that means of communication have become so much improved that now a man thinks no more of crossing the Atlantic than he formerly thought of travelling from the south of England to the north of Scotland. The time consumed in travel is much less than was formerly the case, and I am wondering whether it would not be good business, having regard to the attitude of mind of people at present, to base our immigration propaganda in the old land upon the idea of encouraging people to come and look us over in Canada rather than to ask them to pull up stakes and make a final move. That idea is illustrated to some extent by what occurred a few years ago, when we were at our wits' end to secure harvesters to take off the western crop. That yea? the Canadian Pacific Railway made an arrangement to bring harvesters from the old land at a comparatively low rate, but with an especially low rate privilege for the return trip on the production of evidence to show that the individual .had actually worked for a certain period in harvesting the western crop. My memory is that some 12,000 Britishers, entirely unselected and some of them quite unsuitable, as a proportion of immigrants are

bound to be and particularly when recruited so quickly, came on that Canadian Pacific Railway harvesters' excursion. I was making inquiries the other day, and it will1 surprise this house to learn that only about 2,500 of these people ever availed themselves of the low rate return privilege. Through that one experiment we secured more British immigrants in that year than we obtained from all other sources combined. That is what gives me the idea that if we could base our immigration psychology upon the idea of asking the Britisher to come and look us over, making it easy for him to get back if he so desires, we might achieve a greater success. In the past our whole transportation arrangement has been to make it easy for him to get here but very hard and very expensive to get back. Many of us during those heart searching early years would have gone back if there was any way to get there other than by walking. We know what homesickness means, and there may be the fear in the minds of some that if we make it easy for the immigrant to return home he may run away from us. The best answer to that is the experience which every returning Britisher has in the old land, and which I have had on more than one occasion. Literally hundreds of people who have been to Canada and have gone back home discouraged, come to us when we revisit the old land and want to know if there is any way they could be helped by advice or otherwise to get back to Canada again. We can rely upon the lure of this country, and the lure of the opportunities here to the immigrant, if he has once had the chance to get into his veins this virus, or whatever it is, which so binds people to this country and makes them want to come back to it once they have visioned its opportunities and associated with its people. I believe the idea is at least worth the experiment; instead of making it easy to get here and hard to get back, let us base our propaganda upon the theory of inviting the Britisher to come here and look us over. The world is a much smaller place to the Briton to-day than it was before the war; he does not look to-day on the crossing of the Atlantic as such a tremendous thing as he did before. It may well be that if we attempted to work along these lines we would reap a resultant benefit to our country.
These are just a few stray thoughts from one who has passed through the experience.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	I desire to make only a few remarks
on the general subject of immigration, but before doing so I would like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). My own opinion

Immigration-Miss Macphail
is that we stress the qualities of the British immigrant too much, particularly the English immigrant. I want my hon. friend to understand there is no personal inference in this.


Charles Avery Dunning: I trust I did not make
that mistake.


Miss MACPHAIL:: There is .nothing as fine
as a fine Englishman, but I think they have a high average of duds. The attitude of many English immigrants when they come to this country is that of an Englishman from home looking over a colony. I resent this attitude. Once we admit people to this country we should call them Canadians; I am not going to classify them as English Canadians, Scotch Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians or any other kind of Canadian-they are Canadians, and that is all there is to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend
did not gather any impression from my remarks that I was doing that. The whole tenor of my remarks was in accord with what my hon. friend is now saying.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think the English
superiority of the Minister of Railways has been expressed perhaps unconsciously. We have not allowed people from other countries to make their contributions which would make Canada, not a little England or a little Great Britain, but Canada. We have imposed our thoughts and our culture on the newcomer and have stopped him from making the contribution he desires to make, and which he is capable of making. We put upon him a veneer of, I would like to say Canadianism, but it is scarcely that; but we are so anxious to convert him into a British subject that we prevent him from making the contribution to Canada which he otherwise would make.
For quite a number of years now we have made the error of cheapening Canada. We have been going out pleading and coaxing people to come to Canada, and by it we have cheapened our very excellent country. There is no better country in the whole wide world. When we make such an effort to induce people to come here and when we have such extreme difficulty in keeping them here once they do come, we do not send abroad the impression, which everyone of us has, that Canada is a fine country. We defeat our own ends by the very eagerness with which we go out fishing for people in other parts of the world. There are in this house men who have come as immigrants, from Great Britain and other parts of the world and who have made the very best of Canadian citizens, but they are not men who came here under assisted passages or were caught with a hook and line and special bait; they are the people who had the
initiative and the courage to come from their own country to this one. They have made a fine contribution to the welfare of Canada.
Personally I am in favour of just stopping state aided immigration. We do not need to grow so rapidly; great numbers is not a test of greatness. The overcrowded countries of Europe would be very glad to have our open spaces. We want to build Canada with a view to the future, and we should see that we are doing what is best for Canada and best for the people who come here, and which will show the best results in one or two hundred years. There is no real need all at once to fill up this country with people. If we treasure our own country, hold it high in our own estimation, and stop coaxing people to come here, strange as it may seem, we will get more people. In the country we hear it said that the farmer who wants the strawstack eaten builds a fence around it.
Our railroads want immigrants, but their object in wanting them is a purely selfish one. Most of us have selfish motives, but it is well for us, in talking immigration, to realize that the railways want more people in order that they may bring more business to them. The people who have land to sell want immigrants, because they want somebody on whom they can unload the land. It does not matter to them whether he sinks or swims-I suppose it does, really-but their first consideration is to get rid of the land and get the first payment, and then they are in a better position to get the other fellow when he comes along. The manufacturers want immigrants in order that they may have cheap labour. They want to be able to go out into the labour market and have less difficulty in getting people to work for them. The more industrial workers we bring into Canada the less chance there is of our workers getting a job, and the standards of living will be lowered. The business men want immigrants in order that they may sell their goods to the people who come in.
The agriculturists do not want agricultural immigrants, because if we bring immigrants into Canada in large numbc rs we will produce more stuff than we can {et rid of profitably. We would then be producing still more, and the standard of living would be lowered on the farm, and it is low enough now. Most of the farmers we bring to Canada are not class conscious, and farmers who are not class conscious are not good for this or any other country. We do not want farmers with a lower standard of living. We do not want farmers who are bowing and scraping to the manufacturers, to the banks, to the railways, and to the fellows who wear white collars and

Immigration-Miss Macphail
have soft hands. We want a farmer who is proud of his own industry and who will not let his brother farmer down. We do not want to lower the standard of living on farms; we want to raise it. That is the business of organized agriculture in Canada and I, as one of their representatives in the house, certainly am not in favour of dumping a whole lot of agriculturists into Canada who have no sense of the seriousness that comes from lowering the standard of living.
Some people say that we need more immigrants in order that we may produce more goods of all kinds. We have in Canada machinery and people enough to produce twice the quantity of goods we are now producing and we would produce them if we could get rid of them profitably. So on that score we do not need any more immigrants than we have at the present time. There is a disposition on the part of this government and of governments to bring agriculturists and domestic workers to Canada who, I suppose they think, are the two lowest on the social ladder. There is no inducement for domestic workers to come to Canada; there is no social standing in this country for a domestic worker. They have no unions; they have no way of protecting themselves. We should consider the interests of the immigrant as well as that of the person who wants to get labour conveniently and cheaply. I do not see any legitimate reason for saying to domestic workers in the old country that they will do better here than there. It is quite likely they are as hard to get there as here.
I am glad indeed we are doing something to stop child immigration. Children coming to Canada have been exploited. There has been an effort to bring them to this country in order that there might be cheap labour and cheap labour which could not make a protest on its own behalf. Had I been on the committee I should not have been in favour of bringing in more people between fourteen and nineteen years of age, because that is the age at which they can be most easily exploited, although it is better than bringing them in under that age. I took the trouble this year to read many reports on child immigration and the facts therein recorded would convince anybody who read them that children brought to Canada as immigrants have in the past been exploited. This is a system that should be stopped. They were not carefully examined as to their mental and physical fitness and our penitentiaries, jails, asylums and hospitals have far too 
high a percentage of people who came in here as child immigrants.
The time has come now when we should look on immigration sensibly, when we should take the view of the masses of the people on it and not the view of those who are spending a great, deal of money to endeavour to persuade the government to bring immigrants here for their selfish purposes. The people of Canada are not in favour of spending millions in bringing immigrants who cannot be settled in this country in a way that is comfortable to them or to Canada. We have in the winter time too much experience of unemployment, bread-lines, soup kitchens and other troubles in caring for these people to want to continue paying large sums of money to bring them here in increasing numbers.


Frank S. Cahill: I first want to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) on his very excellent Canadian speech. I want also to congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on her excellent speech. When she suggested that the Minister of Railways showed his English attitude, he was only demonstrating the difference between the Canadian and the Englishman in the assurance of the Englishman in matters pertaining to immigration, the settlement of Canada, and business and conditions generally throughout the world. Probably the Canadian has something of an inferiority complex that we might well get rid of by listening to such men as the Minister of Railways and Canals.
I agree with much of what the hon. member for Southeast Grey has said with regard to the class of immigrants we desire in Canada. Personally I think we should throw the door open to the white races who are healthy and not of a criminal disposition of character, people who are mentally sound. I deprecate the Canadian attitude of making distinctions between settlers in this country. When you classify the British settler as first-class or the most desirable settler, you naturally put every other prospective immigrant in the category of a second-rater. That is a wrong idea. Any man, regardless of where he comes from, who is admitted to Canada should be admitted as a good Canadian, standing on an equal footing with any man in Canada. I want to point out, just as an instance of this classification of immigration how we are liable to land in difficulties. The first preference is to the British immigrant, those of the British Isles; that is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That

Immigration-Mr. Cahill
is emphasized in the report. The next class is Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium and France. People from those countries are permitted to enter Canada without any restraint as to occupation or conditions. Then we have the third class composed of central and southern European countries: Austria, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, Lithuania, Esthonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Jugo-slavia and Czechoslovakia. They are permitted to enter as third-raters. But I want to call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that the committee in dealing with immigration overlooked entirely the state of southern Ireland; the Irish Free State is not includued in any portion of the list. People from the Irish Free State are either a first preference or they are excluded. I am quite satisfied that this is merely an oversight.


Mr. BRADY:: Did the hon. member
examine into the cause why the Irish Free State is not included?


Frank S. Cahill: Will the hon. member tell
us what the cause is?


James Charles Brady: There is a cause and it is
the same as exists in New Zealand. The Irish Free State is not included in the immigration policy of New Zealand. It is the understanding that the Irish Free State did not consent to the regulations laid down. I presume the same thing is true in this case.


Frank S. Cahill: I am sorry I cannot listen
longer to the explanation of my hon. friend. The people of Great Britain are a preferred class and are stated to be so because they are given assistance through the empire colonization scheme. Southern Ireland is left out of it because it is not a part of Great Britain. That is quite true, but Germany is not in the scheme. Germany is mentioned in the report as being an eligible country from which immigration may be received. So are the other states of northern Europe; so are the states of southern Europe included in the report as eligible under certain conditions. I am quite satisfied that the overlooking of southern Ireland was without any intention whatever on the part of the committee. I do not charge the committee with any wrong intent in that regard, but I merely point that out as evidence of where you are likely to land by specifying first, second, third and fourth class immigration to Canada. Every man who comes to this country ought to be admitted on an equal basis.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Southern Ireland is included as one of the dominions.


Frank S. Cahill: There is no mention of the dominions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are mentioned at the outset.


Frank S. Cahill: Where?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The very first clause on
page 4.


Mr. MANION:: The first clause reads:
From the United Kingdom or from any of the British dominions.


Frank S. Cahill: I am not quite as subservient in my mentality as my hon. friend from Port Arthur.


Robert James Manion: I do not happen to come
from Port Arthur.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, from Fort William.
A free state is not a dominion nor a colony. They regard themselves as a nation.


Robert James Manion: It is a British dominion.


Frank S. Cahill: They regard themselves as a nation just as the Canadian people regard themselves as a nation, except a small fraction of the Tory party who are still inclined to call themselves a dominion or a colony. That is one phase of the report of the committee on immigration. I agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey that we should at once stop any assistance to persons outside of the Dominion of Canada. It is bad legislation for the parliament of Canada to vote money to assist the citizens of any other country in preference to our own people. We are granting to people outside of our borders preferences that we do not grant to the Canadian people and legislation which favours outsiders as against Canadians is bad legislation. The system of assisted immigration should be stopped at once. As a matter of fact, I opposed the assisted immigration scheme some years ago, and I am glad to find from the report that I was absolutely right, and that the scheme has proved detrimental to immigration to Canada rather than beneficial. It was poor policy then, and it is poor policy now.
We have the problem of emigration, as well as that of immigration, and I think it is the duty of the government of Canada to ascertain the causes of our emigration. It is far more important that we should solve the emigration problem than that we should solve the immigration problem, because if we solve the emigration problem, the immigration
Immigration-Mr. Cahill


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) rose I was about to open my remarks with a view to cooling the blood of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) by informing him that there was a very good reason why the Irish Free State is not mentioned in the report; that is, the Irish Free State does not want to be. The hon. gentleman seemed to be worrying lest the Irish Free State was in some way overlooked; but we have had proof right here in the last three or four minutes that it is impossible to overlook any part of the world where there is more than one Irishman.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or where there is even one.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there was not the slightest thought in the mind of any member of the committee to overlook the Irish Free State.
Now, the hon. member for Southeast Gray (Miss Macphail) said we were too much inclined to impose our own thoughts and ideas upon the alien. I suppose that is a form of class consciousness which we all possess more or less. When the hon. member was speaking I could not help reflecting on her agony of mind if any restriction should be placed on the imposition of her ideas upon the members of this house or the people outside. She said we were too much disposed to stress the fine qualities of the English.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not think I said that.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, I do
not wish to misquote my hon. friend, That is what I took down, and I thought I had it right. At all events, I think I am correct in this: she was rather afraid there was a disposition in Canada to favour British immigration, to dwell somewhat too much on the qualities of <he English as English, and I think she used the word " fine." In that regard, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if you look back over the history of the past centuries something can be said for the English after all.

3890	COMMONS
Immigration-Mr. Edwards (Fro-ntenac)


An hon. MEMBER:: And you can say it.


John Wesley Edwards: Something can be said for them. It is characteristic of the English not to let the world disregard then-fine qualities. That is something which the hon. member for Southeast Gray should particularly appreciate. I know that in the past England has made many mistakes, but her record is written throughout the world, and she has done more than any other nation on the face of the globe to raise the standard of civilization to a higher level. Yes, there is something to be said for the English after all.
Now, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) stressed two points. First of all he asked: shall we try to get more British immigrants by offering material inducements? He rather deprecated this method. Well, the policy of the government has been along that line all the time that he has been a member of it, but this is the first occasion on which he has expressed himself as opposed to the policy. However, I am inclined to say to the hon. gentleman that the' government might offer inducements to get British or other people into this country, not so much by way of land, and so on, but by presenting for their consideration such a sane governmental policy as will assure them work in Canada. He referred to our having adopted what amounts to the quota system with respect to immigrants from the continent of Europe, and he rather opposed the idea. But it seems to me we have to ask ourselves this question: after all, is it worth while in our day and generation seriously to contemplate the maintenance of British ideals and institutions in this Dominion? If we answer that question in the affirmative, then it does seem to me that we must give consideration to the number of immigrants from those foreign countries that we can reasonably be expected to assimilate. I think everyone will agree that it will be easier for Canada to assimilate those classes of immigrants which we have been favouring rather than those from the non-preferred countries of Europe which we have been trying to a certain extent to exclude. After all, we must regard this as a fact, the movement of peoples from one country to another- migration is the word which will cover it-has in all ages had a tremendous influence in shaping the destinies of nations and their standards of civilization. That has been true of past movements, and it will be true for all time to come.
But it does seem to me we have made a mistake, perhaps not intentionally, in our past policy of immigration and colonization in

bringing in agricultural workers-those going on the land-assuming that there was no limit to our ability to absorb those who said they were willing to settle on the land. I submit this as a principle which we in this house should keep in mind in regard to immigration-we should aim to bring in immigrants of such a class and type that Canada's population would be fairly well balanced in terms of occupation and production. That should be our general aim. It has not been in the past. We have offered special inducements to those who signalized their willingness to settle on the land. What have been our principal sources of supply? The British Isles; continental Europe, divided into two classes, preferred and non-preferred countries; and the United States of America. The policy of the government has been to limit those coming from the non-preferred countries exclusively to people going on the land, agricultural workers. That has been our policy. The agreement with the railways, which we recommend should not be renewed in its present terms when the existing contract has expired, has been that they should bring out from the nonpreferred countries only those who were going on the land. How has that worked? We have brought to Canada in that way thousands and tens of thousands, every one of whom has signified his willingness or intention to go on the land. Have these people done so? I quote from page 735 of the evidence a short conversation between the minister and one or two members of the committee:
Hon. Mr. Forke:	The complaint we have is
that the newcomers are going onto the farms, but as soon as they have been here a year they do not go back to the farms, but into other employment.
Mr. Edwards:	They get into the country
under the plea of going on the farms, and then leave the land the next year?
Hon. Mr. Forke:	We may as well face it;
that is the idea.
Mr. Arthurs:	Does that apply generally to
these non-preferred countries?
Hon. Mr. Forke:	Oh, yes.
There is the situation. We have been bringing in thousands and tens of thousands of people from the non-preferred countries of Europe every one of whom got into the country on the understanding that he was to go on the land and remain there. But after being on the land a few months or a year these men leave and drift into the cities and towns; and they are the main factor in the unemployment situation in our cities and centres of population. That is what we are confronted with; it is one condition which in my judgment we ought to make every possible effort to put an end to. No one in this house will

Immigration-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
cast any reflections upon the ability of people coming from the non-preferred countries or from any country of Europe to become good citizens of Canada. No one wishes to suggest anything of that sort. We have too many evidences to the contrary in this country. But I repeat, notwithstanding that fact, that everyone will agree that there is more difficulty in assimilating these people than there is in assimilating people of British stock; and it seems to me we must have regard to that circumstance in certain parts of the country if we wish to maintain in their integrity British ideals and institutions.
There are in the report a great many points to which I should like to refer, but I will not take up my full time discussing them. With the report in general I am glad to agree. There is one clause of it with which I cannot agree and I so expressed myself in the committee. I think this was the only clause in the report to which I objected. I refer to the clause on page 8 under the head of Railway Rates for Canadian Landseekers. It reads:
The committee also recommends that measures be taken to ascertain whether the railways will restore the home seekers' rates in effect prior to the -war, making such rates effective east bound as well as west bound.
I object to that paragraph and I object also to a somewhat similar clause, though more extended, in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), namely, that we should provide facilities for settlement in the more recently organized provinces of Canada of settlers from other provinces who are intent upon leaving the east and going west in search of improved conditions and better opportunities. I object to this clause being incorporated in the report. Our committee was appointed as a committee on immigration and this is not an immigration matter; it is a matter which does not touch immigrants at all. It is a matter referring entirely to business within the country. It is an internal matter which has nothing to do with immigration. I object therefore to our considering it or expressing an opinion upon it. We might just as well have incorporated in our report a recommendation in regard to pensions or something of that kind, as to incorporate this. Moreover I object to the principle involved; I object to the government undertaking to make arrangements to move settlers from one province to another. The idea started in moving from east to west; but logically, if you assist in moving people from the eastern provinces to the west, how
56103-246*
can you refuse assistance to those in the west who desire to come east if they have changed their minds, believing that there are better opportunities for them in eastern Canada: Where will this sort of thing end? Transferring people from one province to another is not a function of the Immigration department, and I object strongly to the principle not only as indicated in the report but as stated in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. There are a good many things in the amendment with which I agree. I believe it is absolutely and fundamentally sound in pointing to this fact, that the key of the whole situation, so far as successful immigration is concerned, is in providing profitable employment for people whom we bring to the country. I believe 'that if this government will adopt a policy which will not drive farmers off the farms, which will not drive dairymen out of their business, which will not discourage-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, this is politics; you cannot get away from the political side of it. I repeat what I have said: The key of the whole situation so far as successful immigration is concerned is to impress upon people in other lands that if they come here to farm they have a reasonable chance of success; that if they come to Canada to go into any other business they have a reasonable chance of succeeding in that business. And I have a right to ask consideration of this question: What encouragement is there to a man in another country to come to the Dominion of Canada and to go into the dairy business under present conditions, under the policy of the present government? What encouragement is there to a man in some other country to come here and go into the fruit and vegetable industry? What encouragement is there to people abroad to come to Canada and go into the sheep raising industry under the policy followed by this government? I say the policy of this government has not only closed factories in this country and deprived the people here of an opportunity of earning their living in Canada, but it has had the effect of reducing the reasonable profits of farmers and driving people out of business generally. How in the name of Heaven will you induce intelligent men in the old country to come to Canada under such conditions? Do you think you can stop their ears, their eyes and their understanding? If you invite them to come to the country to settle on the land the first question they will ask you is this, "Why don't your own boys stay on the land?" If you
3892	COMMONS
Immigration-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
are honest you will have to tell them that the reason is that, due to the mistaken fiscal policy pursued by this government, there is no encouragement for the boys to stay on the land. That is the absolute answer. There you have the key to the situation. You have to provide a diversity of employment; you have to give an opportunity for people in various walks of life to earn a livelihood. How unfair it is, when you analyse it, for anyone to get up and say, "You must not bring industrial workers into the country because we have already all that we need of that class of workers, and if you bring in more you will lower the standard of living and lower wages. That would be unfair." And we are foolish enough, those who represent farming constituencies, to allow that to go unchallenged. Suppose you applied that reasoning to agriculture. There is an industry which every year produces far more than the requirements of the people of the country. We are looking throughout the world to find markets for our surplus farm products. Now, if that reasoning is good with regard to industrial workers, that you must not bring in any more, why not apply it to agriculture and say we are producing all the farm produce that we need, and we do not want more farmers? _ It seems to me that the argument would logically have to apply to the one as to the other. \ou must not bring bricklayers because we have enough bricklayers, says the bricklayers' union; you must not bring in any of this class or that class because we have a sufficient number to produce what these classes are producing. Bring in farmers, however, and every time you bring in five farmers you will provide employment for 1.73 people in industrial establishments. I think the whole thing is absolutely wrong and absolutely inconsistent. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that you must aim to bring in such classes of immigrants as we require in this country until you have a population fairly evenly balanced as between production and occupation. As far as I have been able to see there has been no attempt at all along that line.
The question of the feeling in the old country that British people were not wanted in Canada has been discussed in the house this afternoon. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether that feeling exists and as to whether there is any justification for it; many members would say it has no justification. I want to say just as emphatically that I believe there is ample justification for the belief which exists in the minds of many people in the British Isles that Canada does not want British immigrants. As a matter of fact the present government started

out wrong as soon as they took office in connection with this matter of immigration; they had! at that time as Deputy Minister of Immigration Doctor Black, president of Manitoba Agriculture college, secretary of the economic and development committee and a man of outstanding ability, recognized from one end of the country to the other as having studied this whole problem of immigration for years. His value will be realized when it is remembered that after the government dispensed with his services the Canadian National Railways placed him at the head of their immigration activities, which was a tribute to his worth. When the government took office they studiously ignored Doctor Black for a time until they forced him out- and appointed in his place the present deputy minister, Mr. W. J. Egan. Without making any reference to Mr. Egan's present abilities, because I think he has learned from experience and I am sure he would be the first to say so, I point to the fact that in my judgment the government did an unwise thing in dispensing with the services of a man who was so well grounded in this work and who had made a study of it during most of his life, and in putting in his place a man who, no matter what his natural capabilities might have been, was without previous experience. That is what the government did; that was their first mistake, and with all due deference I say they made a further mistake when they appointed the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization. He had had no vast experience in dealing with immigration matters; his previous experience had been gained on the floor of this house down in the southeast comer, where he was one of the chief critics of the other parties in the house; whether they went under the label of Grit or Tory, nothing was satisfactory to him. He was appointed to that position. I venture to say he has learned a lot since that time, but he had no special qualifications for the work, and the result was that as far as immigration was concerned it was regulated by orders in council instead of parliamentary enactments. One thing was tried for a while; then another was tried, and when they both failed something else was tried.
. Mr. JACOBS: Would the hon. gentleman pardon me a question? Has not the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization equal experience to that possessed by the hon. gentleman himself when he was appointed to that position in 1921?


John Wesley Edwards: My answer is most emphatically in the affirmative, but for the consideration of my genial friend I

Immigration-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
would add that when I was appointed to that position I had as deputy minister and assistant deputy minister men who had grown up with the department and who were qualified to guide me as they would be qualified to guide the present minister or any other minister who assumed the office.


Mr. JACOBS:: The same officials are still there with the exception of Doctor Black, who was appointed when my hon. friend was appointed. Then it was a case of the blind leading the blind.


John Wesley Edwards: Doctor Black had been studying the immigration question for years, and so had Mr. Blair.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was he not taken from the position of chief organizer for the Conservative party and pitchforked into that position?


John Wesley Edwards: He might have been one of the organizers of the Conservative party, and in that way he would get a good* deal of experience. At any rate, Doctor Black made a study of immigration matters for several years; he was a man highly qualified for the position because of his former associations, and next to him we had in Mr. Blair a man who was splendidly qualified and who had been in the department for many years. In my humble judgment, and I say it candidly and without wishing to reflect upon the present deputy minister, when the services of Doctor Black were dispensed with the logical man to assume the duties of deputy minister was Mr. Blair, who had been appointed by the Liberal party.
Now I would like to say just a word or two with further regard to this matter of discrimination. In my judgment the Salvation Army has been very directly discriminated against and very unjustly used. The Salvation Army started in their immigration work some twenty-three or twenty-four years ago; they have brought to this country over 100,000 immigrants, and they are able to say that less than one per cent of the immigrants they brought here have turned out failures. I would call that a good record, and I think everyone must agree with that. The Salvation Army established a big training farm in England and seven or eight other farms and centres in Canada; they have gone to great expense to carry on this work, but the government have seen fit to shut down on that work because they were obtaining from the boys they brought to this country a sum of money for the purpose of enabling the army to carry on their work and bring out other boys. The government made the mistake of
denouncing that principle; they said it was wrong, but that the government were wrong in their attitudte is shown by the fact that they have now endorsed exactly the same principle, although for a smaller amount. They have approved of that being done to the extent of $25, but they declared the principle wrong when they shut down on the work carried on by the Salvation Army.
There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer for a moment. In his evidence before the committee Dr. Amyot, Deputy Minister of Health, stated most emphatically that the Minister of Immigration had no right to override the decision of the medical officers in regard to allowing people to come into this country. Notwithstanding that fact, however, in looking over the proceedings of the committee-and this is where the discrimination comes in-at page 486 I find a girl described as follows:
Domestic work 3 months. Can cook, wash and do housework. Canadian government say: "She has been employed in mill past four years, therefore not eligible for the reduced passage fare."
I could name eight or ten cases of girls who are described as first class cooks and good housekeepers and who have had experience in that line of work for some years but who, just before they thought of coming to this country, were not engaged in domestic service. The Immigration department denied them the right to come out under this passage, and in every one of these cases the government merely said, "You can bring this girl out all right if you pay the money necessary for her regular passage." That strikes me as being rather harsh treatment and drawing the line pretty tight, if we want that class of immigrant in this country, and I think we are all agreed we do. I contrast that with the action of the minister in granting permits to remain in this country to persons who were deaf, blind or nearly blind, feebleminded; persons who were turned down by their own doctors as being unfit physically and mentally. I contrast the harsh attitude of the department in regard to this class of workers being brought out by the Salvation Army, and whose services are needed in this country, with the laxity of the Minister of Immigration in granting permits to those who were defective physically and mentally. The minister himself must bear a share of the responsibility for the claim made by the heads of some of our institutions in this country that a number of the inmates had been brought in, not only from the British Isles but from continental Europe,
3894	COMMONS
Immigration-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
and we have had to pay the bills for their maintenance. It is only fair to state that the greater percentage of these cases come from continental Europe, but there are some from the British Isles who are now in our mental institutions, our jails or asylums. I say that the minister himself must take a part of the blame in allowing such people to come into the country after his own medical officers had said they were physically and mentally unfit to be citizens of Canada.


Mr. FORKE:: I really do not know what
the hon. member refers to when he says I gave permits to come in permanently to anyone who had been turned down by the medical officers. I suppose I have given permits for six months or a year, but as I recollect there have been no permits issued to allow them to remain permanently. I have looked over these permits and I think there is an explanation for every one of them. The hon. member for Frontenac can see the explanations if he wishes to look at them.


John Wesley Edwards: I have the same explanations that the minister has- the ones he tabled-and that is what I am quoting from. I assume that if he had had any further explanations he would have put them on the report. I did not say that the minister had given permits to allow these people to stay in Canada permanently; I did not use the word "permanent" at all. If the minister's judgment was defective in giving permits to people to stay in this country who had been declared by his medical officers to be both physically and mentally unfit to be citizens of Canada; if he did that for six months, I have not enough confidence in his judgment to be assured that he would not give them for another six months or a year.
We have cases without number. There is Mr. G, twenty-five years old, who was given a permit by the minister to stay here, although there was a certificate given at the port of entry that he was feebleminded and illiterate. Here is another one; Mrs. H, who had been under treatment in the old country for a mental breakdown. If this woman has become an inmate of one of our insane asylums-and who can wonder at it-he is responsible for it. I contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with what I consider the rather harsh and arbitrary attitude of the department in regard to these persons, certified to as being first class physically and mentally, but who were not granted the privileges of reduced passage given to domestic servants coming to this country.


Robert Forke: I do not want to interrupt, and I think so far the hon. member has been very fair. But he has quoted the case of Mary Holt, who had been admitted into Canada after having been in an insane asylum. To be fair, would you state the facts of that case?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
know just what page of the report it is on, but I have made a brief note about it. Mrs. Mary Holt had been under treatment in Scotland for a mental breakdown. Her husband seemed to be able to receive her and guarantee that she would not become a public charge.


Robert Forke: Will you allow me to read it?


John Wesley Edwards: The hon.
minister can read it when he speaks on this matter, and I do not care how many he reads. I do not believe he can find justification for his conduct in any one of the 145 oases. The Deputy Minister of Health declared that the hon. minister had no business to nullify the certificates of 'his medical officers and grant permits to come into this country, even for six months, to people who had been declared by the medical officers to be physically and mentally unfit to be citizens of Canada. That is what the hon. minister has to justify, and he will have to find more than appears in this report to justify his attitude in that regard.
I would again oontrast the attitude of the minister's department in discouraging these first class citizens from coming to this country with that taken in regard to others. What justification on earth can the minister have for allowing a man to come here who was arrested in this country, while under the permit of the minister, on a charge of breaking in and stealing, and sentenced for six months? He was reported by the officials as being dull mentally and suffering from several diseases, probably inherited, but the minister gives the permit to stay in the country, and he breaks in and steals. The minister has to bear the blame for that. Again I contrast the minister's liberality in these cases with the attitude of the department in other cases. They have given every discouragement to these very worthy people, and I can prove that statement to the hilt.
The minister can take up as many of these oases as he likes when he speaks on this question. The trouble arose, so far as the minister was concerned, in his not being able to cope with the situation in his department. He was led from pillar to post to do this and

Immigration-Mr. Jacobs
do that instead of managing the department.
I believe he will do better as he acquires more experience, like everybody else.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the key to the whole problem of immigration is to be able to show the intending immigrant that if he comes to Canada to go on the land he has a reasonable opportunity for success. We have to adopt a policy in this country which will stop our own boys from leaving the farms of Canada and going to the other side of the line. That means a complete change in policy. You can figure and theorize as much as you like about getting immigrants into this country, but what will tell in the long run and be the best advertising is the coming into Canada of men from the British Isles and from Europe who go on the land and write back home telling of how successful they have been in the different lines of endeavour. Such a man writes back home and says, " I have dome well at farming; I have done well in the poultry business; I have done well raising vegetables; I went into this and that and have dome well, and I would advise you to come here." No honest man can go to the people in the British Isles or on the continent and make the statement that there is a fair prospect of success in Canada under the policy that has been followed by this government. The whole tendency has been to discourage men from continuing in these lines of business. We have proof of that all over Canada, and you cannot get people to come in here and go on the land in the face of these facts.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything in this debate and I would not have done so had it not been for the fact that I was a member of the committee that brought in this report. Inasmuch as I am not in agreement with some of the main features of it, I feel that it- is only doing a duty to myself to give some explanation as to my attitude on the questions submitted in this document. For the last ten or twelve years I have delivered in this chamber my annual immigration address. So far I have convinced no person but myself and it strikes me that ought to be a gentle hint to leave the work to more capable hands. Still, I belong to a somewhat persistent race' and I feel that perhaps as parliaments change, the seed may fall on fertile soil and I may be able to make at least one convert in the course of time.
The document which has been produced in the bouse to-day is noted rather for what it does not contain than for what it does. It was drawn up by a committee, the basis of
which consisted of members of the committee on agriculture, and consequently it has an agricultural tinge or flavour to it. One would imagine after reading the report that the whole of Canada consisted of agriculturists and none other. Might I point out that more than fifty per cent of the people of this country are not engaged in agricultural pursuits at all, and it seems to me that some mention ought to be made in the report with regard to those other people? The report is divided, as to the people who are to be permitted to come into this country, into three classes. This was already the rule. The committee are stating merely what already existed. There are three classes of people: first, the Children of light, the sons of the morning, the British race; second, those who are somewhat analogous to the British race, but not quite so. We might call them first cousins of the British race-the Germans. I can remember only a few years ago when to mention in this house the name of Germany in a sympathetic or Christian spirit-and I was the only one who did so-was to bring down on you the vials of the wrath of the ultra-patriots. The very mention of the name was anathema. We have moved since then and now the Germans are in the preferred class. Then we have the Norwegians, Swedes, Dames, Finns, Swiss, Dutch, Belgians and French. I can understand why France is included in the list, because French is an official language in this country. Thirty per cent of the people of Canada are French-speaking and it is the most natural thing in the world that the French are included in this class. But I ask myself; If the French did not occupy the position which they do to-day in this country, would France have been included in the list or not? I think the answer is self-evident.
There is another class, the lower or third class, the third stratum. They consist, not of cousins of the British but cousins of the German race. For instance, we have the Austrians. I do not know who drew up these classes, A, B and C, but I rather fancy that it was prepared in Washington where most of our rules of immigration come from. We have the Austrians in this third class, and I should like to ask those who are responsible for the preparation of this list, in what respect do the Austrians differ from the Germans? I do not know of any difference at all. There are no representatives of the Austrians in the bouse. Probably if there bad been their interests would have been looked after. Then we have in this third class, Hungary, Poland, Roumanda, Lithuania,
Immigration-Mr. Jacobs

Esthonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Jugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Russia, a country of 150,000,000 of people, is ignored altogether. They are evidently of such a class that it is not worth while even mentioning them. They are not on the list at all. Do you not think, sir, that among t'he 150,000,000 people in that great European country there might be some who would make good citizens of Canada? I would fancy so. There must be people there who are not satisfied with conditions as they exist in their country to-day, riven as it is by revolution and so on. Nevertheless they are not even mentioned in .the list. Are bon. members aware that 75 per cent of the people of Europe are debarred from coming to Canada by this class 3 list? Take for instance the countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark in the preferred list. Why, the city of London and suburbs is larger in point of population than the whole of those countries combined. I say that not thirty per cent of the people of Europe are in the second class. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mir. Dunning) told us that the people of England do not- want to come to Canada because they are pretty well taken care of in their own country. They have the dole, the old age pension, unemployment insurance, and so on. How are we going to fill up our country with the proper people if the British race are so well taken care of that they do not want to come here? I would fancy that you would get them in places from which it is desirable for them to emigrate. People never emigrate from a country where they are satisfied. That has never been heard of, They go from countries where they are dissatisfied. The countries where the people are dissatisfied at the present moment are those which have gone through revolution and are just now in a topsy-turvy condition. I do not say that they are all dissatisfied, but there must be in those countries tens of thousands, yes, millions of people who would be very glad to come to Canada if they could find an opportunity to do so. But their names are not even mentioned in the lists. Yet we endeavour to proclaim to the world that Canada is open for immigration.


Robert Forke: In regard to Russia there has been the difficulty that they would not recognize their own passports. If a Russian left Russia he could not return. Consequently there has been some' difficulty in making any arrangements with the Russian government. I think they are coming to their senses now and are beginning to recognize their own passports.


Samuel William Jacobs: But are we coming to our senses?


Robert Forke: I think we are there now.


Samuel William Jacobs: To let them in? That is the thing. This is merely a temporary matter with the Russian government.


Robert Forke: We want to deal with governments that will recognize their own laws and regulations and that will deal properly with other nations.


Samuel William Jacobs: When those people leave
Russia, that country will not be able to see them for dust. They will not want to go back. My hion. friend is referring to the point that if they do not turn out well, they cannot be1 sent back. We have taken those chances in the past and I would be prepared to take some chances now.
The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) told us a few moments ago that we want the agricultural class in this country and nobody else, that it is useless for people to knock at our doors and seek entrance if they do not intend to go on the land. That was stated so pontifically by the hon. member that you would imagine it really was a fact, but if be had read the report, which I trust he has, he would see that people coming from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Roumania, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium and France, are admitted freely to this country, no matter what their occupations may be. One hundred thousand painters can come in here from Germany, and you cannot say them nay, but if one painter from Austria, from Vienna, were to try to get in, it would necessitate my going with my hat in my hand to see the hon. minister and begging for favour for this Austrian. Is that right? Is that just? Why should there be a distinction made between these two peoples? They are the same class of people, identically the same; they profess the same religion; they belong to the Nordic race. In every respect they are first class, and yet this ridiculous distinction is being made. Then we have the cases of people from Poland, Germany, and so on, who are not permitted to come in. A few years ago Poland belonged to Russia, and Finland belonged to Russia, but to-day the Finns can come in, and the Poles not. What distinction is there between a Pole and a Finn? I challenge the minister to tell me how by looking at a Finn and a Pole he can tell which is which.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The Pole may have fins.


Samuel William Jacobs: In that case the Pole might get in, but it would be his finish.

Immigration-Mr. Jacobs
That is the objection I take to this report, that you are making distinctions between peoples where no distinction should be made. I am not talking of Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese and people of that kind. They are not to be mentioned in the same breath with the British people; they are not to be brought into this country; they have no culture at all which thely can contribute to the development of this country; they are Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese, and although they may have had a history, their future is all in the past so far as Canada is concerned. They can do nothing for the upbuilding of this country; they belong to the Latin race, and all Latin races are rigidly excluded with the exception of the French, and a large portion of the French belong to the Norman race and can therefore be looked upon, by a stretch of the imagination, as Nordics. Is it not strange that in this country where we have nine millions of people, and could contain one hundred millions, we should make these distinctions between races as to whether they are Nordics or Latins. I say we are making a serious mistake in making these distinctions, and that this country is not in* a position just now to do anything of this kind.
My hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington, I understand, belongs to the medical profession. He knows that when he prescribes medicine for a patient he gives him two grains of this, three grains of that and four grains of the other, with plenty of water in it, and then it has to be shaken up well, and taken until relief is afforded. That is what we ought to do in this country in connection with immigration. We can take two per cent of this class, two per cent of that, and two per cent of the other, and they will all go to make up a people that we shall have very good reason to be proud of. After all, what is the British race but a conglomerate mixture? We all know that that is the case, and that there is no such thing as the pure British stock today, except perhaps in the fastnesses of Scotland, in the hills of Wales, or in the wilds of Ireland. It is only there that you find the ancient British race. All the others are a mixture of the Saxons, the Danes, the Normans, and people of that kind who* in turn invaded and captured the country. That is what has made the British people great; it is a mixture of all these races. Here we are in this country a population of hundreds of millions of Christmas trees and eight or nine million people, and we hope to make a great race by exclusion. It is an impossibility. The greatness of a nation is reckoned by the people who live in that country-not by its lakes and rivers and mountains, but by the people
themselves. Here we have a country which is losing to the United States hundreds of thousands of people every year. As was pointed out some time ago, within the last five years, 591,000 of our people have gone to the United States. Naturally they go there, because a magnet draws them. They have a quota law in the United States, and everybody from Europe except a paltry two per cent is excluded, although they used to take in from one and a half to two million Europeans annually. But they have been shut out, and where is the United States going to get people to (take their place? The United States is draining Canada dry of its people, and we *are sitting by and presuming to lay down by silly rules what classes of people shall be brought into this country to take1 their place.
I say that it is a serious mistake to select people on the basis of the country from which they come. A man is a human being, although he may be born in a stable. A Russian may be a very good man, and so may a Pole and a Ruthenian, even though bom in Russia, and a man may be a very bad and wicked man although born within sound of Bow Bells. You should select people for what they are worth in themselves. Look them over, and see if they can fit into the life of this country; to select them by countries, the method that has been followed in Canada for the last fifteen or twenty years, is a serious mistake. In the days of Sir Clifford Sifton we used to get from four to five hundred thousand immigrants a year *and they peopled this country. Whajt would this country have been without that vast body of immigration that caime to this country prior bo the last fifteen years? Things have changed. Our friends the farmers presume to sit in judgment upon the people who do not want to go upon the farms at all. I can understand that they want to have people go on the farms, but when it comes to selecting people for city life it seems to me that the people of the cities ought to have something to say about it. In this report practically nothing at all is said about immigrants except those who are to go on the farms, although fifty per cent of the people in this country are not on farms at all. You are providing that an artisan or anyone else may come in provided he comes from these particular countries that are mentioned in paragraph 6, but my objection to that is that if we are going to allow Germans, Swiss, Danes and Finns to come in-regardless, mark you, of the occupations
Immigration-Mr. Jacobs

which they are going to follow when they come here-why should we not extend the same privilege to Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, and so on? I am not here to make an eulogy upon the history of these races or to tell what the Hungarians, Poles and Austrians have contributed to the civilization of the world. Mind you, we are not asking to bring people in here who belong to a different colour; we are not asking that people be allowed in here who belong to a different religion; we are not asking that people be brought in if they differ in any respect from the people who happened to be born in Berlin or Hamburg. But I say that it is an outrage and a crime that we should have to come to the Department of Immigration every time we want to get a man admitted to this country from, say, Vienna, when a man who comes from Berlin or Hamburg is welcomed with open arms. The thing is an absurdity.
The report is void of common sense. Sixty men representing the wisdom of parliament held thirty-six meetings, and they have produced a mouse. I would be prepared to accept the amendment of my hon. friend from St. Laiwrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), but I think it is already incorporated in the last paragraph of the report which reads as follows:
Your committee would also recommend that the government make an intensive and comprehensive study of the possibilities of increasing industrial and agricultural development in Canada with a view to attracting capital and providing wider and increased opportunities for employment not only for our own people, but for the prospective immigrants.
That is the only constructive suggestion in the entire report. We spent our time in discussing whether we should widen the list of boy immigrants from fourteen to nineteen years of age, whether we should pay $11 per British immigrant, or $9.73, and matters of that kind. We have trifled with our time. We have not contributed anything to the most important question now before the country, and I think everyone of us who was on that committee ought to admit that the result of all our work is simply nil.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Immigration-Mr. Woodsworth
spring by transportation and other interests working in cooperation with federal government agencies in Europe:
And whereas no adequate provisions have been made by these parties for the supervision and settlement of these newcomers upon the land in accordance with the published intention of the government:
And whereas, because of this, many immigrants have been located in urban centres with nc prospect of sufficient employment to enable them to provide reserves for the coming winter and moreover thus aggravating the unemployment problem in such centres:
Therefore be it resolved that we place these facts before the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Labour, and the members for the several constituencies of this province with the request that immediate steps be taken:

(a)	For the placing of the financial responsibility for the care of such immigrants now and next winter upon the transportation companies and others directly responsible for the situation.
(b)	For the prevention of its recurrence in future years by the proper regulation and settlement of only such immigrants as the country can absorb.
(c)	The immediate planning of government works for the coming winter to give employment to our own citizens who are suffering from the dearth of employment and low wages caused by the recent influx of immigrants.
We all recognize that there is room for a certain number of immigrants in this country; but the point is that they are brought in without sufficient regard to the opportunities that are open at the particular time and with almost entire disregard of the seasonal nature of so much of the work in Canada. I had occasion a few weeks ago in the early spring to call the attention of the Minister of Immigration to the conditions which prevailed in my own city of Winnipeg. He rather made light of the situation. He said that he had heard from his officials there that these men would not take work. But the fact that we had discussed the matter on the floor of the house and the further fact that the men had held a parade in Winnipeg was sufficient to set machinery going so that, according to the Tribune of May 2, the officials of the employment service a few days afterwards stated that the week before work was found for 620 men, 234 going to farms, 229 to railway construction camps, 61 to highway costruction gangs, 14 to logging camps and the remainder to casual employment. I cite this example merely to illustrate this point:	A few days
before this the Minister of Immigration had told us that these men would not go to work on the land, and yet when the opportunity was offered them 234 went to work on the farms, the others later on finding employment in other spheres of activity.
The fact, is that we have seasonal unemployment in this country. Every year we have

to reckon with that situation, and it will be more or less permanent until such time as we make special efforts to provide for winter work. I think it is only fair to Canadians already here that the government itself should very seriously consider the advisability of bringing in immigrants in the springtime before there is work, substituting these immigrants for people already in employment here, and then later turning them loose in the autumn to forage for themselves, as best they can with the result that they finally land up in our cities, a charge' upon our urban authorities. I know we have discussed this question again and again, but the problem remains. It is only within the last few months that the government of my own province has issued a report on seasonal unemployment in Manitoba, It is only a few years ago since we had a conference of all the provincial authorities dealing with this question of seasonal unemployment, but we are content, it seems, to make reports and then allow the situation to drift along until something almost desperate happens.
With regard to British immigrants I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there is less disposition on the part of residents of Great Britain to leave their own land to risk the uncertainties of these newer countries. I noticed the other day a speech made before the manufacturers' association in session in the east. It corroborated the testimony which was given this year before the committee on industrial and international relations to the effect that, by reason of the provisions now existing in Great Britain for unemployment, for sickness, invalidity and old age a great many of the best workers in that country are unwilling to leave and come to a land where there are fewer provisions of this kind:. If we are to get the best class of English immigrants it seems that the surest way is to raise our social standards until they are somewhat comparable to those which now exist in England as well as in a number of countries in northern Europe.
The Minister of Railways made mention of the harvesters who came to this country and he rather rejoiced that so few of them had returned to the old land. Those who sat in the house several years ago may remember that a large contingent of those harvesters came to Ottawa, out of work, without food, and begging that something should be done in their case. And the most that could be done was to get a special car and bundle them back to Toronto. I am not so sure that that experiment ini bringing harvesters to this country was an unqualified success. I am not

Immigration-Mr. Woodsworth
so sure that the reason a good many more of them did not return to the old country was not simply that they had not the money with which to pay their passage. It may be all very well to get one harvest gathered by such a method, but I submit that a policy of this kind is not one on which we ought to depend to settle this country with the most desirable people.
With regard to foreign immigrants, I am not one of those who would advocate a wide open policy for immigrants from Europe; not because I have any prejudice against southeastern Europeans. I have a great many friends among them. I admire a great deal what they have accomplished in the old land. I have seen enough of their achievements in Canada to respect then}. But I say that we ourselves in Canada are not yet fitted to undertake the problems which the incoming of these immigrants introduces. We urge that we should get immigrants and then we are afraid to assume the responsibility which is entailed by their coming.
I should like to give a few figures by way of illustration from a report which I prepared some years ago for the governments of the three prairie provinces after making an intensive survey of over 1,000 Ukrainian homes in those provinces. I want to give some idea of the social and educational conditions which prevailed at that time in many of these communities and which still prevail to a lesser or greater degree. I noted that on the whole the immigrants remained isolated from their English-speaking neighbours, not so much because they wanted to remain isolated as because the English-speaking neighbours shunned the localities in which these immigrants were located. I also noted that the children were being gradually assimilated through the schools but in the process of assimilation they were losing much that should be retained. I do not think we can emphasize too strongly the necessity of urging these non-English-speaking immigrants to conserve the best things which they bring with them; too often we ask them to leave the old culture behind and forget that in so doing we are asking them to leave behind very much that is most worth while in the whole history of their nationality and in their own characters.
Again. I noted that the educational and social development is not proportionate to the material advancement. I could give you cases in which the Canadian-born children of these foreigners are not so well educated and not so well fitted to engage in the activities of citizenship as were the immigrants
themselves when they first arrived in this country. Let me speak particularly of the educational problem which we must face in a good many of our western communities, and in so doing I would like to give a few statistics. In the districts visited, which were fairly typical of those settlements all the way from Winnipeg to Edmonton, 68 per cent of the men did not speak English, 86 per cent did not read English and 48 per cent did not read or write at all. Of the 1,823 parents in the families studied 80 per cent did not speak English; of the other adults and children over fourteen years of age 53 per cent did not write or read English and 50 per cent did not read or write at all. Of the 1,253 children of school age 34 per cent did not attend school, 54 per cent did not read. or write English and 61 per cent did not read or write at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to make this
clear would my hon. friend tell us in what year that study was made?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This study was
made in 1917, eleven years ago.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Might I ask a question? Did I understand the hon. member to say that 30 per cent of the children did not attend school?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, 34 per cent.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: How about compulsory education at that time?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Compulsory education was not being enforced. I may say that these statistics were very carefully taken at that time; I had the name, the age and the residence of each child. In this connection iel me give a little illustration of the official attitude. I mentioned this condition of affairs to the then Minister of Education in one of the provinces-a province which rather boasted of the high standard of its educational attainments. He said, "Oh, well, that cannot be; we have compulsory education in this province." I said, "Well, I have the facts, and your province averages just about the same as the other two prairie provinces." Then that official said, "Oh, well, it would never do to let that become public; it would create a bad impression." I do not think any statement could better convey the attitude which we find all too often with regard to these matters. These facts must not be told the public for fear of creating a bad impression, yet at that time, although it was said that most of the children were attending schoo/

Immigration-Mr. Woodsworth
and there has been no subsequent census anything like so carefully taken of the districts visited in northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 34 per cent of the children of these non-English-speaking communities were not given an opportunity to attend public school.


Mr. SANDERSON:: May I ask a question? These statistics are for the year 1917; would the hon. member say they apply to-day?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said they applied more or less to-day, but I am inclined to think that conditions have gradually improved. However, I would say that had I made that statement eleven years ago the officials would have said it was not correct, if there had not been the most absolute evidence to the contrary. I am not speaking of conditions just as they prevail to-day but I am speaking of problems with which we are still faced. These statistics are confessedly a little out of date, but they are the latest I have and they do give us some idea of this great problem.
Let me make it clear that I am not blaming the educational authorities of the three prairie provinces; they have done magnificent work in trying to meet this great additional problem which they have had to face. I do not think eastern members of parliament ever realized the problem which the immigrant has meant to the west. You have your English-speaking girls and boys whio do not need to learn to speak English; they may have to learn how to speak it more correctly, but they learn the language at home. In the west we have tens of thousands of children who have not that opportunity. More than that, we have had a good many people come to Canada in their young manhood and young womanhood who have had to pick up the language as be'st they could. In my own city of Winnipeg I suppose we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on adult education simply because we felt it desirable that these people who come to us should acquire the English language as soon as possible.
That is the problem we have had in the west. I state the facts not to lay blame but to call attention to a situation. We have done the best we could, in building school houses away out in the northern districts, sometimes far from the railways, where it is almost impossible to attend school. In other ways we have done much, but I should like to emphasize the fact that this great task has been imposed upon us because of the immigration policy of this country. If we are going to import these immigrants we should

be prepared to see the job through and assume the responsibility created by their coming. Let me give one or two other points which I noted at that time, and again let me say that the conditions are somewhat improved by now, although in the northern districts I could find a good many similar communities to-day.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask another
question? The hon. member is going to quote figures which were obtained in 1917, and I would draw attention to the fact that that was during the war period, when conditions in this country were abnormal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Conditions in some places were rather abnormal, but conditions in the rural communities about which I am speaking are very much the same to-day as they were then. I will say frankly that they are somewhat improved, but I could go to large areas in my own province, up between the lakes, and find conditions almost precisely the same as they were at that time.


Robert Forke: I would ask my hon. friend to read a letter appearing in the issue of the Manitoba Free Press which arrived here this morning, written by Mr. Dutton of Dauphin, Manitoba- This gentleman is very prominent in the province of Manitoba, and he deals with the foreigners in the northern part of that province. I would ask the hon. member to read that letter and know something of the conditions of those people, as told by a man who is living among them at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have spent much time among the foreigners and given as much attention to this question for the last twenty years as any man in the province of Manitoba.


Robert Forke: That man is living right among them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I too have lived among them. These statistics were secured for the governments of the three prairie provinces, and I want to bring before this house some of the problems that face us. Of the 937 families, 10 per cent lived in one room and 58 per cent in two rooms. I want to contrast that with some of the extravagant statements made in the Cardiff paper. Fifty-six per cent had no books, and 95 per cent no English books. Fifty per cent of the families did not take any newspaper, and 96 per cent did not take an English newspaper. In only about a dozen cases-all but three in Manitoba-was a doctor or a trained midwife

Immigration-M r. Woodsworth
present at the last birth. Sanitary arrangements were very primitive, and about two-thirds of the women, usually the younger women, worked in the fields. Practically all the children worked on the farm as soon as they were old enough. There was little provision or opportunity for recreation.


Mr. McMJLLAN:: Does that apply to conditions eleven years ago or to the present time?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have already
stated that these statistics were collected in a survey made of the Ukrainian rural communities in the three prairie provinces eleven years ago. I said that I had no doubt, from my observations in crossing the country, that conditions have been improved in the last eleven years, but I would also say that there are many communities in the northern part of these provinces in which conditions to-day are very similar to those which prevailed at that time.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I think the hon. member will agree with me that there are many Canadian homes where conditions are just as bad.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so.


Malcolm McLean: Why emphasize one particular class of foreigner?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not trying to blame the foreigners. I have many friends among the foreigners and they know me, and they understand that. I am simply taking a select group which present more of a problem than the Canadians who have been here longer. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken would like to get the economic side in favour of the foreigners, I will give it. It shows the wonderful progress made by these foreigners. Of the 832 families from whom information on this point was secured, 50 per cent started with no capital at all and 42 per cent with less than $500. Out of the whole number of families, 40 per cent had no debts at all, 40 per cent had less than $1,000 of debt, and 7 per cent over $5,000 each. In the great majority of cases they had secured a quarter, half or whole section, and in many cases the farms were in very good condition. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that these people are not good settlers; I should not like to give that idea to the house. They are among our very best settlers; they are people who have been accustomed to working on the land, and they are doing an excellent work. I do not want to suggest that they are in poorer condition than a great many Canadians in the outlying districts. Some of these Canadians are living under conditions similar to this. But the educational and social life of these foreigners present greater problems than the educational and social life of the Canadian people. The immigrants are not necessarily illiterate because they do not understand English. A great many coming here from northern Europe are well educated, some of them more highly educated than our own people, even although they do not speak English. 'Nevertheless, the ipresence of large groups of non-English speaking people in Canada presents a peculiar difficulty to us. A great many of those who came out at the time of the great immigration some twenty years ago, under the Sifton policy, were from southeastern Europe where at that time school education was not very common, and so a good many of them were illiterate when they came here. There is the other side of the picture. In our schools in Winnipeg to-day there is not a group that takes a higher standing than the children of these immigrants from southeastern Europe, and there are none that take higher standing in the university than those who come to us from various European countries.
Let me come back to the point I was trying to emphasize. There is no use in bringing in all these immigrants from the various countries of the world and then refusing to give special consideration to them or declining to accept the obligations put upon us. We will have to adopt- some policy of helping these people if we are to get the best from them. I should like to suggest a 'few recommendations which I have not the time to develop fully. The immigrants should be protected against exploitation, because they are particularly liable to this through their lack of knowledge of the English language. There should be provisions made for closer settlement than we have given them in the past. In some instance there should have been financial assistance and expert advice given, especially the latter, because many of tire immigrants have had to learn at great cost to themselves what they might have been told had there been am arrangement, such as we now have under the Soldier Settlement Board. There should have been a stricter enforcement of our school attendance, and curricula should be adapted to meet the needs of these newcomers. There should be special opportunities provided to enable the young people and adults to learn English. There should be instruction given in sanitation, and in farming methods, especially in dairying. This is being accomplished to a

Immigration-Mr. Woodsworth
greater degree to-day than it was at that time. There should be encouragement in the native handicrafts, some of which are wonderfully beautiful and would be a great asset if they could be developed. There should be a better mutual understanding, between Canadians and the immigrants. I wish I had the time to develop this point. We have brought these people in and to a certain extent they have remained foreigner's. We have maintained an isolated position. Unless this situation is altered we are laying up trodble for ourselves in the years to come.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been trying to emphasize that if we are to benefit by the labour of the immigrant, we must not refuse to accept the responsibility which his coming creates. If British trade unionists, accustomed to the right of organizing, accustomed to social insurance, desire to have similar conditions in this country, we must not call them agitators. If we bring in people of other languages, we must not wonder that they want to have the language rights of the minorities of Europe. If we bring in people of alien habits and customs, we must not expect them to live like puritan Englishmen. The tirades which we make against the foreigners, calling them bolsheviks, merely reveal our own ignorance. The immigrant brings with him his own mental, moral, social, religious and political backgrounds. His backgrounds are not those of either English Ontario or French Quebec. It is for us older Canadians to find common ground with the newcomer. Only in this way can we prevent what might become something of a Balkanization of this country. Only in this way can we build up a greater Canada which will be not an English Canada or a French Canada but a larger and more inclusive Canada in the building of which all these various people will contribute.


Thomas McMillan: I rise to dispel among other things two impressions which I consider are wrong impressions to go abroad from this house during this debate on immigration. The first is that we do not need immigrants and we should not encourage them. The second is that there are no opportunities for immigrants and that the government by its action has bludgeoned parts of our agricultural interests to such a

degree that they are not able to take advantage of the opportunities which I believe Canada possesses. As regards the first, this is a land of opportunity and we should encourage the right kind of immigrants. I do not believe we should humble ourselves in order to get them, but we should cause the people of other lands to realize that Canada is a land of opportunity and that as long as they are of the right calibre, we would like to have them. There are in this world two classes of people. The one bends to circumstances; the other compels circumstances to bend to themselves. The one is always beset with difficulties; the other clears those difficulties away. In the end the one becomes a living embodiment of what the qualities of energy, industry and perseverance shall surely accomplish, while the other exhibits the miserable wreck following indolence, indecision and want of purpose. It is the first class of immigrants that we wish to have in this country, and consistently with reason we cannot have too many of them.
The impression that we do not need immigrants and that we cannot make provision for them is, from my experience, contrary to the fact. From my experience, not only in my province of Ontario but after an extended trip last year over the western provinces, I believe, if we can get immigrants of the proper stamp, the men who, when they come to this country and realize, as is the truth, that we have great opportunities, will turn those opportunities to their own advantage, there is ample provision for them in Canada. We are looking for them on the farms throughout the whole of my province of Ontario.
The next is that we are not using the agriculturists of this country aright; that we are bludgeoning more particularly the dairy interests, and that under the present regime they have not a chance to operate. What do hon. gentlemen opposite want. That has already revealed itself very clearly. It revealed itself in the efforts which have been made across the floor to get us to pass other orders in council whereby we may repeat the action taken when the previous government came into existence for such a short time. We know the very day they were sworn in, the 13th day of July, 1926, at one crack, for instance, the duty on tomatoes was jumped up from 30 per cent to 76i per cent at the very time when the consumers of Canada, and more particularly of central Canada, wished to secure their supplies of fruits and vegetables. What is that if it is not protec-

Immigration-Mr. McMillan
tion with a vengeance? In other words, they do not care what tariff there is on goods c*r whether there is any ait all when people do not want to buy the goods or at seasons when their friends have not the goods to sell. The whole thing is indefensible! What does it mean? It means that they may go to certain sectional interests in certain small areas of the country and say: We wish to get your support and in order to get it we will start and tinker with the tariff so that when your strawberries are ripe, as we were told from, across the floor the other day, which is the very time when the people throughout Canada want to buy them, we will put on a high duty and compel them to buy from you. Of course this will cause the great mass of the people to pay more for their berries. That is what it will mean. In this way they can, by this dumping duty process, jack up the tariff and thus put these sections in the position that they can extort high prices for their berries and spread that high price over the table of every consumer in Canada. They will be able to spread an additional plaster over the table of every family in Canada in the case of all their fruits and vegetables. As a result of that kind of thing, our friends across the way under this vicious policy the evil of which [DOT]they discovered and put into operation when they assumed power-this shadow government, which never had any good reason for its existence, and which tried to keep itself in power by- '


Mr. HEAPS:: I rise to a point of order.
I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what the question of strawberries has to do with the report of the committee on immigration.


Thomas McMillan: When I rose I said that I wished to dispel two impressions which had been placed before the house, one of which was that this government was bludgeoning the dairying industry of this country. I propose to show that they are not bludgeoning the dairy industry, and that the dairying interests are the greatest interests in Canada to-day, so far as live stock is concerned.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman will have to connect up his remarks with the question now before the house, or he will be out of order.


Thomas McMillan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will proceed to do so. They are now trying to work up a vicious spirit among the dairymen and butter makers of Canada, and are using the Australian treaty as a means of doing so.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Will he tell us what he is reading from?


Thomas McMillan: I am reading from my own statement, which has been done pretty nearly every time any hon. gentleman across the floor from me has addressed the house this session. I am not quoting from anyone.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, after we have burdened all the people for the benefit of a few, we will now put the dairy farmer in a position, by means of this high tariff on butter, to enable him to charge every consumer in Canada a higher price for the butter they require for domestic use.


Mr. SHORT:: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Are you going to allow this gentleman to proceed to discuss the dairying interests of this country when the subject before the house is the report of the immigration committee, and he is reading his speech too?


Thomas McMillan: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member of the house if it is not a fact that when the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) was speaking this afternoon, he made the distinct charge that the government of this country was bludgeoning the greatest section of the agricultural industry of Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I never used the word bludgeoning.


Thomas McMillan: And he went on to say that therefore any immigration policy was no use. He said that that was the crux of the immigration situation in this country. I propose in a few words to show that the dairying interests in this country have been in a better position during the last few years than for many years previously.
What are the facts? I have before me the trade returns showing the exports of butter from Canada and the imports into Canada from all countries of the world for the last number of years, together with the prices in Montreal, New York and London, The facts are that up until very recently, under normal conditions. Great Britain has been the world's best market for butter, and consequently the greatest distributing and price-regulating market of the world. But what happened? In the fall of 1925 there was a seamen's strike in Australia, which stopped all shipping from Australia and New Zealand, the shipping of butter and every other commodity. As a consequence, there arose a scarcity of butter in the British market. In October, 1925, New Zealand butter in London was selling at 50.78



Immigratioitr-Mr. McMillan
cents per pound; Australian butter in London, 47.74 cents, and Canadian butter in London, 46.87 cents. You will notice that Australian and New Zealand butter was higher than Canadian. Canada then shipped so much of our domestic product to Great Britain as to
leave none for the supply of our own people; even our cold storage stock for winter use was not provided. As a result, up went the price of butter in Canada in 1926. Following are the prices of butter in Montreal, New York and London previous to March, 1926:
Date	Montreal	New York	New Zealand butter at London	Australian butter at London	Australian butter at Montrealc.	c.	c. c.	c. c.	c. c.1924	37	49	Feb.	1925	30	40-8	34-29 to 35-15	32-12 to 32-98	30-40 to 31-261925	48	50-84	50-78	47-74	46-02 ....Mar.	4fi-5	42-78	36-46 to 37-32	35-15 to 36-02	
It will be observed from the above quotations that in March, 1926, butter in Montreal was 10 cents per pound higher than New Zealand or Australian butter was in London, and four cents per pound higher than it was even in New York. As a matter of record, the
following are the prices of butter, in cents per pound, during 1927 to May, 1928, showing that during all the year 1927 the price of our butter in Montreal was higher than the price of Australian and New Zealand butter in London:
1927	New Zealand at London	Australian at London	Australian- Montreal parity	Montreal No. 1 pasteurizedJan. 1	36-02-37-76	36-02-37-32	34-30-35-60	40-25-41-5037-32-37-76	36-02-36-89	34-30-35-17	41-0034-72-35-59	33-85-34-72	32-13-33-00	40-75-41-50April 2	32-98-33-42	32-55-33-42	30-83-31-70	46-00-48-00May 7	32-98-33-42	32-55-34-29	30-83-32-57	36-00-36-50June 4	36-46-36-89	35-59-36-46	33-67-34-74	34-50July 2	34-29-35-15	34-29-35-15	32-57-33-43	34-00-34-25Aug. 6	35-59-36-46	35-15-36-02	33-43-34-30	34-50Sept. 3	37-76-38-63	36-89-37-76	35-17-36-04	37-75-38-5038-63-39-93	38-19-39-06	36-47-37-34	38-50-38-75Nov. 5	36-02-37-32	36-46-37-32	34-74-35-60	37-50-37-75Dec. 3	36-02-37-32	36-02-36-89	34-30-35-17	37-501928	Jan. 7	32-72-35-59	33-85-34-72	31-85-32-72	35-50-37-0034-72-35-59	33-85-34-72	32-72	35-25Mar. 3	36-89-38-19	35-15-36-46	33-15-34-46	37-50-38-25April 7	36-02-38-19	34-72-35-59	32-73-33-59	39-50May 5	35-15-36-02	32-55-33-86	30-83-32-13	35-00-37-5033-25-33-5033-50
No sales of Canadian butter at London during this period.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I must again rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman was allowed to proceed before, Mr. Speaker, but you stated that he would have to show some connection between his remarks and the subject now before the house, which is the report of the immigration committee. I have been waiting for the connection, but I cannot see it.


Thomas McMillan: I am showing it.


John Frederick Johnston: The point
raised by the hon. gentleman is well taken. The hon. member should confine his remarks to the motion now before the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Immigration.


Thomas McMillan: Immigration-Mr. McMillan
The Canadian National Dairy Council claims that it is not seeking higher duties on butter but asking only that the government restore previously existing higher rates, but the fact is as I must remind the house again, that during this time butter was a higher price in Canada, than in Britain.
In the literature sent out by the dairy council there is much which should be explained. Among the members of their organization are prominent makers of butter. They are creamery owners. One of the most active in the 'association is J. A. Calder, head of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries and also, as I have said, the president of the Canadian dairy council. In the statement sent is the following:
The market trends show definitely that the effect of importation (importation of New Zealand butter) has lowered the price of butter fat paid to producers without compensation to the consumer.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. It is true that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addiegtcm (Mr. Edwards) in the course of his address stated incidentally that the dairy policy of the government was detrimental to immigration. But even so, the hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to the question of immigration. Not the butter policy of the government, but its immigration policy is the subject before the house.


Thomas McMillan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I am willing at once to bow to your decision, in this way, that the future of the agriculture of Canada is at stake, and if this discussion on the immigration problem is broadcast all over the country, with the idea-pot contradicted-that the government has been bludgeoning the agricultural interests of Canada to such a degree that there is no need for immigration, I say it is the very worst thing that can happen to this Dominion. I say so, sir, because of the fact that I have been in this business all my life, I know what dairying is, and I know that if there is one section of the farming industry of Canada which should be given every encouragement and a fair chance and justice not only before the eyes of the Canadian people, but of the whole world, it is the dairy industry of Canada.
Now, sir, let me read from this report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Immigration?


Thomas McMillan: Immigration-Mr. McMillan
the danger of reducing the price of butter did not come largely from the speculators who were holding butter in cold storage and who were very much afraid they were going to be stung. Do not the conclusions of Senator Blaine of Wisconsin apply with even greater force to the condition of the Canadian butter trade during the past few months, and is it not a fortunate thing that we have a government in power in Canada of such a calibre that- it will not be stampeded by the hollow protestations of the Canadian National Dairy Council? Are not the facts sufficiently forcible to cause the government to consider seriously whether the grant should not be Withdrawn from any association which would act in such a manner? This reveals the same story in the butter trade as was disclosed in the fruit and vegetable situation when Mr. Burrows, the secretary of the horticultural society, was making his 'boast openly that he would make protectionists out of the farmers of Canada.
The whole agitation along these lines is such a sham and deception that it is high time the farmers in every section of Canada Were apprised of the fact. So long as the present government continue to follow a real, 'live, vigorous and progressive program as it has done in the past, this young country cannot afford to drop back under Conservative rule.


Michael Luchkovich: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to speak of
butter but to deal with immigration. However, I greatly admired the indifference of the last speaker (Mr. McMillan) to all the joviality which interrupted his remarks. Just a few moments ago one of my friends asked how long I was going to speak, and I told him I would speak as long as the subject under discussion needed to be spoken to. I know there probably have been speeches which have taken up too much time, but I think hon. members will agree that I have never taken up the time of this house unnecessarily, and [DOT] I do not want to do so to-night. The other day in a book one of the hon. members on this side of the house lent me, entitled Disraeli, and which I have just handed back to him, I read of a little episode which happened in the British House of Commons. When Gladstone was a young man he asked his then leader whether in his speech he should be short and concise, but his leader told him to be long and diffuse. I will try to be as concise as possible, even though my speech may be a little longer than is necessary.
I was very much surprised when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) told this

house that he was an immigrant; I did not know that, and at the time I wondered if he came to Canada under any such scheme as the present proposed plan of decreased rates. I am sure if he had he would not have become the great man he is to-day; he never would have reached the eminent position he now occupies. Much has been said on the subject of immigration; many people would like to see this country populated over night; others would like to see immigration brought about gradually, and still others refute an immigration policy altogether from an economic standpoint. But no matter how we may view immigration the question is always before us pressing for a solution. Superfici-alfy we might come to the conclusion that Canada needs more people; we might say that Canada is such a vast country with such great resources that our population is absurdly out of proportion to our real and potential possibilities as a great nation.
Some people wonder why we should pay such a heavy toll for the upkeep of our roads, our schools, our transportation systems and other facilities which are necessary in this modern world. Every time I take the trip from Ottawa to Winnipeg or vice versa I am very much impressed by that uninhabited region through which I pass, and which adds to the burden we must carry to-day with regard to freight rates, and indirectly the up-keep of our great transcontinental railways, because of the few people who live in that region. In my opinion northern Ontario never will offer any inducement to immigration until something is found in that locality in the way of mineral deposits; until we find these minerals that region always will offer a serious obstacle to our economic development. Incidentally, I wonder whether something of this sort was not in the fertile mind of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) when he spoke of Canada being a geographical absurdity.
Of course it is in western Canada that the problem of immigration is now concentrated, because there we have some of the finest land in the world still unoccupied. Therefore the successful colonization of this land must engage the attention of the government if we are to derive any benefits from an immigration policy. Undoubtedly to-day the western farmers bear great financial burdens because of the sparse settlement of some parts of our country, and I have noticed that some members of this house have stated that these burdens could be greatly lessened if more of our land were occupied. They also say
Immigration-Mr. Luchkovich

that a greater settlement of the land would benefit not only the farmers but also the manufacturers; they claim that manufactures are not possible without a population, and that if we have no people in our country there will be no market for the products of our factories. They argue that manufacturers cannot exist unless there are markets, and since the consumption of goods must be local, the different localities must become populated. In other words we must have more people engaged in farming, fishing, stock raising and gardening.
So far as I have listened to the debate there seems to be no serious objection to immigration as such, but rather to the class of people we are bringing into Canada, the methods we are employing in order to induce them to come, and the inducements we offer to obtain the right type. As regards the proper class of immigrants that we should bring to Canada, I think the government, after thirty years of immigration, should know by this time the types which are most desirable for Canada. They should know the types that have become amenable to our laws and our constitution.
So far as the immigrants who have made new homes for themselves in Alberta are concerned, I can say most emphatically and without any fear of contradiction that they have become excellent home builders-not merely house builders but home builders. They have become home builders whose bodies and spirits are in Canada. There are some immigrants who come to Canada whose bodies are here but whose spirits are somewhere in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island or any of the other great industrial states of the American union. I have spoken of the word "home". I wonder if hon. members realize the full meaning of that word? On whether or not we realize the significance of the word home depends to a great measure the future welfare and well being of our country. If our immigrants have this home loving instinct I do not think	we	need	fear	forthe future of the country.	If	they	lack	it,I am positive in the belief that degeneration is inevitable. I contend that when a man comes to Canada with the main intention of building a home he has therein the fundamental qualities of good citizenship. If we are to have a policy of immigration, let us give the immigrant a chance to build for himself a home, and we can take it for granted that he will obey	our	laws	and	beamenable to our constitution.	I think	of
home as having a personal quality; it is
humanly and profoundly fundamental; it is made up of composite personalities, the people of one family who live in the same house and whose devotion to each other results in that elusive but much sought for thing we call happiness. When the German, Scandinavian or central European lands on our shores he first thinks of liberty, then a home, and then happiness. It is the same thing the loyalists had in their minds when they left the United States after the year 1776. When they come here do they become disillusioned? In some cases, yes, but in most cases, no. The immigrants who come here, especially from the northern parts of Europe, and even from the central parts of Europe, are too thrifty, too sturdy, too persevering and too determined to reclaim for themselves a home in Canada to be easily disillusioned.
As far as I have been able to observe, the type we have brought in here has been of the class which is poorest so far as material possessions are concerned. They lived very simply over in the old country; their food was the simplest and poorest, yet they throve very well on it. They had no home conveniences such as we have in Canada; their dwellings were the rudest, and yet they dearly loved them. Their family life was much deeper than is usually the case on the American continent, and their whole lives were circumscribed by their immediate surroundings. They lived in these little rude huts I have mentioned and their whole world was the land on which they lived. You may ask, Mr. Speaker, why it is the central European yearns so ardently for the shores of Canada. I think I have the answer; it is land hunger. It is that fervent desire to build for himself a home; it is that history making impulse that causes people to leave their homeland and seek foreign shores. It is the eternal march of humanity, the eternal search for happiness in ownership of the soil -in other words, a desire for a genuine home.
My feelings, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this subject are intense. If, therefore, any hon. member were to ask me what type I would want brought to Canada, I would immediately answer, the home loving type. It is home that makes character, and it is character that determines destiny, and it is home making that is. the mainspring of all civilization and human progress. All these elements are component elements; they are intermingled very closely and all spring from the one parent root-home. You might say, "Ah, but was it not the restless, cultured

Immigration-Mr. Luchkovich
and debonair Normans who conquered England in the year 1066?" My answer to that would be, Yes, but was it not the home loving Anglo-Saxon who finally assimilated the more cultured conqueror?
I think it would be a wrong policy, Mr. Speaker, to advocate the bringing over of large numbers of people in order to take away the jobs that rightly belong to the Canadian boys in Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And the girls.


Michael Luchkovich: And the girls also.
I met a man on the train the other day who wanted to know why so many of the immigrants who come to our shores are men with very little education. I think I can explain why. Most of them may be men without very much education, but they have very high ideals. I do not think our policy should be directed to bringing people into this country unless we are ready to give them work. I do not think we should embark on an immigration policy unless this country is ready for it from an economic standpoint. Furthermore, I do not think we should stimulate immigration by artificial means, because by doing so we shall only defeat the ends for which the immigration policy was inaugurated. By stimulating immigration artificially we discourage the pioneering individual and turn our immigrants into sissies or mollycoddles, whose only purpose in coming to Canada is to use this country as a back door through which to slip into the United States.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What do you mean
by "sissies"?


Mr. STEVENS:: That is well understood.


Michael Luchkovich: He is not a redblooded individual by any means. I have never yet known a man who appreciated a home that was virtually handed to him, and I have never yet known a man to appreciate a home which was not erected by the toil of his own hands or the sweat of his own brow. I have never yet known a home loving man whose home loving qualities were not engendered by honest, plodding toil.
I also think great care should be taken in the selection of our immigrants. The selection of our immigrants as well as the placing of them when they get here should be a government duty. The immigrants should be sound both in body and in mind, and they should be intelligent. They should be imbued with the idea that while the government is giving them a chance when they come here to build homes for themselves and therefore to share

in the benefits that such homes give them in Canada, they should at the same time be prepared to share with us the burdens and responsibilities that such citizenship entails. A learned man once said that "every choice we make is for an eternity," and it is only reasonable, therefore, to conclude that when the immigrant comes here, he and his offspring will remain in Canada for all generations and all time. Therefore if the government is to .continue its policy of inducing immigrants to come here it should bring in the type of immigrant that is adaptable to a country like ours. I may say, when I speak in this way, that I advocate bringing in people who are of peasant stock. The peasants are emphatically an adaptable type. A great poet once said:
111 fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay;
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made:
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
I do not think it is wise to embark upon a wholesale immigration to Canada. Just as I think it is folly to bring over to Canada the riffraff of Europe, so I think it is equally foolhardy to bring in too big an influx. Just as I think it is the height of wisdom to bring in the sturdy, pioneering, home-loving types, so I think it is equally wise that our policy should be one of quality rather than one of quantity. Premier Baldwin in a recent speech in Canada had this to say:
Canada has an enormous future and, if it be not impertinent to say so to Canadians, I would say: The future is with you; do not be in too much of a hurry. Your country is a country for virile races. Quality before quantity any day. Build up with the best. What does it matter if it is a hundred years or more before your country is full? Keep the stock you have, and the men and women you have, and see to it that the coming generations are in no whit inferior to them. I have often thought that it is a dangerous thing to the morale of a nation to get rich quickly, as it is to an individual. Time is on your side. Maintain the values; maintain the standards; and may the prayer of Canada always be the prayer of the Greek sailor, which has been preserved for us by Seneca: "God, you may save me if you will; you may sink me if you will; but whatever happens, I will always keep my rudder true".
There is a world of philosophy in that statement-"I will always keep my rudder true." Surely that is the spirit not of the mollycoddle but of the red-blooded pioneer.
Now that I have said something about the type of immigrant that we should allow to come into Canada, I shall speak for a few moments about the classification of those immigrants into the preferred, the non-preferred

Immigration-Mr. Luchkovich
and the undesirable. This classification in many cases is an unjust one, because those put on the non-preferred list might in some cases be placed on the preferred list, and it is possible that even some who are classed as undesirable might be put on the non-preferred or even on the preferred list. You cannot expunge a fact by a mere recital which is not a fact. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who once asked a friend of his this question:	"If
you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would that dog have?" The answer was: "Five." "No", said Lincoln, "You cannot make a leg out of a tail by merely calling it a leg." So in the same manner putting a man on the non-preferred list should not always mean that he is a non-preferred immigrant. I agree with what has been said about undesirable immigrants, that if they are not amenable to our laws and constitution, they should not be allowed to come into the country. I hope hon. members will not misunderstand me when I speak on the question of immigration. I make absolutely no differentiation as to race, or even religion. I speak merely on principle and I oppose the principle of extending financial aid to immigrants in order to stimulate immigration, because I think this is based on a principle that is fallacious, dangerous and absolutely inimical to the purpose for which it was inaugurated. Canada is still a young and primitive country. We have not yet reached the point where the modern conveniences of present-day civilized life begin and where pioneering ends. I have never yet heard in the history of the world of a successful subsidized immigration and I have also never heard of an overfed, pampered and petted person who ever amounted to anything. It is for that reason that I oppose any financial aid to immigration. I know it is dangerous to endeavour to teach a man to swim merely by throwing him into the ocean. But let us remember that there is always somebody in the crew who is ready to throw out a line in order to draw him back on to the deck of the ship. In the same manner in a pioneering community there is always somebody ready to extend a helping hand in times of greatest difficulties. Therefore, other things being equal, if the immigrant has the will and if he is made of the proper stuff, I have absolutely no doubt that he will make good in a country like Canada.
I have often wondered whether it would not be an improvement on our present system if something were done to make Canadian residents who bring in immigrants on affidavits actually responsible for those immigrants when they come into Canada. I have known cases where immigrants upon their arrival in Canada found that the people who had signed affidavits in order to bring them here repudiated the affidavits or eschewed all responsibility for them and would have nothing to do with the immigrants. I have in mind the case of a young girl who came to Canada about two years ago. She also came over here on an affidavit signed by an Alberta farmer. When she arrived, he eschewed all responsibility for his affidavit, and would not give her the work she expected to find when she came to Alberta. She is now being bandied about from one farmer to another, and they are taking advantage of that situation. She is receiving no wages, but is living in the hope that the work and the remuneration she expected to find in Alberta before her departure for Canada will be forthcoming. Cases like this are by no means rare. I merely cite this instance in order to give an example of what is being done, not only in the province of Alberta, but all over Canada. It might be argued, therefore, that only families already resident in Canada should be allowed to bring people in on affidavits. I personally think it would be a very good thing, because when the immigrant arrived in this country somebody in Canada would be responsible for him, and this would prevent the immigrant becoming a charge on the country and from joining the numerous breadlines which we have all over the country even at the present time.
With regard to the immigrants and their susceptibility to our .laws and constitution, and their readiness to accept those laws and that constitution, I know, that I am dealing with a subject that is of grave concern to many people in Canada. It is of grave concern for this reason, that they see in the coming of foreigners to our shores a potential menace to everything that they hold as dear as life itself.
I have noticed also that the coming of im- [DOT] migrants to our shores has caused a great stir in our social, political and educational circles, directed, no doubt, with a view to welcoming the immigrant and with a view to assimilating our immigration within as short a time as possible. The subject is at once a dangerous one, and also very contentious and very delicate. It is difficult indeed to deal with a subject like this without stepping on the toes of immigrants, and also without hurting the sensibilities of the native born. There are many realities in life such as religion, race, love and patriotism, which can be overdone. I intend to deal merely with the question of assimilation so far as it has to do with the questions of race and patriotism.
To begin with, there have been many plans for the quick assimilation of the immigiant.

Immigration-Mr. Luchkovich
One of them has been to sandwich the immigrant in with the rest of the races in Canada. So far as this sandwiching plan is concerned, I have this to say: I actually know how it works. It is possible to tolerate the immigrant only so far as he obeys our laws and also respects our constitution, but when it comes :o accepting him in our social circles, that is a different matter. It is a different matter also for the immigrant. What does it all result in? It results in the immigrant trying to seek his own level; in other words, he leaves the locality to which he originally came, and goes to another where he hopes to find his own level.
It has been said also that the segregation of the immigrants in large colonies is not conducive to ready assimilation, that it results in an imperium in imperio, or a nation within a nation. When we make remarks like that I think we stretch our imagination a little too far. The immigrant is a human being just like ourselves. He differs from us in no way except in language and certain racial characteristics, and surely in the matter of worldly-wise self consciousness he is not the sophisticated human being that a good many of ua are.
There have been two ways in which the immigrant has been looked upon in Canada. One is the mystical attitude, and the other is the rational one. The rational attitude is the one we employ in our everyday life. The mystical attitude is the attitude which we often adopt towards him when we are not in a very good mood, when we are not very well disposed towards him. The rational mood, I would say, would be the [more humane. The mystical attitude is the one which smacks more of prejudice, discrimination, and in less democratic countries than ours it virtually amounts to persecution. We on this side of the ocean are more sensitive than we appear. The mere vague annoyance which our own supersession in this country causes us is combined with our antipathy towards anyone and anything foreign. We are obsessed with that mystical attitude which repels everything we are not used to, and it is precisely this attitude which causes such a great gulf to be made between the different racial elements in our country. It is this attitude that makes us look with horror upon the farmer driving into town in his sheepskin coat, and upon the woman dressed in shawl and top boots coming home from market with a duck under one arm and a chicken under the other, in preparation for the family dinner. Why, even the foreigner's thrift and industry is viewed by us sometimes with hostility and suspicion. Of course we must recognize

that the Canadian views the foreigner from his own individual and very limited angle. He does not realize that the shadow of penury hangs very frequently over the newcomer and that everything he owns and attains in the way of the material things of life and education depends wholly upon his thrift and industry. The same can be said of the children of the immigrant at school. The immigrant's son or daughter must not fail, because he cannot afford to support his children on his paltry income. They must extend themselves to the limit at all times, for it is only by the greatest economy of finance that these poor people are able to get an education.
It is these things and a multitude of others that must be considered in the light of their effect upon the mind of the Canadian; for it is precisely these things that produce that typical mystical attitude towards the less fortunate newcomer. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I think if we were able to visualize ourselves in the immigrant's position we would realize exactly what his feelings are; we would understand his attitude better, and we would come to a more reasonable solution of the question than we have done up to the present. At any rate ft would help to break down the present barriers of misunderstanding between the different racial elements in our population, and it would also result in clear and sane thinking, without which no true progress can take place.
Now. sir, from what I have said with respect to this question I may be considered an ultra idealist, and my contribution may be thought impracticable, but I hope not. Despite everything that has been said against the immigrant, I think the day is not far distant when all the animosities engendered by racial conflicts not only in Europe but even on this continent will give way to a more reasonable attitude and will bring about a sound solution of the whole question. I look forward to the * time when all these racial misunderstandings will disappear and will recede into the dim and distant past as relics of a barbaric and savage age.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house at any great length, but I think it is important that something should be told about the work of the committee. It seems to me that a good deal of what has been said this afternoon is somewhat theoretical. We who have had to do with immigration have read in the press from time to time statements made by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house that there

Immigration-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
was a laxity on the part of the government and the governmental services in securing immigration. But we have always argued that before we bring in immigrants under present-day conditions there must be placement for them, or we would have a condition of affairs that would not be good for the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite have argued that their fiscal policy would cure the whole situation, for according to them there would be work for everyone who cared to come to it. Well, that is not borne out by the state of affairs across the line. In that country they have the kind of fiscal policy that my hon. friends opposite have been advocating with such enthusiasm, but conditions there axe not one whit better than here, or even as good.


Robert James Manion: But they have a quota law.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly so. My hon. friend says, "hear, hear." May I say to the hon. gentleman that the committee is dealing with many more questions than the one introduced in the amendment to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was immigration and colonization.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the house, but I listened very carefully to the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) this afternoon. I do not know whether or not I misunderstood him, but I thought he said he went to the west twenty-five years ago. If that is the case I have been there five years longer, because I went there about thirty years ago. I think I went to that part of the country one year after my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) went to the west. My hon. friend chose to follow the 
practice of law, while I followed a different line of endeavour by taking up a brush homestead. I am not going to give personal experiences. but I want to point out, that there is a difference between immigration to-day and what it was in those days. When British Columbia came into confederation there was an agreement that a railroad should be built from the east to the west. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company built a colonization road, and I think my good friends the Liberals, if I remember aright-I came to Canada in 1878-said that the Canadian Pacific would not even pay for the axle grease. By going through that western country they opened up millions of acres of land on each side of the main line and the branches. There were millions of acres of free land, and interspersed with that were millions of acres of railroad land at S3 per acre. As soon as it became known that the land in the western country was fertile, immigrants poured in by the thousands. Why? Because the land was free. Just as soon as the homestead land began to be taken up, the $3 per acre land owned by the Canadian Pacific was in demand. In other words, we did unconsciously what our American friends had done; they put a railroad through the land first and the immigrants followed. Our policy more recently has been to let the immigrants get in by prairie schooners as well as they could, and the railroad would follow after they were in. What was the condition of the immigrants in 1898 when I was one? Just this: I had a free homestead and .all I had to do was to provide my living. The government bet me $10 I could not stick it out for three years; I took the bet and stuck it out for twenty. All I had to do was make a living and buy a couple of pairs of overalls a year in order to keep going. My hon. friend from West Calgary knows all about that. These settlers did the same thing, and when the $3 an acre land began to be taken up, it was a question whether it was cheaper for the immigrant to buy that land from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and work outside when he saw fit, or go on a homestead and be stuck there for six months in the year. At present there is no free land except away in the north country and the Peace River district, and there are no railways in that vicinity.
As far as the immigration policy is concerned, conditions have entirely changed. They are not the same as they were in the homestead days, and to meet the changed conditions you must adopt a different policy. If immigrants are brought in-I am not deal-

Immigration-Mr. Adshcad
ing so much with the question of how they are brought in, whether you pay their passage or not-the question is whether they can stick with it and make farming pay. As I have pointed' out, I had no obligations to pay on the homestead, I could just do as I liked as long as I managed to live. But the immigrant to-day has to pay $20, $25 or $30 per acre for raw land, and the problem is to make it pay after having to pay about $4,000 for a quarter section. At seven per cent interest this means $280 per year, and he has to live. At the present time I do not think he can do it. One thing that demonstrates this is the fact that we passed in this house last year what was called the revaluation act in respect to soldier settlement lands. Why? Because the soldiers had bought land at such prices that it was found they could not meet their obligations, and the land had to be revalued at lower figures. There are hundreds of farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan-I do not know about Ontario-who bought land at these prices and under precisely the same conditions. They had no kind government to pass a revaluation act and take the burden off them.
Then during the war the farmers were told that the price of wheat would be set at $2.40 per bushel. That was not to keep the price up, but to keep it down. The farmer was the only person during the war time who underwent conscription of wealth. I remember seeing mounted police going through the district near Carbon, Alberta, and examining the wheat bins. They would say to a farmer, "You are keeping too much wheat. Of course you raise it, but we are only going to allow you to keep enough to sow your land, and we are going to take the rest at $2.40 per bushel." The farmer is the only person I know of who had his property, his wealth, conscripted during the war. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) hopes that we all will be in this position if there is another war. I know of farmers who bought land during the inflated war period, just as our soldiers bought it in 1919-20, and lost all because land values went down; they could not meet their payments and they were foreclosed. Where are the new settlers coming from? I do not care where they come from, whether Scandinavia or elsewhere, a large number of them are going on land held by speculators or corporations at from $20 to $30 per acre; that is where it is intended they are to go.
This question has to be dealt with on a business basis, just as a merchant will count his capital cost and his overhead and try to
meet interest and principal charges in order that his business may be a going concern. If he cannot do that he is bound to fail. The same thing is going to happen with the immigrant. If a farm can be bought under such business conditions that he can make it pay you will have no difficulty in bringing him in. Would there be any difficulty in the city of Ottawa if a man knew that a business that was a paying proposition was for sale and all he had to do was to go and take it? You would have a hundred applicants to-morrow. Just as soon as it is known that the farmer who buys land can make it pay, can pay the interest and the principal in proper proportion, and make a living and have something when he gets through, then you will have no difficulty in settling your lands and having a prosperous agricultural community. But that is what the immigrant cannot do to-day, and that is why so many are going on the land and then going off it.
My hon. friend from West Calgary was a solicitor for the gas company at one time, and in his very able manner he proceeded to present a case before the utilities commission. He took the affairs of the gas company before this commission and he charged their overhead, he charged the depreciation, he charged the interest on their plant and the cost of production and all that. When this was placed before the commission they granted a reasonable profit over and above 8 per cent on the invested capital. It does not really matter what the company got, b.ut they were allowed to charge 48 cents per thousand for gas. At that time oats were selling at Calgary at 25 cents a bushel. I happened to be in the council chamber at that particular time, and I went to my office and did some figuring. I took land at $25 an acre and I capitalized it. I knew what on the average a crop of oats would bring. I figured the cost of producing the oats, the overhead charges, the interest, the depreciation on machinery, and then I added just the same 8 per cent that the utilities commission added as a profit to my hon. friend's application in connection with the gas company. It worked out that those oats, to bring the very same profit which was allwed the capitalist, should sell at 60 cents a bushel, and the farmer at that time was getting 25 cents a bushel. I give that as an illustration to show that unless land is at such a price that a man can go on it as a business proposition in the same way as the hon. member for West Calgary figured in connection with the gas company, he cannot make it pay. If you reach that condition where he can make
Immigration-Mr. Adshead

it pay, you will have no difficulty in getting immigrants to take up farming in Canada.
There is another point that I want to bring out. I have seen some of the moving picture films which are taken abroad to show to prospective immigrants and I have also heard some of the speeches delivered to them and some of the conversations had with them in the old countiy. I do not know whether to make this as a charge, but I am sure I am speaking the truth. All the rosiest pictures of Canada are set forth. I have seen the pictures of "before" and "after". There is perhaps a plain praii'ie with a little log shack with a single room; then on the other hand there are the bumper crops, the cattle, the fine house, and so forth.	In other words what
they really do is paint just one side of the picture. It is only fair and right, if we are going to be honest with the prospective immigrants, that we should place both sides of the picture before them, because if they do not get it from us they will get it from some of their relatives on this side, or after they come here and go back home, they will tell their relatives at home their opinion of the country and the picture they will paint will be a very much exaggerated one. We know all about the frost, hailstorms, snowstorms, cold and other conditions we have in this country, and before an immigrant is induced to come out here, it is our bounden duty to give him both sides of the picture.
Various reasons have been presented why we should bring immigrants into Canada. I think one railroad magnate said:	We need
two million immigrants in the west; if we had two million immigrants here, our railway problems would be settled. That may be true from the railway standpoint and they are considering the question from that point of view. Another person said:	We should
have another two million people in the west; they would help to pay our national debt, and so forth. But the good of the settler and his future are not considered at all. What is considered is the benefit that would accrue to Canada and not the benefit that might accrue to the particular settler. We do not tell him, as we tell each other, that we want him here in order to relieve the railroads of the burden of over-capitalization, in order to help us to pay our national debt. We do not tell him those things. It is only right and honest that we should tell the settler the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but in many cases that is not done.
That is the problem, and if you want to bring in immigrants, the farm lands which you have for sale must be offered at a reasonable price and in the far-off stretches where there

are no railways, colonization railways must be built, or else it must be made clear that when a man comes here with small capital the proposition will be a business one based on the same principle as that of my hon. friend in connection with the gas company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to trespass at any length upon the time of the house in discussing this matter; but in view of what was said in the early days of the session when this committee was appointed, I think it is desirable to make a few general observations.
I cannot but think that the report of the committee will be very disappointing to many people in Canada. It certainly offers no new field for endeavour, nor does it offer any new suggestion with respect to the problems involved. I believe the Canadian people are firmly of the opinion that the problem is one of first magnitude calling for immediate action on the part of the government of the country. The reason I say that is greatly strengthened by what I observed from the government's statistics the other day with respect to the movement of our population. From 1897 to 1927, a period of thirty years, the population of Canada increased by 4,377,000. The population of Canada was 5,142,000 in June 1897, and in June 1927, thirty years later, it was
9.519.000.	or as I have said an increase of
4.377.000.	According to the same reports, between December 31, 1897, and December 31, 1927, we brought into this country 4,491,156 souls. That would mean that in those thirty years the country not only failed to keep the people it brought in but lost a part of its natural increase, because 114,156 more people were lost to the country than we brought in. That is rather a striking statement. According to the year book issued by the department the natural increase of population in those thirty years could not have been less than
2.600.000.	Therefore we have the astonishing result that in the thirty years from 1897 to 1927 Canada went, behind about 2,750,000 people. We brought in nearly 4,500,000; our natural increase was about 2,600,000, and yet our total net increase was only 4,377,000. Those are alarming figures; they are figures calculated to make every thoughtful Canadian pause-not pause and condemn governments, but pause and ask himself just why we have failed to keep in our country the population that we brought to it from other lands and also the young manhood and womanhood as it grew up in the country to man's and woman's estate. Those figures, as I read them from the report, made me pause, made me consider

Immigration-Mr. Bennett
again how serious is the problem with respect to immigration.
Canada moist have increased population if we are to maintain our position among the peoples of the world. We have provided facilities for a population of at least fifteen million people. We are carrying for the moment a debt of two and a half billions of dollars, necessitating annual interest payments, and a charge for pensions arising out of the great war, and for sinking fund, that amounts to a very, very vast sum indeed. The problem therefore is a pressing one. It is a problem that demands solution, and I have not yet concluded that the statesmanship of the Canadian people is not equal to the task that is imposed upon if. I believe that the vision and foresight of those who made possible this confederation have not been lost entirely to their descendants, and that we of this day and generation, if we but approach our problems 'as we should, in a spirit of goodwill, of unity of thought, of high purpose, of courage1, and of real ambition to serve our day and generation, may bring about their successful solution.
It is not in the narrow sense a party question. It is a question that far transcends party. It is a question that strikes at the very life and existence of Canada, and therefore I do think that those figures alone are sufficient reason why we should approach that problem not in any narrow sense, but as one of the first magnitude and of the greatest possible importance to this confederation.
With those very few observations, I turn to look for a moment at the result of this committee's efforts. I listened with much pleasure to the speech this morning and this afternoon of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). He endeavoured to support this report as being a sufficient justification for the efforts of the committee, and my friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) gave some reasons why he thought the results of the efforts of the committee should be viewed as being eminently successful. I regret that I cannot see in them anything that we should rejoice over, and I trust that I am not looking at the matter in any partisan, or narrow spirit. Where is there a ra.y of hope to those who will read that committee's report in the press of this country that any new policy will be inaugurated that will change the conditions under which we exist?
I do not propose to discuss the fiscal policy of this country or of the neighbouring republic. It is sufficient for my purpose to say that under a system of the highest protection the world has ever known, the United States
has attracted to its shores the largest population that has ever been brought into any country in the known history of the world and that population is to-day the largesl population living in one area, under one form of government, that we have in the world. They have their problems, problems of very great difficulty, but they were able to bring people into their country to such an extent that they now have a quota law against the free admission of the peoples of the world into the United States. That does mot in any sense indicate just what action, we should take here. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior that that is so. But there are difficulties in connection with the solution of the problem in this country that were not known in the days when the United States were attracting people so readily to tihedr shores. This was referred to by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) and I cannot but think that the address to which we listened of that minister was by all odds the best speech he has made in this chamber. It was one that I think made all of us rejoice and feel a sense of pride that coming to these shores under the conditions he described, he has been able to make for himself such a place in this young Dominion. I am sure that he indicated in the very course of his observations one of the real powerful immigration agencies that should be at work in this country all the time, and that is the immigrant himself. Coming to this country as he did, a youth of seventeen., as a result of the inspiration that he received, he brought here eight people. That is t'he result. One satisfied immigrant brought here eight new settlers, and that is the way the population of the country grows. Unless we can create conditions that will bring about that feeling of satisfaction and pride in this country on the part of newcomers that governed and actuated my friend the Minister of Railways in inducing his father and sisters to oome to Canada to settle, we shall not be able to increase our population with that rapidity with which we should increase it. I feel quite satisfied that that is so.
But there have been many changes in the last twenty-five years. My friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Adshead) very properly referred to the changes that have taken place in all parts of Canada, particularly in that part in which we both reside. Distance has been annihilated; the attraction of the city has become greater than it ever was before; the building up of great industrial concerns in the great republic to the south has made it more difficult to attract new settlers

Immigration-Mr. Bennett

to our land; the difficulties in connection with a satisfactory return from the labour of the husbandman has also had something to do with it; but, on the other hand, there is no occupation that affords the same assurance of health and of enduring happiness as that which comes from toiling upon the soil and working the land. That, I think, is abundantly demonstrated by every man who has had any experience in that occupation, as well as by what we have been told by those who know the conditions far better than we do. But the attractions of the city are with us. The great war has also changed the attitude of mien towards occupations. The great war has changed the mental ouitlook of millions of people. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that amongst the other nations of the world outside the British Empire, notably the German republic, you will find one of their most powerful journals referring to:
Europe's right to the use and development of these empty but fertile and healthy regions of the British Empire. "What right," is it asked, "has Great Britain to keep her Dominions empty?"
And the proposal is made that there should be some arrangement by which the League of Nations would take charge of settling the vacant spaces of the Dominion. That indicates a profound lack of knowledge of our institutions, an entire lack of understanding of what the position of Canada is within the British Empire, but, on the other hand, it indicates that there are people who are longing for the opportunity to settle the great open spaces of a country such as this. Now if the people of Germany feel that way with respect to it, and they have old age pensions and unemployment insurance, just as they have in Great Britain, we have a state of mind developed there that is somewhat different from the State of mind in Great Britain. Yet we know that there are congested conditions in Great Britain. We know that there is there a surplus population that desires the opportunity for advancement, the opportunity to gratify their ambitions, to make new homes for themselves, to own and possess land, and after all, the same idea that was in the mind of the young immigrant of twenty-seven years ago, the love of adventure, the love of the soil, the desire to own a home, to live under the flag of his fathers, is still in, the minds of large numbers of young men and young women in Great Britain. But they do not come here, because, rightly or wrongly, they have in Great Britain the idea at the moment that we do not want them. I charge against this administration that during the last few years

there has grown up in Great Britain the idea that the people of Great Britain are not wanted in Canada. I read it in their morning papers, in the Post and in the Times; I read it in their evening papers; I read it in their weekly magazines. They have that idea firmly entrenched in their .minds, and it has come about not wholly without some reasons, because of difficulties that have been experienced, for instance, in connection with medical examinations, difficulties experienced when they came here, the idea that they are dumped down on the land and left there, difficulties in finding work-these and allied matters have made many of the people of Great Britain believe that they are not wanted in this country. The idea has been, of course, fostered to some extent by countries which require settlers just as much as we do, but the idea I mention has got abroad and it is painfully apparent to those who have visited England in, the last ten years, since the war at least. The idea is firmly embedded in their minds that we do not desire those settlers in Canada. That idea is, of course, erroneous, but it has been fostered by conditions to which I have alluded. Under those circumstances and under those conditions, there was brought into being last year a new plan of medical inspection, notwithstanding the fact that according to the reports issued by our o,wn department there were very small numbers of rejections of those who had been examined in England. I am happy to say that one of the recommendations of the committee, insisted upon by the medical men on the committee, will change this and may have very far-reaching and beneficial results. But that in itself was one more factor that made the people think we were desirous of excluding them from this country, although rejections at ports of entry on medical grounds of immigrants from the British Isles were comparatively few. In 1920 they amounted to 21; in 1921, 99; in 1922, 60; in 1923, 37; in 1924, 130; in 1925, 83, and in 1926 only 40. Those are the figures according to our own returns. Nevertheless this new medical plan put in force last fall had very disastrous results, for a friend of mine, a former Canadian, who is vitally interested in the settlement of this country by British people, sent me word as soon as the committee began its sittings that as long as those medical regulations were continued it was no use making any attempt to get British settlers into this country. Then unfortunate occurrences, such as that to which my hon. friend from Halifax recently directed attention, have also done something

Immigration-Mr. Bennett
to neutralize our efforts towards getting new settlers. These are the real conditions that confront us.
But what have we on the other side? We have a great country with a small population. We have millions of acres of untouched land within twenty miles of the railway; we have great fisheries; we have lakes and rivers; we have vast mineral deposits-we have gold and silver and nickel; we have extensive forests. In a word1, we have everything that goes to make a great people; that is, we have a great estate. What are we doing to develop this estate? That is the question. The question of immigration is tied up with the question of colonization. Colonization, of course, means work. That single word is the key to the whole situation-work.	Work
must be provided not only for our own people but for newcomers. I have said so often- I repeat it now-if you go to the old communities of this country you find men and women are leaving, not because they wish to, but because there is no work for them to do. Yet we have the greatest estate that any people ever had committed to their hands in trust to develop. But we are not developing it. True, we are taking away some of the minerals, we are taking something from the forests, we are getting vast wealth from the soil with the limited number of people employed. And I want to place myself upon record that it is a fallacy to believe that the bringing of more people into Canada means the cheapening of labour and the lowering of the high standard of living of those who are here. History teaches us that if you get people settled in a 'country you are making work. Every time you bring a new productive person into the country, whether he be productive by his hands or his brains, if you are unifying your efforts, you are always opening up new avenues of work. That has been the history of other countries, and I am sure it will be the history of this country.
Now, with this vast estate and with our limited population, we have brought in, as I say, a large number of immigrants, but we have not kept them here, we have not even maintained our natural increase. What is the obvious remedy? Not what the committee's report indicates, but the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), namely, that we should have a great department-a department of immigration, colonization and industry, divided into two branches, the one dealing with the securing of immigrants, coordinating its efforts with the provinces, and the other see-
56103-248J
ing to it that there is work for those people when they come here, and not only for them but for those who are already here.
I do not propose to-night to enter into a discussion of the policies necessary to achieve the second result. There may be acute differences of opinion between us with respect to that, but this I do say, that every possible legislative power of this parliament, together with the powers of the provincial legislatures, should be exercised to carry into effect the idea contained in the creation of the second branch of that great department. It was suggested by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that these two things are not related one to the other. Why, they march hand in hand; without the two it is impossible to succeed. I will take an illustration that came under my own observation and with which I at least in my youth had something to do. East of Calgary the Canadian Pacific Railway Company induced the government of the day to permit them to take the balance of their grant lands in a solid block containing an area of about three million acres. It was surveyed by competent surveyors.^ They said: An irrigation system is essential if these lands are to be made productive. An analysis of the soil showed that these were fertile lands if properly watered. For this purpose the waters of the Bow river were available. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company spent millions of dollars on an irrigation canal in the western section and the central section, and they spent further millions of dollars in developing these lands and making them fit for the settler. They then spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the endeavour to get settlers, and I am bound to say that in the first instance their expectations were disappointed; they got no such results as they expected. But they did not stop. They went forward then and developed the eastern section at a further vast expenditure. They found difficulty in getting settlers to come in of their own volition, so they divided the country into ready-made farms, provided with suitable buildings, stock and implements. To-day when you pass through that country as I did only last week you see comfortable homes, well-kept barns and well-tilled land, with evidences everywhere of the amazing prosperity that comes to those who till migrated land under conditions such as exist there. As I surveyed the scene it gave me a sense of pride that we have in our country an institution that was willing to risk its capital to the extent I have stated to bring about those results.
Immigration-Mr. Bennett

I regret to have to differ with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways as to relying entirely upon unorganized and individual effort as we used to do twenty-five years ago. But conditions have profoundly changed in the meantime. They have so profoundly changed that, as mentioned this afternoon, there is a very great demand for settlers made upon Britain and upon various countries of northern Europe from which we draw population, with the result that we are not able to secure all we wish from those countries. Australia and New Zealand are in the same plight. But, on the other hand, we can get our fair share if we make conditions here such as are found in other communities, and therefore it is necessary to give that assistance to immigrants which otherwise we would not be compelled to give. So we must take example by that private enterprise to which I have referred. There may be failure, seeming disaster, but with perseverance and determination we must go forward with the work, regardless of the prospects, until at last success crowns our efforts. That is vyhat we must do with this estate.
This is only magnifying by thousands the irrigation work of the Canadian Pacific. This is the same problem as they had to face, only there is added to it something more. The Canadian Pacific found very early that mere agricultural development was not sufficient; they realized that you must add to that some industrial activities. So they endeavoured to get a beet sugar factory, and there is now a small establishment at Raymond in southern Alberta. True, it is not in the irrigation block to which I first referred. It is in the old Galt irrigation block southeast of Lethbridge. There you have an idea of the beet sugar industry. I did not realize just what one industry means in the life and development of a country until I analyzed it on the ground in connection with that sugar beet industry. It was an amazing revelation. I followed its processes from the time the beets were put into the ground until the sugar was put into the bags. There was SI ,000,000 of an investment in that factory. I found that a number of men were engaged in making the soil ready for the beets; a number of others planted the beets in the soil; others, again, were engaged in connection with the management of waters and canals and the caring for the plants during the summer, constantly freeing them from weeds. Then I began to see them being taken up, put into cars and by cars transported to the factory. That, I found, reacted

so that the repair work on these cars was reflected in the shops at Calgary. I found miners busily engaged getting out the necessary limestone for transportation to the factory for the purpose of clarifying the beet juice so that it might be made into sugar. I found coal men employed, a number of men mining some 10,000 tons of coal for the purpose of running the factory. That one industry, with all its ramifications, from the work in the fields, the planting of the beets, up to the time the sugar was placed upon the market, gave employment to a vast number of men-indeed, an amazing number compared to what one would expect. Men were engaged, as I say, in activities of various kinds: planting beets, gathering beets, weeding beets; there were train men, engineers, firemen, conductors; there were coal men, repair men, limestone men. And finally there were those who sold the finished product over the counter.
That single industry, developed as it was in southern Alberta, furnishes an illustration of the point I desire to make with respect to the second branch of the great department which should be set up in this country, in relation to the industrial side of Canadian life, to give employment to settlers. The minister will tell you that there is no more prosperous settlement in western Canada than that settlement in southern Alberta which utilizes these sugar beets and operates that factory. There you have work and settlement, settlement and work, the one coordinated with the other. There would be no work if there were no settlement, nor would there be any settlement if there were no work. And this factory has brought back to Canada men who had left it. The same conditions existing there have made possible settlement in parts of the United States whence those settlers came.
Let us take another illustration: take the development of our mining industry at Trail, for example. That is an illustration of the development which can take Iplace in an industry from very small beginnings. Because of an economic survey made, because of the determination that there was something there worth trying to get and worth maintaining, the effort which was exerted there has succeeded. Take other branches of activity. Take linseed oil, if you will; from the flax you have the linseed oil. The same may be said with respect to flour.
In 1915 the late Sir William Van Home was asked to be chairman of an economic commission in this country having for its purpose the very idea which is now set forth

Immigration-Mr. Bennett
in this amendment-the idea of determining by survey what the possibilities of this country are as regards industrial development and the utilization of our vast resources, and side by side with that the settlement of new people. Settlement and work; settlement and development; settlement and employment: these things must go side by side in any policy worthy of the name.
Now I regret to say this-you will say it is very unkind of me to say it. But the fact is that we have not at this time, in charge of this department, a gentleman who by natural aptitude or training is calculated to properly develop policies in connection with the Immigration department. I have as profound a respect as any man in this house for my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). But in England they have long since, in their parliament, made it a rule under conditions such as these to fearlessly express their opinions with respect to ministers of the crown who direct policies. And in this instance I regret to say that it is painfully apparent to anyone, whoever he may be, whether Liberal or Conservative, whether he sits to the right or to the left of the Speaker, that the hon. gentleman, the member for Brandon, a man of integrity and character, is unfitted temperamentally or by training to discharge the varied and onerous duties of Minister of Immigration and Colonization in this country. That is one of the real difficulties. You could not have made the Canadian Pacific irrigation projects flourish unless you had had at the head of them a man such as the late Lord Shaughnessy or men of that type. And so, in relation to our immigration policy, you cannot have that policy succeed if you put in charge of it one who is disqualified-not qualified at least- either by training or by temperament, to discharge the very onerous duties that appertain to that position. So we say in this amendment that we should have a responsible minister in charge, although in Australia they did try a commission. And there are those in this country who believe that a commission responsible indirectly to the government might be able to succeed. In Canada there is less evidence of the likelihood of a commission succeeding. We say there should be a strong minister, a minister with the training, with the aptitude, with the temperament, with the desire and the determination and vigour to make such a department succeed- with these two great branches working side by side, the one, in cooperation with the provinces and other organizations, seeking new settlers, the other providing work for these
settlers when they come here to keep them in this country. For I deny that this country is, by reason of its natural resources, unfitted for occupation, unfitted to give employment to men who come within its borders.
This criticism we make strikes at the very foundation of existing conditions. You will never make this department succeed, it cannot succeed, so long as it is presided over by the gentleman who now controls it, surrounded by those who sit with him. It cannot be done; it will not be done. And therefore we venture to offer that criticism. We offer it frankly because we believe it is in the public interest .that it should be made, with no desire in the world to hurt anyone's feelings. However fit and proper, however able the hon. gentleman may be to discharge duties in other places, he is wholly unfitted for the discharge of duties in the portfolio which he now fills.
A step further. My hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) this afternoon, in a very humorous and at times pathetic speech, dealt with the kind of settlers we are bringing in. I venture to say to him that he overlooked one point. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) dealt with it in part, but he did not in my judgment deal with it whoLly. The reason we are seeking British settlers is not ' that we attach so much more importance to them as settlers than to any others, but that our institutions are moulded and formed, and have been for generations, upon British models. And we believe, we are firm in the conviction-as I believe the government is-that the only way in which we can maintain these institutions is by continuing to bring to this country a proper modicum of settlers who understand and appreciate them. That is the real reason.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are not the laws of the United States moulded on British institutions, and have not their people come from every part of the world in tens of millions, conforming to British institutions when they arrive in that country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Cartier has entirely misapprehended the point. Read the history of the United States, read what is written in every magazine in that country by thoughtful men, and you will find that the principle of the melting pot has failed; and they are quite apprehensive. Every thoughtful man in the United States, every keen observer, every man who travels, every author, everyone who shapes and moulds public opinion in the universities and in the great foundations-all these are bewail-
Immigration-Mr. Bennett

ing the fact that uncontrolled immigration has been permitted into that country, to such an extent that there is now in the United States a polyglot papulation, without any distinctive civilization, and one about which many of them are in great despair. That is the answer to my hon. friend. And, sir, it is because We desire to profit by the very lessons we learned there that we are endeavouring to maintain our civilization at that high standard which has made the British civilization the test by which all other civilized nations in modern times are measured.
_ I quite agree with what my friend the Minister of Railways and Canals said this afternoon. We are bringing people into this country from all the countries which were mentioned by my hon. friend, but the report does not add to or take away from the countries; it merely names those countries from which the people have come. I have in mind at the moment Germans whom I know well, who came to this country many years ago. Some of them went weal, about the time I went there; some came later and some had been there earlier. I look upon their splendid homes and I realize that they are making a very great contribution to the life of our country. The older settlers-mark you, I say the older settlers-all law-abiding citizens, we appealed to them through their own great national heroes. Now we are endeavouring to make the appeal through the heroes of our own country, those great fathers of confederation who laid the foundations of this Dominion. The celebrations which took place in Canada last year commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of confederation were intended to carry out that very idea and to give effect to that very purpose. At least that may be said with safety. I have in mind families of Ukrainians; one hon. member who spoke to-night, although bom in the United States, is a descendant in the second generation of a central European people. I have in mind their homes; I recall the circumstances under which many of them came to settle in this country. They came from Austria and from other states some of which are ^ now a part of Russia. I saw their first beginnings; I saw their sod huts, and years later I saw their beautiful homes, surrounded by trees, with all the comforts which go to make life happy. These people adapted themselves to our conditions, and they have made excellent settlers. We have Germans and Ukrainians; we have people from other countries, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Germans, some Swiss, some Dutch, some Belgians, a few old country French, some

Austrians; I recall a very considerable settlement of people from that country. We have people from Poland, a few from Roumania; I have never seen any from Bithuania, but that was part of another country before the war, and the same might be said with respect to Edthonia and Latvia. I have seen some few settlers from Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia, which countries were parts of Serbia before the war. These people have made excellent settlers; they have kept the law; they have prospered and they are proud of Canada, but if cannot be that we must draw upon them to shape our civilization. We must still maintain that measure of British civilization which will enable us to assimilate these people to British institutions, rather than assimilate our civilization to theirs. That is the point; that is all that may be said with respect to it, and it is the point I desire to make at this time. We earnestly and sincerely believe that the civilization which we call the British civilization is the standard Iby which we must measure our own civilization; we desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that civilization, that standard of living, that regard for morality and law and the institutions of the country and to the ordered and regulated development of this country. That is what we desire, rather than by the introduction of vast and overwhelming numbers of people from other countries to assimilate the British immigrants and the few Canadians who are left to some other civilization. That is what we are endeavouring to do, and that is the reasoh so much stress is laid upon the British settler, not upon the Englishman as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophaii) said, but upon the British settler as indicating that standard of civilization on which we build our institutions and to which we hope to be able to make those who come to us not conform but assimilate, so that they may play the part in it that we ourselves play, that they may realize that the same conditions exist as in days gone by, when the people said "wherever the king's writ ran, there was freedom and liberty of conscience." So everyone who lives under British institutions in that part of 'the Empire which we call Canada may have freedom and liberty, regard for law and order and a desire for an ordered government of which they and we may well be proud. That I say to my hon. friend is our reason, rather than the reason which he suggested this afternoon.
As far as I can see it is the purpose of all governments to maintain that position; that is the intention of all governments, but we

Immigration-Mr. Ralston
do say that there has been a singular lack of appreciation of that position during recent years by the present government. In various sections of western Canada they have planted colonies from far-off lands, who have settled upon the soil and maintained their own peculiar civilization rather than become assimilated to that British civilization which should prevail in this country, 'because there has not been a sufficient leavening of it to ensure that result. That is one of the complaints we make.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken longer than was my intention when I rose, but I cannot too strongly urge upon this house the real gravity and seriousness of the problem with which we have to deal. My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) referred to the length of his residence in western Canada. I have also lived there for a great number of years, indeed for the major portion of my life since I attained manhood, and I have seen it grow and prosper. I have seen the difficulties which have been experienced and I have seen great problems solved by private enterprise. I have seen great communities settled; I saw the Calgary Colonization Company settle a great area near Calgary; I saw the valley of the Saskatchewan settled by private enterprise. Surely what can be accomplished in that regard by private enterprise can be accomplished by the government. I saw a great railway carry out the enterprise to which I have already referred. This country, east, west, north and south, from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island, is but a vast estate, and as I have so often said it is an estate which we hold in trukt to settle and develop. What a reflection it is upon us that to-day there are less people, less tenants on that estate than the number we have brought in during the past thirty years together with the natural increase. What a reflection that isl But there is yet time to remedy the difficulty; there is yet time to solve these problems, and that can be done only by the creation of a body charged with responsibility and presided over by men of vision, of hope, of courage and of determination, who will look upon obstacles not as factors to deter them from going forward with their work but rather as difficulties to be overcome, to spur them on to greater effort. But, Mr. Speaker, these men do not sit upon the treasury benches of this country; such men are not directing this work and are not putting their minds, their hearts, their strength and their courage into this matter as they should. Because they are
not doing so and because we believe that the enunciation of proper policies, the placing upon the statute books of proper legislation and the creation of proper departments of the government would bring about these results, we have offered this amendment with its constructive suggestions for the good of the country, rather than the piecemeal report of the committee which means nothing. The report of the committee is a mere statement of platitudes except for the last paragraph, which was included because it was thought it might temper the minds of some of the hon. members who sit on this side of the house to the extent that there would be unanimous adoption of the report of the committee. But that report in itself is not ample or sufficient, because it does not strike at the foundation of the difficulty, which is failure not only to bring people into Canada but to keep them here and to provide them with work.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: At this late hour I do not intend to detain the house at any length, but in view of the fact that I happened to be a member of that committee I do feel that the attention of the house should be directed to one or two matters which have been referred to by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I think the house will bear me out when I say that my hon. friend has not offered anything new in the way of a solution for the immigration question. He has contented himself with stating that this is a great problem, which everybody knew. He has contented himself with stating that the population of Canada has not increased as fast as we would desire. He has also stated that employment is a very necessary corollary to immigration, and I think almost everybody knew that. I do not think there is anything very constructive in the speech of my hon. friend, except the suggestion that there should be the words "industrial development" added to the name of the Department of Immigration and Colonization. I do not think the country will regard that as a very constructive contribution to this debate or to the immigration problem.
Regarding British immigration, no one deplores more than the members on this side of the house what my hon. friend has suggested-I am not prepared to say that it is a fact-that British people have the idea that they are not wanted in this country. If any proof were needed of the fact that they are wanted, I think that proof will be found when our friends in the British Isles read the first portion of this report, which sets out the
Immigration-Mr. Ralston

attractions which are offered in order to induce British settlers to come to this country. I am not going to detain the house at any length in referring to them, but when we remember that all British subjects, no matter what their occupation may be, are welcomed to Canada and are eagerly sought after to come here; that special efforts are made to bring them here, it will be seen that we do welcome them. In addition to that, agricultural labourers have been given a reduction of 90 per cent in the passage rate they are required to pay to come to this country; British domestic workers are given a like reduction; the families of agricultural labourers are being brought out on that same 90 per cent reduction; British children over 14 and under 17 years of age brought here by voluntary societies have their passage paid free of charge by the Canadian and British governments; provision is made for the training and placement of British boys in farm homes, and a special grant is made to societies who bring them out, this grant being more than the amount of the passage. The federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments and the British government, have arranged a special tripartite agreement, which has already been entered into by two provinces and a third is negotiating in regard to it, whereby the British government supplies 81,509 for stock and equipment, the Canadian government recruits the settler and supervises the settlement, and the provincial government furnishes the farm. In addition to that the Canadian government shares on a fifty-fifty basis in any loss in connection with the loan and shares any loss of interest on the price of the farm. There is also the three thousand family scheme, which is just about completed, in connection with which the Canadian government furnishes the farm on easy terms, the British government furnishes a $1,500 loan for stock and equipment, and the Canadian government provides additional assistance by way of selection, settlement and supervision free of charge. There is also the land settlement scheme for British boys, under which the Canadian government contributes $1,000, the provincial government $250, and the British government $1,250. When these things are really considered the people of the old land will realize that we do want British settlers here.
When I say further that this government spends $16.67 per head for administration expenses and in connection with the assisted passage scheme for British settlers as compared with 11 cents per head for immigrants from other countries, it seems to me it is a
(Mr. Ralston.]
pretty practical illustration of the desire which Canada has to have Britishers come to this country. I do feel that it is mistake to give utterance to this idea, or give any credence to the statement that British settlers are not wanted.
Reference has been made to the matter of medical inspection. This house knows and the committee considered it in its report, that this medical inspection was put in mainly for the purpose of assisting the British emigrant and seeing that there is no chance of his coming to a port of embarkation and arriving on this side and being turned back because the Canadian doctors do not pass him. The Canadian government has at its own expense placed Canadian doctors on the other side to provide for examinations at some 350 centres in order that the British emigrant might have the examination made over there and know at the outset whether or not he would be accepted in this country. That was the purpose of the medical examination. That examination was not put into force in any capricious manner. Representations were made by the steamship companies, by the provincial governments, by the Dominion Council of Health and by other social service organizations, who all agreed that this would be a good system to put into effect. I submit that the system has not been given a fair trial.
Influences, to which I will not refer tonight, have started a certain amount of publicity and propaganda in the old land. Perhaps there have been those who fear their interests may by adversely affected in some way or other by this system of medical examination, and they have started propaganda with the result that some British people got the idea that this was a restrictive measure. The committee felt, not because they had not faith in the system of medical examinations and not because they considered it had been given a fair trial, that these examinations had better be conducted by local British doctors under the supervision and control of the Canadian organization. The committee was endeavouring to convey to the British people that it was not the desire of the Canadian government to let them have even an idea that there was any intention of restriction in this regard. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, that has been recommended by the committee, and I feel that the publication of what I have already referred to will set at rest the fears of our British brothers with regard to our desire to have them over here.

Immigration-Mr. Ralston
My hon. friend has referred to the matter of the great migration to the United States. We all know there has been a very large increase in the population there, but I want to say to him that I think it is to the credit and pride of Canada that we, situated side by side with that great nation which is supposed to offer the greatest attractions to immigrants of any country in the world, have been able to maintain our population as we have. We have been capable of increasing our immigration during the last three years from that very country to our own. In 1924 we had 11,000 coming from that country. This has been steadily increasing; in 1926, 21.000 came and in 1927, 25,000, the last group having something like $14,000,000 of capital and assets. I think it is to the credit of Canada, and I think it dispels some of the gloom which my hon. friend has tried to shed over this chamber and which his speech may spread over this country, when we remember that people from the United States, that supposedly attractive country, are coming here in these large numbers. In this connection let me read an editorial from an independent paper, the Daily Record of Sherbrooke.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hewitt Bostock: Unless it is the unanimous desire of the house to continue, I would call attention to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
house adjourned last evening I mentioned
that to-night I would move that the house sit until twelve o'clock. That suggestion was approved of by the hon. leader of the opposition, and I think met with the unanimous approval of the house. I believe it is the desire of the house to silt to-night until at least twelve o'clock, and I would move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That the house may sit later than eleven o'clock p.m. this day.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think there
would be any objection if the motion read "until twelve o'clock".


An hon. MEMBER:: After twelve o'clock
would be another day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


James Layton Ralston: I was going to read this
editorial from the Daily Record of Sherbrooke:
Trekking Northward
They are coming here. Great vans, loaded with household goods, are on the move from New England mill towns northward to Quebec. It is easier to make a living here than there. So many Canadian families are returning.
A few years ago the movement was all in the other direction. Many who went did not better themselves. They received high pay for their work. But the job was not steady. In a few months they realized that they would have been better off had they remained in Canada.
This north or south movement is inseparable from economic conditions. Quebec province and Canada in general are prosperous. There is a greater proportion of unemployment in the states than here. Hence the reversal of the migrant movement.
Let me deal for just a moment with what my hon. friend has suggested with regard to the matter of work. I am afraid he has not read the report very carefully.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he has.


James Layton Ralston: If he had and if he had studied what has been done in the way of immigration and of providing settlement and employment, he would remember, as I have suggested before, that in the matter of settlement of those from the old land, agricultural settlers particularly, special assistance, to which I have already referred, has been given by the Canadian government. But those are not the only immigrants who are coming here. In addition to them there are immigrants from continental countries. In respect to them, as my hon. friend should recall, we have an agreement with the railways and that agreement recognizes the principle which my hon. friend has laid down, namely, that there shall be settlement; that employment shall be provided, because it is specifically stated in the agreement that the railways shall provide settlement for the people they bring in. This is no new principle; this is not the first time that it has been enunciated. It has been long recognized as part of the policy of coordination of the colonization principle with the work of immigration.
I want to point out to my hon. friend the second thing which he has overlooked. If he will read the report over carefully, he will find a declaration of what I regard as a somewhat new principle, a recognition of what may be a more effective settlement agency than even a federal department, and that is this, that settlement and employment conditions perhaps can be more intimately and closely looked after and supervised by the provincial administrations. There is in the report a paragraph which points a way to that and which suggests a remedy which I think my hon. friend should take note of. He had in mind
Immigration-Mr. Ralston

the necessity for providing settlement and the best way to do it. The paragraph which is found on page 6 is as follows:
The committee recommends that special efforts be now made to extend the field of activity of the provincial authorities particularly in the matter of placement, settlement and supervision of immigrants, and that, with this in view, the federal government consider contributing to defray the cost of provincial cooperation for that purpose.
The idea is to be taken along with what is set out in the preceding paragraph, as follows:	.
_ In the opinion of the committee the responsibility and control of the selection of immigrants, no matter by whom recruited must rest solely and exclusively with the government of Canada.
But after the immigrants are selected, after the arrangements are made for their transportation, the matter of placement, settlement and supervision is regarded as being one in which the provincial governments can very effectively cooperate in seeing to it that the work to which my hon. friend has referred is provided. It is no mere gesture, because the committee has suggested that a contribution to the cost of provincial cooperation in that respect be made by the federal government.


Mr. LUCAS:: Do I understand that by
arrangement with the provinces, the latter will have the say in regard to the class and number of immigrants that they will accept?


James Layton Ralston: I can only say to my hon. friend that he was a member of the committee which unanimously concurred in the report and I do not think I ought to be asked to interpret it for him. I think the report means exactly wha't it says, namely, that the field of activity of the provincial authorities particularly in the matter of placement, settlement and supervision of immigrants, can be extended and that the federal government should consider contributing to defray the cost of provincial cooperation for that purpose. That takes care of exactly the idea to which my hon. friend has referred, but it does not do so through some sort of distant department of industrial development set up by the federal authorities in Ottawa. It provides for cooperation by the people who, as I said a moment ago, are perhaps in a more close and intimate position to look after the matter of placement, settlement and supervision of immigrants. That is a forward step; that is a matter that has not formerly been stressed as strongly as we might hope for in connection with the colonization and immigration of this country. I believe along those lines rather than along the line suggested by my hon.

friend, namely, by adding the words "industrial development" to the Department of Immigration and Colonization, is the way to see that those who come to this country are properly settled.
I want to say wh'at my hon. friend has also omitted to note, namely that this report, states that although we are to do what we can in the matter of immigration, placement and settlement of those who come to us from other shores, we are not to forget the boys, girls, young men and young women of Canada and we must endeavour to see that they are given a fair chance as well.
May I refer just for a moment to the amendment which my hon. friend has moved. It recommends a department. The department is already established. It proposes to add to the title the two words "industrial development." It mentions 'a superintendent but I suppose there is nothing much in the name and the duties would really be those of a deputy minister and that title would do just as well. Let me refer to the duties which this department is supposed to perform. There is the co-ordination of all organizations in connection with the matter of immigration. That has been the policy of the Department of Immigration and Colonization ever since it was established. It has been coordinating and working with all these various organizations. It has assisted them in connection with their work. In connection with the inquiry which has just been held the committee have had many representations from them regarding their work with the department. It is also suggested that they will see that the immigrants are physically and mentally fit. We do not need to have any new department for that. Provision is made in the act for that and the matter of medical examination is for that very purpose. The suggestion is made that financial provision be made for settlement. If my hon. friend will look at the report which has been concurred in unanimously, he will find that in the matter of land settlement the committee has made a pretty definite recommendation.


John Wesley Edwards: May I correct the minister there? It was not quite unanimous. There was one section that my hon. friend will remember I did not concur in.


James Layton Ralston: That may be, but my hon. friend will bear me out in this, that the section to which I am now referring was concurred in unanimously.


John Wesley Edwards: That is right


James Layton Ralston: The committee had heard the evidence with regard to the three thousand

Immigration-Mr. Ralston
family settlement scheme and they felt that opportunity should be given to see how that scheme would work out. A very large commitment had been made by the country in connection with that scheme. They had in mind the soldier settlement scheme in which the country had invested many millions of dollars. They had in mind also, although it is not mentioned in the report, the fact that provision bad been made for farm loans; that the farm loan board would assist not only those who came to this country but those who are already here, and the committee recommends to parliament that time be given to see how this scheme works out before embarking on extended schemes of that .character. I think from what I have heard around the chamber to-day there is a great deal of unanimity in regard to this particular .part of the report which suggests that the farm settlement scheme should be allowed to pass the experimental stage and that we have the benefit of the experience in regard to it before we make further large financial commitments. That is what the committee has to say in regard to the question of financial assistance in the matter of settlement.
As regards the reference in the amendment to settlement in the new provinces of those from the older provinces, I only want to say that I happen to come from one of the older provinces and I feel equal opportunity should be given for settlement in the older provinces of those who may have gone to the newer provinces and who would like to come back.
The next suggestion is that the department should direct schemes of settlement. If there are no direct schemes to be put into effect, there are no functions in that respect for the department to carry on. But the department already has ample machinery for that purpose in the land settlement board, which has been operating for a good while.
In the second part of the amendment there are really only two points. One is that there should be an economic survey of this country taken with a view to ascertaining the opportunities for employment. As has already-been pointed out, this report expressly recognizes that idea and the very last paragraph contains a most comprehensive statement of that policy in words which have been already read, but which I shall take the time of the house to read again:
Your committee would also recommend that the government make an intensive and comprehensive study of the possibilities of increasing industrial and agricultural development in
Canada with a view to attracting capital and providing wider and increased opportunities for employment not only for our own people, but for prospective immigrants.
The suggestion in the amendment is also that the industrial development branch shall advise as to future economic development. I want to remind the house that we have already a branch of natural resources in the Department of the Interior. We have already a Department of Trade and Commerce, which makes an intensive study of this kind of thing. We have a Bureau of Statistics which I think some gentlemen on the other side of the house referred to the other night as being in every way efficient, and with these agencies at our command it seems to me that we ought to be in a fairly good position to be advised as to our future economic development without setting up any more machinery for that purpose.
There is also the suggestion that attention should be given to the establishment of suitable industries in small towns. I do say that after the economic survey has been made it seems to me it may be time enough for this government to consider cooperation with the provinces in that respect, but so far it has been the practice that the establishment of industries is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and provincial scope, and I think it would be laying down a somewhat dangerous policy to suggest that this federal government shall now embark on the scheme of establishing industries in various small towns throughout the Dominion.
With those remarks I think I have dealt briefly with the teeth of the amendment which is before the house. I do fail to find, with all due respect to my good friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) whose work as has already been stated, has been on such a high level in connection with the whole deliberations of the committee, I do fail to find in his resolution anything new or anything which will provide necessary machinery which we have not already.
My last word is that it seems to me that this report points to a redoubling of effort, to a uniting of resources, to a uniting of all the activities which will go to make the work of immigration successful-not to leave out the provincial authorities, not to leave out the voluntary organizations, not to leave out all those agencies which can help to bring into this country a desirable population, and w-hen that population comes here, see to it that it is properly settled and properly placed. I feel that the report of the committee

Immigration-Mr. Mackenzie King
will perhaps be found to have more of hope and more of new ideas, and to contain a great deal more in the way of constructive policies for the future than anything which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has indicated in the rather doleful speech which he has delivered to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take any part in the present debate, especially in view of all that has been said, and I would not now do so had it not been for some remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) this evening. For some reason best known to himself, my hon. friend has found it advisable to go outside of the report which we have been discussing to reflect upon a very loyal, a very faithful and a very able colleague, the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) in his administration of the department. I feel that I should be belying every instinct which I possess if I permitted a reflection of the kind, particularly with my knowledge of the minister's qualifications for the position which he holds, to pass unnoticed, and to pass without a very severe censure, if it is permissible for such words to pass from my lips.
The hon. leader of the opposition reflected on my colleague by referring to him as one who did not possess the necessary training or temperament for the position which he holds. That, I think, was the gravamen of his indictment. I would say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that he is the last person whp ought to speak of temperament. I shall not say anything about his training. I think probably it was a matter of temperament which for the moment caused him to make the remark which he did make.
May I say this, and I say it in all sincerity to my hon. friend: I belive that in commenting as he did upon the Minister of Immigration and Colonization he was giving expression to what he believed was expected of him as the leader of the opposition in voicing a certain critical attitude, rather than giving utterance to his own personal convictions. My hon. friend was careful to say that in British public life men speak fearlessly with respect to those who are opposed to them in parliament. I am sure that in commenting as he did my hon. friend was giving expression to what he believed some members of his following throughout, the country would wish to hear voiced. But may I ask with respect to the criticism, on what grounds is it based? Why

does my hon. friend say that the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization is not suited by training and temperament to fill the position which he holds?
What has been the training of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization? I ask hon. members to consider the training which the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization has had as fitting him for the portfolio which he holds, and to compare it with the training of other ministers who have held that position, or compare it with any training which a man could possibly have who was going to be called upon to fill the position of Minister of Immigration.
The minister came to this country as a young man; he came to Canada as an immigrant. As an immigrant he went to western Canada, was educated in part in this country, took an active interest in the municipal life of the community in which he lived, was appointed a reeve of the municipality in which be was residing, subsequently was made secretary-treasurer of the union of municipalities, clearly indicative of the fact that his fellow men believed that he was one who had a wise and a wide knowledge of the needs of those who were similarly situated to himself. He brought up his family in a new community, himself as a settler, himself one who was making a home in the new land, and he did it so successfully and so completely that he won the confidence of his fellow citizens in the district in which he resided to such a degree that on three separate occasions they have returned him as a member to this parliament of Canada.
May I add that when there grew up in this country, as there did immediately after the war, a party which was inclined to feel that the two old political parties did not represent to the extent which they thought it should be represented the feeling of the great agricultural interests in this country, and when that party became sufficiently strong to be recognized as a separate party in this house, its representatives in parliament chose the present Minister of Immigration as the leader of their party, and as their leader he held an honoured position in this house.
I cannot but believe that the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite, if they share the view expressed by their leader, is due to the circumstance that the present Minister of Immigration sits to-day on this side of the house instead of on the opposite side, rather than to any feeling that is entertained towards the minister himself. I say, Mr. Speaker, I can

Immigration-Mr. Mackenzie King
think of no career better calculated to be of service to one in the position of Minister of Immigration and Colonization than a career such as I have described, and no example to others more inspiring. Take those who are thinking of emigrating from the old country to this Dominion. Many references have been made to the fact that we are not obtaining the number of immigrants from the British Isles which we should all like to see coming to this country. I ask you, what greater inducement could be offered to any young man about to seek a home in a new land, whait finer example than that which is to be found in the career of the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization? He is a living example of what this country offers to men who possess his sterling qualities. They can find in this land great opportunities, and there is no position to which they cannot hope to rise provided they possess the qualities which my hon. friend possesses in such large measure.
In the course of this debate with respect to immigration, we have not stressed sufficiently the exceptional position which many of those who have come from the British Isles as immigrants have attained in our Dominion. I am proud to be able to say that in the present administration at least three distinguished members-the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) who spoke this afternoon, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) who is being referred to to-night, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) who at the present moment is representing Canada, at Geneva-came' to this country as emigrants from the British Isles, one from England, one from Scotland and one from Ireland. Could there be a better advertisement of what this country offers in the way of opportunity to British settlers? If it be necessary to mention another example, I might recall the memorable gathering which took(plaee only a year or two ago, when members of this house who originally had come to Canada as emigrants from other countries gathered together, to the number, if I recollect aright, of twenty-seven, to celebrate that particular circumstance. Knowledge of that kind spread throughout the world is to my mind the best sort of immigration propaganda this country has to offer. If we are not getting a larger number of immigrants it is due in large measure to the fact that too little stress is laid on, these outstanding successes, while too much is said by hon. gentlemen opposite in bemoaning conditions in this country.
May I say this further word with respect to the temperament, so-called, of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization? What, may I ask, is required in the way of temperament on the part of a minister of the crown to enable him adequately to fill a position which has to do very largely, in fact almost entirely, with human relations and human life? The first quality I should say is broad human sympathy, the second, a great desire to be of service to one's fellow men.
I venture to say that hon. members, irrespective of party, will agree with me that no member of this house possesses those two qualities to a finer or in a larger degree than does the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization. Indeed, if he has been willing to take upon himself the heavy obligations of that department it is, I believe, primarily because he has as a life purpose the desire, which I believe is one held in considerable measure by all who are in public life, of being of some real service to his fellow men. But I would say this further with regard to my hon. friend: I believe he honestly feels that the greatest service which it would be possible for him to render to this land1 and to his fellow men is to bring an opportunity similar to that which he himself has enjoyed, within the range of as large a number of his fellow men as may be possible. I know that the great desire of the minister while he is holding his present portfolio is to be the instrument of helping others to share opportunities such as he as a young man shared, and to enjoy the privileges which he and his family have enjoyed in our Dominion. These are qualities which, as I have said, all hon. members recognize in the Minister of Immigration.
But may I add that if the minister needed any testimony to his successful administration of the department, he has it in the report of the committee which has been presented to-day. Listening to my hon. friend opposite, one would think there had been two reports brought into this house, one by supporters of the government and the other by his own followers. As a matter of fact the report which was presented by the chairman of the committee is a unanimous report, a report which has been agreed to by every hon. gentleman opposite who was a member of that committee, a report which has been agreed to by the members of the Progressive party who were on that committee. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised at my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who was himself a member of that commit-

Immigration-Mr. Mackenzie King
tee, and I am told an exceptionally helpful and useful member. He had a good deal to do with the finishing touches of the report if I am to judge-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I may interrupt the
Prime Minister. I did dot some i's and cross some t's, but if the right hon. gentleman is under the impression or has been informed that the committee were unanimous in regard to the report, I entirely dissent from the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I did
wish to express my appreciation of was the final form in which the report has been presented, the form in which the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, and for which I feel a debt is owing to my hon. friend. But I may say my hon. friend has agreed with all the members of the committee on the report which has been presented.


Mr. McGIBBON:: M'ay .1 correct the
Prime Minister? While in the main we agreed on the report, there were certainly some parts which we did not agree on. I did not for one, but I was voted down and let it go at that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly,
that is the procedure adopted by all the committees of this house. There may be matters in the report which personally members on this side might be inclined to disagree with.
I think some do.


Peter McGibbon: Then it was not unanimous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
minority report. It is a report of the committee presented without any mention in it of dissent in any particular. May I say that there is no more intricate problem than that of immigration, and I think the committtee has come to recognize that fact. It has come to see that it would be impossible so far as Canada is concerned for any considerable number of men to be of one mind regarding what is the most desirable policy to be adopted with respect to immigration. But this report-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was the condition of
mind of the committee, I think, when we separated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly; and this report represents the consensus of view-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -so far as it is possible to get it from men who differ on many points.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out what is common ground, that there is not a single reflection of any kind upon the minister in charge of the department-not a single reflection. Indeed, there is commendation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the Prime Minister
allow a statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is this. With regard to the position of the minister and the efficiency of his department, no vote was taken in the committee. If a vote had been taken, there are many members on the other side of the house, members of that committee who would have voted for such a motion. But it was left out by common consent because we were not unanimous on that point, and those who were in the minority were left to bring an expression of opinion before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. members on the other side were to give expression to their views with respect to any member of the administration they would vote him out of office as quickly as they could. We do not look to hon. gentlemen opposite to express encomiums upon any member of the administration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Do not attribute to us
opinions which we do not hold.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any reflection to be made upon the Department of Immigration and Colonization, due to the manner in which the department is being administered by the present minister, it was the duty of the committee so to report; and I believe the committee would so have- reported, had that been their conviction. But may I add this: my hon. friend in his amendment has not gone that length. He has not expressed a view of that kind, and I do not believe that in his heart of hearts he entertains it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought the department
was very inefficient and it was evident at every stage of the evidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a very
easy thing with respect to immigration to make comparisons between the department as it is administered to-day and the department as it has been administered in bygone years, to make comparisons between the number of immigrants that are coming from the British isles at the present time and the number of immigrants that formerly came in; but when examination is made of the circum-

Pension Act-Senate Amendments
stances which account for the difference, one very soon discovers the reason. In days when it was possible to give to settlers free homesteads, to advertise free homesteads; in days when it was possible for men and women to bring their families from the old land to the new for a few dollars instead of having to pay the relatively enormous rates which are charged to-day by the steamship and railway companies, it was an easy matter to fill this country with immigrants. There were a large number of people, seeking to emigrate from the British isles, who were anxious to get away and it was then an easy matter to bring them in. But what are the facts today? Every single dominion has been competing for immigrants from the British isles; and so far as this Dominion is concerned1 Canada under the administration of the present minister has had the largest number of immigrants from the British isles. Moreover, while hon. gentlemen opposite in the last few years have been complaining about the numbers of Canadians leaving Canada for the United States, under the present minister Canadians have been returning in larger numbers than ever before.
I say, therefore, without wishing to prolong the discussion, that whether one is to judge the administration of the department by the actual records as they speak for themselves under the administration of the present minister; whether one is to judge by the temperament which should be possessed by anyone whose duty it is to deal with large numbers of human beings seeking to make homes in a new land under conditions which, to most men, must be unknown unless they have been matters of experience; or whether it be the matter of training, my hon. friend and colleague, one of the most loyal, devoted, industrious and efficient of ministers of the crown, no matter by which of these qualifications he is to be judged, will be found to hold an honoured position in this country.


John Wesley Edwards: The Prime
Minister says that there was unanimity and that there was no reflection in the report. Does he not consider that there was in the report some reflection on the efficiency of the administration of the department in the fact that it unanimously made certain very specific suggestions of very drastic changes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as that is concerned, I think that some at least of these suggestions have come from the minister himself. They have come from hon. gentlemen on this side quite as much as from hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Wesley Edwards: From the
committee as a whole.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly; I am prepared to give the committee as a whole full credit. It would be an extraordinary thing indeed if, after hon. members have sat for four months or at least three months listening to experts and others of high reputation in different avenues of business, they were not able to make some suggestions calculated to be helpful.
Amendment (Mr. Cahan) negatived on division.
Main motion agreed to on division and report concurred in.

Report of the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the Northern Pacific Halibut treaty-Mr. Cardin.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this house:
1.	That the Senate doth insist on its first and second amendments, striking out the letter (a) in line 1 of clause 2, and paragraph (a) of clause 2, because by reason of a subsequent amendment to clause 25 herein set out, clause 2 (a) serves no useful purpose.
2.	That the Senate doth insist on its sixth amendment, striking out clause 7, because under section 11 of the Pension Act all who served in a theatre of war have been pensioned or are pensionable to the full extent of their disabilities without any deduction in respect of their pre-enlistment condition. The existing law clearly provides that even those who were found by medical examination to be unfit for front line service shall also be pensioned to the full extent of their disabilities notwithstanding the fact that their service in a theatre of war was of a non-combatant character, far removed from the scene of active hostilities. The existing law which has been in operation some ten years is definite and is well understood. Clause 7 proposes an amendment thereto providing that pensions shall be awarded to dependents where the aggravation of a preenlistment injury or disease substantially contributed to death. Consequently this is obviously intended to cover only those who served in Canada and England. The difficulty of interpreting the words "substantially contributed", coupled with the fact that the present law seems to be sufficiently generous to cover all classes that would come under this clause, warrant the conclusion that it cannot be reasonably justified.
3.	That the Senate doth amend its seventh amendment by substituting for new section 21

Pension Act-Senate Amendments
(X) of clause 12 the following:
"21. (1) Nothwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act, any case respecting a member of the forces or any of his dependents which is claimed to be specially meritorious and in which pension has been refused by the Commission, or if an appeal lies to the Board, both by the Commission and by the Board, may be made the subject of an investigation and adjudication by way of compassionate pension or allowance as hereinafter provided."
4.	That the Senate doth not insist on its ninth amendment, striking out clause 25, but substitutes the following new clause 25 in lieu thereof:
"25. Subsection one of section thirty-two of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
'32. (1) No pension shall be paid to the widow of a pensioner unless she was living with him or was maintained by him or was, in the opinion of the Commission, entitled to be maintained by him at the time of his death and for a reasonable time previously thereto.
(i)	No pension shall be paid to the widow of a member of the forces unless she was married to him before the appearance of the injury or disease which resulted in his death,
(a)	Unless the injury in respect of which he was pensioned or entitled to pension would not shorten his expectancy of life; or
(b)	Unless he was not chronically ill of a pensionable disease and not in receipt of pension in respect thereof.
(ii)	This subsection shall not be held to authorize any payment of a pension for any period anterior to the date of the coming into force of this. Act'."
5.	That the Senate doth amend its eleventh amendment by substituting for new subsection (10) of clause 30, the following:
"(10) The Board shall be attached to the department and the expenses required to be incurred for the discharge of its duties, including the salaries of its officers, clerks, and other employees shall, on approval by the Board, be paid out of the moneys provided by parliament."
6.	That the Senate doth insist on its twelfth amendment, amending clause 31, because under the existing law the soldier himself, or in the event of his death his widow, his children or his parents have the right of appeal on the ground that the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death was attributable to or wras incurred during military service. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause, while not clear, are intended to change the existing principle of the right of appeal, particularly for dependents other than widows and children who claim their financial resources are inadequate. The Senate is of the view this is not advisable.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. EDWARDS (Fron/tenac-Addington):: 1.	How many officers of the permanent militia force of Canada with the rank of 
general are in receipt of yearly pensions from the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What are the names of such generals and the amount of pension in each case?
3.	When and under what authority or for what reason or reasons was each such pension granted?
4.	What was the salary or rate of pay of each such officer immediately preceding the granting of the pension?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	None.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. LAPIERRE:: 1.	When was the organization branch of the Civil Service Commission constituted, and for what purpose?
2.	What officers were first appointed to discharge the duties of this branch, and at what salary?
3.	Who are the present officers of said branch, the date of appointment and salary each is now receiving?
4.	Are the present officers graduates of Canadian universities, colleges or high schools? If not, which of them are graduates of foreign educational institutions?
5.	What functions are said officers required to perform?
6. Does the scope of their work extend to the outside service? If so, which officer is assigned to investigate those departmental offices where the French language is chiefly the language of communication?
7.	Js it the intention of the government to appoint an officer to this branch who is thoroughly conversant in the French language?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The Organization branch of the Civil Service Commission was constituted in 1918 for the purpose of carrying on the organization and classification work as prescribed by the Civil Service Act of 1918.
2.	Mr. H. S. Dixon, temporary appointment as chief, Organization branch, at a salary of $2,700 per annum; C. V. Putman, assistant, $1,500 per annum.
3.	C. V. Putman, chief, organization branch. Permanent appointment as a result of competitive examination, April 1, 1920. Present salary, $4,320 per annum; F. G. Bird, principal investigator, organization branch. Permanent appointment as a result of competitive examination, March 23, 1920. Present salary, $3,540; G. H. Gilchrist, senior investigator, organization branch. Permanent appointment as a result of competitive examination, January 1, 1921. Present salary, $3,360; C. R. Medland, investigator, organization branch. Permanent appointment as a result of competitive examination, April 1, 1921. Present salary, $3,000; W. B. Cole, investigator,

Questions
organization branch. Transferred from the Department- of the Interior. Permanent appointment to that department June 1, 1911. Present salary, $3,000
-1. Messrs. Putman, Bird and Gilchrist are graduates -of Canadian universities; Mr. Med-land, London University, London, England.
5.	To carry on the investigational work in connection with organization and classification work as required by the Civil Service Aot.
6.	Yes. The work is handled by departments, and when it has been necessary to assign an officer where the French Language is chiefly the language of communication, Mr. Medland has been detailed for that work.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


PURCHASE OP YACHT PATHFINDER
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	Has the government purchased the yacht Pathfinder?
2.	If so. when, from whom, at what price, and for what department?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	December 9, 1927-order in council P.C. 2328; James Playfair; $70,000; Department of National Revenue.


TARIPP ADVISORY BOARD-IRON AND STEEL DUTIES
Mr. CANTLEY:: What are the names of the persons or corporations comprising the 350 parties stated by the Minister of Finance as having appeared before or appealed to the tariff advisory board against any increase in the iron and steel duties or any consequences of the presentation to the tariff advisory board on behalf of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Limited, and the Dominion Iron and Steel Company Limited, May 26, 1926?


Mr. ROBB:: As regards this question, I would direct the attention of the house and of my hon. friend to the fact that I did not make the statement attributed to me in this question. I have here a memorandum of what I actually said, as reported at page 3425 of Hansard. This is whait I said:
The government has referred this steel inquiry to the tariff advisory board. Some 350 other firms throughout Canada have said, "We want to be heard on this; we are interested. We employ more labour in the steel and iron industry than do the two large steel industries, and we want to be heard."
If my hon. friend will correct his question to conform to what I really did say I can table the information forthwith.


Hewitt Bostock: The question as amended is answered and the answer is tabled.
The answer follows:
The following persons, firms or corporations have at some time or other communicated with the tariff advisory board-either by answering a questionnaire or by voluntarily submitting memoranda or briefs-as indicating that they were interested in the original applications respecting the duties on iron and steel, filed by the Algoma Steel Corporation and the British Steel Corporation, or in the iron and steel applications related thereto:
Name of Company-Address.
Canadian Steel Foundries, Montreal, P.Q.
Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.
McKinnon Industries, Ltd., St. Catharines.
National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, England.
Malleable Castings, Mfgrs. of Can., Toronto.
United Farmers of Out., Toronto.
Can. Council of Agriculture.
Sheet Metal Mfgrs. Assn., Toronto.
Wire & Nail Mfgrs. Assn.
Watson & Jack Co., Montreal.
Spear & Jackson Ltd., Vancouver.
Vancouver Iron Works, Vancouver.
Dominion Chain Co., Niagara.
McKinnon Columbus Chain Ltd.
Coal, Iron & Steel Industries in Maritime Provinces, M. A. McKay, Port Arthur, Ont.
Dominion Iron & Steel Co., Montreal.
P. L. Robertson Mfg. Co., Milton. Ont.
Laidlaw Bale Tie Co. Ltd., Hamilton.
Peck Rolling Mills, Ltd., Montreal.
Massey-Harris Co., Toronto.
Steel Co. of Canada, Montreal.
Galt Art Metai Co., Galt.
McFarlane-Douglas Co., Ottawa.
Metal Shingles & Siding Co., Preston, Ont.
Metallic Roofing Co., Toronto.
Metal Stampings Ltd., Toronto.
The P. K. Mills, Listowel, Ont.
The Robt. Mitchell Co., Montreal.
The Herbert Morris Crane & Hoist Co, Niagara Falls.
John Morrow Screw & Nut Co, Ingersoll.
Motor Products Corporations, Walkerville, Ont.
Monarch Electric Co. Ltd, St. Lambert, Montreal.
B. Mooney & Sons, Ltd, St. John, N.B.
Norton Co. of Can. Ltd, Hamilton, Ont.
The Parker Fountain Pen Co, Toronto, Ont.
Phillips Toronto, Ltd, Toronto, Ont.
Preston Furniture Co. Ltd, Preston, Ont.
Restmore Mfg. Co. Ltd, Vancouver, B.C.
The James Shearer Co. Ltd, Montreal, Que
H. R. Silver Ltd, Halifax, N.S.
Snyder's Limited, Waterloo, Ont.
The Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Stanley Steel Co. Ltd, Hamilton, Ont.
Sterling Rubber Co. Ltd, Guelph, Ont.
Geo. M. Stewart, Montreal, Que.
Taylor Electric Mfg. Co. Ltd, London, Ont
Taylor & Arnold Engineering Co, Limited, Montreal, Que.
The Toronto Carpet Mfg. Co, Toronto, Ont.
Universal Button Fastening & Button Co. Ltd, Walkerville, Ont.
Universal Engineering Corp, Montreal. Que.
Wallace Mfg. Co. Ltd, Sussex, New Brunswick.
Walter Wilson & Son, St. John, N.B.
Windsor Plaster Co. Ltd, Windsor, N.S.

Questions

Standard Tube Co. Ltd., Woodstock, Ont. Sarnia Bridge Co. Ltd., Sarnia, Ont. Sawyer-Massey Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont. Scholl Mfg. Co., Toronto.
Scott & McHale, Ltd., London, Ont. Shelburne Shipbuilders, Shelburne, N.S. Shurly-Dietrich Company, Ltd., Galt, Ont. Sidway-Topliff Company, Ltd., Toronto, Ont. Simonds Canada Saw Co. Ltd., Montreal.
The Skinner Company Ltd., Gananoque, Ont. Small Bros., Dunham, P.Q.
Standard Foundry & Supply Co. Ltd., Walkerville, Ont.
Standard Steel Construction Co. Ltd., Welland, Ont.
Stanley Works of Canada, Hamilton, Ont. Starr Manufacturing Co., Dartmouth, N.S.^ The Steel Company of Canada, Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.
James Steele, Limited, Guelph, Ont.
St. Lawrence Steel & Wire Co. Ltd., Gananoque, Ont.
Jos. Stokes Rubber Co.. Welland, Ont.
Storm-King Electric Windshield Cleaner, Toronto, Ont.
Superior Electrics, Pembroke, Ont.
Redd iff Brick Co., Redcliff, Alta.
The Renfrew Machinery Co. Ltd., Renfrew, Ont.	.
Richardson Road Machinery, Saskatoon, Sask.
Riverbank Manufacturing Co. Ltd., blew Glasgow, N.S.
Royal Broom Company, Ingersoll, Ont.
Taylor Bros. Cutlery Co. Ltd., Hamilton,
J. & J. Taylor Ltd., Toronto.
The Toronto Iron Works, Toronto.
Tyee Machinery Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. United Shoe Machinery Co. of Canada, Limited, Montreal.	.
Universal Steel Wheel Co. Ltd., Windsor,
Vancouver Brass Works, Vancouver, B.C. Victor Heaters Co., Sarnia, Ont.
The Wabi Iron Works, New Liskeard, Ont. Charles Walmsley & Co. Ltd., Montreal. Watson Foster Co. Ltd., Montreal.
Wayne Forge &. Machine Co. Ltd.
Welland Steel Castings, Ltd., Welland, Ont. Welland Vale Mfg. Co., St. Catharines. Whittaker Fireplaces, Windsor, Ont. Whitworth & Restall, Toronto.
Walter F. Wiekware, Ottawa, Ontario. Woods Underwear Company, Toronto. Morrison Steel & Wire Co., Vancouver, B.C. Toronto Wire and Nail Co., Toronto.
Yale Bedding Co., Montreal.
Western Steel Products, Winnipeg. Man.
The Canada Ingot Iron Co. Ltd., Guelph. Corrugated Pipe Co. Ltd., Stratford. Dominion Road Machinery Co. Ltd., Goderich, Ont.
Sumbling Machinery Co., Toronto.
Morash Foundry Co., Morrisburg.
Nicholas Brothers, Edmonton.
United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan Section, Saskatoon, Sask.
National Dairy Council of Canada, Ottawa. Wahnapitae Power Co. Ltd., Sudbury.
Br. Columbia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
C. J. Brown & Co., Danville.
Canada Barrels & Kegs Ltd., Waterloo, Ont. Benjamin Electric Mfgrs. Co., Toronto.

K-T Foundry Ltd., Galt, Ont.
The Brantford Trades & Labour Council, Brantford, Ont.
Calgary Trade & Labour Council, Calgary. Town Council, Trenton, N.S.
The Corinthian Stone Co., Guelph.	_
Smiths Falls Malleable Castings Ltd., Smiths Falls.
Galt Malleable Iron Co., Galt.
Auto Specialties Mfgr. Co., Windsor.
Fittings Ltd., Oshawa.
Ontario Malleable Iron Co., Oshawa.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 290, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the amendment?


James Alexander Robb: The bill as it left this house
gave five years for the applicant to apply for insurance; the amendment provides for one year.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Immigration and Colonization 

 salaries, $305,570; contingencies, $45,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister
please explain the increase in this vote?


Robert Forke: It is due
partly to statutory increases and partly to an increase in the number of employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain the nature of the employment of Mr. Gerhard Ens?


Robert Forke: Mr. Ens has been employed by the land settlement board to investigate conditions among the Mennonite people in their large settlements. He is employed temporarily at $100 a month and expenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What settlement is he
investigating, and how long has the settlement been there?


Robert Forke: He is investigating all the
different Mennonite settlements; he is well acquainted with the Mennonite people. He

Supply-Immigration
has made a report, and I can table it if my hon. friend wishes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to know if he is
investigating any new settlements. The fact is that he is there for election purposes; is that not so?


Robert Forke: That is probably the opinion of the leader of the opposition, but that is not the purpose for which he was employed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On whose recommendation was he appointed?


Robert Forke: On my own recommendation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, but who suggested the recommendation to the minister?
Mr. FORKE. Mr. Gerhard Ens is very well known in Saskatchewan, and as I wanted a man for this work I employed him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whom did he succeed?


Robert Forke: There has been a large immigration-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whom did he succeed?


Robert Forke: No one was there before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For how long is he employed?


Robert Forke: Temporarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For how long?


Robert Forke: That will be at my discretion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Regardless of the Civil
Service Act?


Robert Forke: My hon. friend knows he is
not employed under the Civil Service Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How long may he be employed temporarily without coming under the Civil Service Act?


Robert Forke: Three months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he was appointed to
an office which had not existed formerly, for three months at $100 a month and expenses, to investigate and report upon the Mennonite settlements in Saskatchewan?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what was the need
for these reports at this particular time?


Robert Forke: He is not the only man I
may have making reports on immigration conditions in western Canada; I have others in addition to him, if hon. members want to know it, who are making confidential reports to me on immigration matters.


Robert Gardiner: Perhaps the minister might give us some information about these other people who are making confidential reports?


Robert Forke: They would not be confidential if I spoke about them.


Robert Gardiner: The minister must not think he can take 'that attitude with this committee. We are voting supply for his department, and I would remind the minister that he is responsible to this committee. Now we would like to get that information.


Robert Forke: If the hon. member is determined to have the information I will give it, but I do not think it is in the best interests of immigration to do so. I have had complaints from Regina, from Yorkton and from Saskatoon, in addition to other places, about unemployment. I could have sent out a regular member of the department to investigate these reports, but I sent out someone who was not known to be a member of the department to make a confidential report upon the conditions which existed, and I would ask my hon. friend not to press for the name at present. I will give it to him privately if he wishes.


Robert Gardiner: How many men are employed in that capacity?


Robert Forke: Only one, and he was only temporarily employed a week ago.


Robert Gardiner: What necessitated his employment? Can the minister give us any reason why this action was taken?


Robert Forke: I wanted a confidential report upon conflicting statements, for my own particular purpose. I have nothing to hide in the whole matter.


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that the minister keep the name to himself, but I want to know what circumstances made it necessary to employ this other person.


Robert Forke: I had complaints from Regina that a certain number of idle people could not find work, and I had similar complaints from Yorkton and Saskatoon. There were conflicting statements with regard to the situation and I asked the superintendent in Winnipeg to find a suitable person to do that work and send me a confidential report. That gentleman is now engaged in that work; he is not engaged for any specified time; as far as that goes he may be discharged next week. I was asked if I had other employees doing
Supply-Immigration

this work, and it would not have been stretching it very far if I had said there were no other employees of this kind, but I am giving the facts of the case.


Robert Gardiner: jWithi regard to this Mennonite proposition, what is the trouble there? What necessitated the employment of Mt. Ens? Is he the man who belonged! to the Mennonite settlement board?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister really think it is advisable to take a man off a settlement board interested in settling Mennon-ites in this country and ask him to investigate a situation with regard to Mennonite settlers?


Robert Forke: I think he has done very useful work. There was some trouble that he straightened out in regard to schools, and I think he has earned his $100.


Robert Gardiner: What was the trouble with regard to the schools? Was there some trouble between the English-speaking and the Mennonite people of the school district, or what was it?


Robert Forke: I cannot tell at the moment, but I oan get the report; I will bring it here if the hon. member wishes. I know there was some trouble in the schools, but I received the report only the other day and am not very familiar with it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister say what right the federal government has to be receiving confidential reports on the schools in Saskatchewan?


Robert Forke: I do not know whether or not I am getting outside my province. It was not exactly in connection with the schools; it was in connection with foreign children being properly looked after and told what to do in regard to getting their education. Is there anything wrong in that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am delighted to find the Department of Immigration becoming responsible for the education of these foreigners. This is the first time I have heard of it. I wonder whether grants will be made for that purpose now.


Robert Forke: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there no grants to be made?


Robert Forke: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then why should the federal government be mixing in the schools of Saskatchewan?


Robert Forke: We are not mixing up with the schools in any way; the hon. member is taking something from my remarks which I never intendted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the minister said that he sent out a man to make inquiries concerning some difficulty about the schools in Saskatchewan.


Robert Forke: I did not say that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister tell us what he did say?


Robert Forke: I said, among other things, that some children had had some difficulty about the schools, and he straightened it out for them. It was not interfering with education in any way. I have the report here and I am willing to table it and let you see it for yourself.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are we to understand from the minister that the educational authorities are not capable of dealing with this matter?


Robert Forke: I think the members are magnifying this too much. If some families had any difficulty in understanding the school regulations I do not see where it would do any harm for an officer of this department to give a little explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A confidential officer.


William Thomas Lucas: I notice there is an increase in the number of employees, amounting to fifteen; will the minister explain that?


Robert Forke: In 1928-29 the number of employees was 179; in 1927-28 the number was 164, making an increase of 15. This increase is accounted for as follows; one chief of records; one head clerk; one principal clerk; sixteen clerks grade 4 (promoted from grade 3); less net increase in lower grades ' due to adjustments and promotions, making a net increase of 15 in the number of civil government employees.


Robert Gardiner: I am particularly interested in a special employee by the name of Ens. Was this man a member of the Saskatchewan legislature?


Robert Forke: I think he was in the
Saskatchewan legislature.


Robert Gardiner: Is he the member who resigned to allow a prospective provincial minister to get his seat?


Robert Forke: I do not know.

Supply-Immigration


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I could answer that question if I could get it clearly. I should like to have it repeated.


Robert Gardiner: Are you aware of that fact?


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the fact?


Robert Gardiner: I wanted to find out if the Mr. Ens who resigned his membership in the legislature to make room for a prospective minister is the same person.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can answer that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the Minister of Immigration is a capable minister?
Mr. DUNNING': How can he know about the Saskatchewan legislature?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The one who knows is willing to give you the information.


Robert Gardiner: I asked if that was so.


Ernest Lapointe: He is the one who knows; you do not want the information.


Robert Forke: The answer is no.


Robert Gardiner: That is all I want.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Ens did not resign his seat in the Saskatchewan legislature to make room for a prospective minister.


Robert Gardiner: I thank you very much for a very complete answer to my question.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Ens ceased to be a member of the legislature many years before there was a minister elected in that constituency; that is my best memory in the matter.


Robert Gardiner: Is it the intention of the minister to employ this gentleman for any length of time?


Robert Forke: He is employed only by the month.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that he belongs to the Mennonite colonization board. Would it not appeal to the minister as being hardly fair to employ one of the members of that board to look after the interests of the Mennonites, and pay his salary out of Dominion funds? I am well aware that this board have ample funds to look after the interests of their own people, and there is no need for this government to pay out even $100 per month to do that work when they are well able to pay for it. Before we go any further, can we get some assurance from
the minister that this man will be dismissed or retired within a very short time?


Robert Forke: I intend to keep him just as long as he is useful.


Robert Gardiner: Let us know what he is going to do. What is the intention of the minister in regard to the employment of this man so that he will be worth $100 per month
and expenses?


Robert Forke: I will put the report on the table.


Robert Gardiner: I want an answer from the minister now. It is a simple question and there is no reason why he should not answer it.


Robert Forke: Repeat your question.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is not a criminal, and all this cross-examination is unjustified.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A minister is bound to answer any reasonable question.


Robert Gardiner: How long do you intend to employ this gentleman?


Robert Forke: He is employed in looking after new settlers, and goes into any district where he can be of help to the Mennonite3 who are new to the country and need a little advice and assistance.


Robert Gardiner: Is it the intention of the minister to pay his expenses?


Robert Forke: If I send him out of course his expenses would be paid.


Robert Gardiner: I happen to know something about this Mennonite settlement board. We have many of them coming into our particular district, and, from the information I have received from the Mennonites who have come in, there is no need for the employment of this man except to help bear the expenses of this board. If you want to make a grant to this board for that purpose, well and good, but under the circumstances there is no reason why you should select one specific man for that purpose.


Robert James Manion: How many votes do you think he controls?


Robert Gardiner: You cannot get any
votes, because they do not vote.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Supply-Immigration


Milton Neil Campbell: This seems to foe departing on a new policy altogether. I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to apply this to other nationalities, and have them look after their respective countrymen coming here? There are thousands of people of Slavic stock coming into this country, who have to be looked after, and they probably need guidance just as much as or more than the Mennonites.


Robert Forke: I will be prepared to take any steps that I think are in the interest of immigration and the immigrant coming into the country, and I will be responsible to parliament for what I do.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any reason why the employees of the land settlement board should not do the work Mr. Ens is doing?


Robert Forke: We have had several members of the land settlement board over in Great Britain assisting the medical doctors over there. They have been making separate examinations for the assisted passage rates. That board has been overworked, and instead of discharging men we should be hiring them. I have no intention of employing any man we do not need, but I do intend to employ sufficient men to adequately take care of the work they are called upon to do.


Robert Gardiner: I quite appreciate the position of the minister in that regard, particularly with reference to the land settlement board. In view of the fact that the land settlement board is primarily for the purpose of looking after the interests of the incoming settlers, does the minister not think that it would be better to increase the staff of that board rather than employ outsiders?


Robert Forke: It mght be difficult to make a permanent appointment of that kind. We do not want to increase our permanent staff when we can employ some local man for a month or so when we need him. That is much more convenient than employing a permanent official who may not be needed in the near future.


Robert Gardiner: I notice it is twelve o'clock and probably we had better let it stand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At 12 o'clock midnight the house adjourned.
Friday, June 8, 1928