Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I desire to put in an amended answer to 4 question asked by Mr. Paquet and reported at page 2732 of unrevised ' Hansard.' We made a mistake in putting in the figures of the total export, while the question related only to the exports to the United States alone. The question was as follows:


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	To what amount in money did we export pulp wood to the United States during the fiscal years 1908-9 and 1909-10?
2.	To what amount in money did we export
wood pulp to the United States in 1908-9 and 1909-10?	_
3.	To what amount of money did we export paper to the United States in 1908-9 and 190910?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The exports of pulp wood from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1909, amounted to $4,356,391; and during the fiscal year 1910 to $6,076,628.
2.	The exports of wood pulp from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1909, amounted to $3,064,819; and during the fiscal year 1910 to $4,175,309.
3.	The exports of paper from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1909, amounted to $958,870; and during the fiscal year 1910 to $1,297,052.



LORD STRATHCONA-CORRECTION. OF ERRONEOUS REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I crave permission to lay before the House a cable received last Saturday from Lord Strathcona in regard to a statement made by an hon. member of this House in the course of the discussion on reciprocity:
London, March 11, 1911. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier,
Ottawa.
The statement attributed to me by Mr. Goodeve in the House of Commons, Ottawa, on ninth instant, as reported in to-day's London ' Times ' by their Ottawa correspondent that I had said ' that Canadian ministers had been hypnotized by the brilliance of the American offer and had fallen into a trap,' i9

entirely baseless and without foundation in fact. It is unwarranted by anything I have ever said in connection with the reciprocity agreement which I have refrained from discussing. Will you kindly make this known in the House.



STRATHCONA.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Dominion Development Railway Company.-(Mr. Smith, Nanaimo).
Mr. McCRANEY.: I have been spoken to by the promoter of this Bill who tells me that there has been some discussion with regard to the name. He consents to the name being changed to the British Columbia and Central Canada Railway Company. I move that the section be so amended.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Has there been notice of the proposed amendment?


George Ewan McCraney: I am not aware of that. If there has not been notice, I suppose it would be better that the Bill should stand.


Mr. PERLEY.: This matter was discussed at the Railway Committee, where the desire was expressed that the name should be altered, and I understand that the parties are agreed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the change of name is a greater amendment than should be allowed without notice.


Mr. SPROULE.: As I understand it, the name could not be changed by the committee, but only by the House, and such changes are usually made in the last stages of the Bill and notice is not required.
' Mr. GRAHAM. Is it not customary to change these names on the third reading?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the change would require to be made in the committee, as the name is given in the section of the Bill.


Mr. GRAHAM.: Let it stand, and this proposed change of name can stand as a notice.
Progress reported.



THE GLOBE PRINTING COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 121) respecting the Globe Printing Company.- Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Mr. BLAIN.: Seeing this is in connection with the Toronto ' Globe,' I think we should have some explanation of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


George Perry Graham: The ' Globe ' is generally able to explain itself. This Bill relates to matters of internal economy-not political^ economy-in the management of the business of this company. The Bill affects only the shareholders who are thoroughly protected.
On subsection 3 of section 3: Increase of capital stock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has always occurred to me that there is something defective in the manner of allotting stock. This provides that the directors may make by-laws to allot stock, and it has this redeeming feature that these by-laws must be confirmed by the shareholders. I think the Bill ought to go further and provide that wThen stock is to be allotted it should be allotted according to the present holdings. There is nothing in this or in any of these Acts to prevent the directors allotting that stock to any one they choose although, the stock may be worth much more than par. The only time at which the shareholders could discuss the allotment of stock would be when they wrere asked to confirm the by-law, and I do not know if a discussion at that time would be effective.


Mr. NESBITT.: I think subsection 3 of section 2 covers that.


Mr. ROSS (Middlesex).: It is only in the event of default being made as to the manner of allotting stock in the by-law.


Mr. BARKER.: If subsection 3 is not acted upon in the mode prescribed the directors may do as they please.


George William Ross: The by-law has to receive the consent of two-thirds of the number of shareholders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A by-law is submitted for the approval of the shareholders. Once the by-law is approved the shareholders have no control over it whatever, and the directors can go on and allot the stock as they see fit.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the Imperial Traction Company-Mr. Rankin.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the People's Railway Company-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Matilda Emo.-Mr. Hodgins.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Alberta-Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company.- Mr. Rutan.
Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Canadian Inter-Mountain Railway	Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

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

[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. DANIEL:
1.	How many cubic yards of material has the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company removed under their Beacon Bar contract in St. John Harbour, and at what cost?
2.	What quantity has been removed since March 31, 1910, to the present time, and at what cost?
3.	How many square feet of area under this contract has been dredged to a depth of 32 feet, L.W.S.T. ?
4.	How long at present rate of progress will it take to finish contract?
5.	Is it the intention of the department to require employment of more dredges of capacity of 'Cynthia/ or greater, to hasten completion of this work?
6.	Is the dredging work being done at outer berth in Rodney Slip done as part of Beacon Bar contract, and at same prices?
7.	If not done as part of Beacon Bar contract and the prices of that contract, at what prices is the work being done?
8 Were tenders called for the dredging at Rodney Slip? If not, why not?
9. How many cubic yards of material has been removed from this locality, Rodney Slip, and how many more have to be removed to complete the work ?
Air. PUGSLEY.: Stand.


Mr. DANIEL.: How long. will it stand?


William Pugsley: The question involves the obtaining of a good deal of information. I am expecting it daily. I hope, within a day or two, to answer the question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe):
1	What were the gross earnings per ton mile of freight moved on the Intercolonial railway last year?
2 What was the cost per ton mile for fuel?
3.	What was the cost per ton mile for train
crew?
4	What was the cost per ton mile for handling?
5	What was the cost per ton mile for overhead charges?
6. What were the gross earnings per passenger mile?
7. What was the cost of operations for passenger mile?
8 What was the cost for fuel, also for train ctew for passenger mile?
Air. GRAHAM:: 1.	Freight revenue per ton mile, in cents, .00561.
2.	In cents, .00101.
3.	Freight in cents, .00065.
4 & 5. The records are not kept in such a way as to get this information. The cost per ton mile of operating expenses (freight) less road enginemen, freight, road trainmen, freight and fuel less road locomotives is in cents, .00368.
6.	Passenger revenue per passenger mile, in cents, .01711.
7.	In cents, .01937.
8.	The cost of fuel (passenger) per passenger mile, in cents, .00273. Cost of train crews (passenger) per passenger mile, in .cents, .00274.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	In the figures given by the Minister of Railways as the total cost of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, down to the 31st December, 1910, viz., $93,920,956.10, is there anything included for interest? If so, what sum?
2.	Is there anything included in respect of the Quebec bridge? If so, how much?
3.	From what sources does the government obtain the money?
4.	If by loans, how much money has been borrowed, in what sums, at what dates, and a' what rates of interest?
5.	How has the interest been met, out of revenue, out of borrowed capital, by new loans, or in what way?
6.	What is the total amount paid to date for interest ?
7.	What sums have been paid in placing the loans, for agents' fees, commissions, brokerage charges, and other expenses of this kind?
8.	Does the Railway Commission make all payments? If so, what is the total amount furnished or transferred by the government to the Commission to 31st December, 1910, and how much since?
9.	What is the total amount to the 31st December, 1910, debited against this eastern division in the books of the Department of Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, or in the books of the Department of Finance, and what is the total amount debited in the books of the Railway Commission?


Mr. FIELDING:: 
ADULTERATION OF MAPLE SUGAR.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK:
1.	Is it the intention of the government during the present session, to amend the Foods Adulteration Act so as to protect those engaged in the maple syrup and maple sugar industry, against the alleged adulterations of their products, which is said to be openly carried on, to the detriment of their business and the public interest?
2.	Will the government cause a proper inspection of maple syrups and sugar to be made, so as to prevent the alleged frauds at present said to be carried on by the marketing of imitations and compounds, which seriously interferes with the progress of the maple industry?
3.	What steps has the Minister of Agriculture taken to satisfy, in regard to the above, the petition presented to him by the 3,200 farmers engaged in the said industry?
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	It is not the intention to introduce during the present session an amendment to the Adulteration Act for the reason that the provisions of that Act as now constituted, together with the establishment of standards which are now being prepared, pro-Mr. FIELDING.
vide all the machinery necessary for the protection of the industry referred to.
2.	The Department of Inland Revenue purposes having a proper inspection of maple syrups and sugars made this year as it has done in many cases in the past.
3.	The Minister of Agriculture states that he has no knowledge of the petition referred to.


LORNEVILLE WHARF.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Have tenders been asked for the building of an extension to the wharf at Lorneville, St. John county, N.B.?
2.	If so, who weie the tenders and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Has any tender been accepted? If so, who was the tenderer and what was the amount of the tender?
4.	If no tender has been accepted and the work not proceeded with, what is the reason for the delay?
5.	Is it considered that the necessity for the work no longer exists?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes, tenders were called for on October 25, 1910.
2,	3 and 4. Tender not yet accepted as information is being procured with a view to reducing the size and cost of the work.
5.	No.


CHATHAM PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
John Waterhouse Daniel: Referring to a statement of the Minister of Public Works with regard to the purchase of two lots of land for Chatham public building, one for $2,800 and the other for $200, as shown in the 'Revised Hansard/ page 1610, January 12, 1911, from whom were these lots purchased?


Mr. PUGSLEY  S.@: Johnson and the estate of the late James Kerr.


NIAGARA FALLS WATER-POWER.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Under the Statutes of Canada permitting
development of power at Niagara Falls or on the Niagara river, what quantity of power has been developed?	'
2.	Of the power developed on the Canadia*. side, what quantity can lawfully be exported to the United States?
3.	Of the power developed on the Canadian side, what quantity is being exported to the United States, and what additional quantity is under contract for export?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The total quantity of power developed on the Niagara river at Niagara Falls is 272,000 horse-power.
2.	Of the total power developed on the Canadian side 153,921 horse-power may be lawfully exported to the United States.
3.	Of the power developed 72,628 horsepower was exported to the United States

during the fiscal year 1909-10. The department is not aware that any additional quantity is under contract for export.


TADOUSAC POSTMASTERSHIP.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Who was, on the first day of January last, the postmaster of Tadousae, P.Q.?
2.	Have the services of said postmaster been dispensed with? If so, on what date was he dismissed and for what specific reasons?
3.	By whom was said postmaster replaced, on what date, and upon whose recommendation?
4.	Was any petition sent to the government recommending, for the position, any other person than the one appointed?
5.	Did the said petition contain more signatures than any other?
6.	Is the new postmaster the son of the postmaster recently dismissed, and was the said son previously assistant postmaster?
7.	Did the said son and assistant postmaster participate in the acts which brought about the dismissal of his father?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Mr. Eugene Caron.
2.	The postmaster tendered his resignation, which was accepted. It became necessary to make a change in the postmastership, owing to the fact that the postmaster had made use of a stamp, which had already been used in prepayment of postage.
3.	Mr. Joseph Eugene Caron was appointed to the office on the 6th instance, upon the^recommendation of Mr. Joseph Girard,
4 and 5. One petition was received by the department in favour of Mr. Joseph Eugene Caron, signed by the parish priest and 58 of the most important citizens of Tadousae. Another petition in favour of Mr. August Gingras was addressed to Mr. Girard, M.P. 12 days afterwards, signed by 60 citizens, 20 of whom had already signed the petition in favour of J.^E. Caron, and had not withdrawn their signatures therefrom. Therefore, the department concluded that there were 20 more names in favour of Caron.
6.	The new postmaster is the son of the late postmaster, and the department is not aware that he was assistant postmaster.
7.	No.
RECIPROCITY-COASTING LAWS: HOG QUARANTINE.


Mr. THORNTON:: 1.	If the proposed reciprocity agreement goes into effect, will the Canadian vessels under the United States coasting laws, be allowed to carry Canadian grown grain from Duluth to Buffalo, or from one American port to any other American port?
2.	If the proposed reciprocity agreement is passed and goes into effect, what will the government do about removing the Canadian quarantine against American hogs?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The proposed reciprocity agreement does not deal with the coasting taws of the United States in any manner.
2.	Quarantine regulations are not affected by trade agreements. They depend upon the conditions as to the health of the countries respecting which they are made.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-HAY CARRIED FREE.
Mr. RHODES:: Has the Intercolonial railway ever carried hay free from Quebec or elsewhere to the maritime provinces ? If so, when, for what reasons, what quantities were carried, and to whom were deliveries made?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	6th October, 1904, till 31st December, 1904.
3.	On account of hay famine in eastern Nova Scotia and in portions of Quebec, and Prince Edward Island; it being represented that unless relief was afforded to the farmers in these districts, their live stock would either have to be slaughtered or would die of starvation. This was approved by order in council, dated January 18, 1905.
4.	1,691 cars were qarried; deliveries being
made to the municipalities of Pictou county, Colchester, Victoria, Antigonish, Inverness, Guysborough, Hants, Bonaventure and Gaspe.	.
A complete return, with all correspondence, in connection with this matter, was laid upon the table of the House of Commons on March 31, 1905.


THE COPYRIGHT LAW.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Did the government of Canada participate in the Imperial Copyright Conference of 1910?
2.	Did the government agree to the memorandum of the proceedings of the said conference as presented to the Imperial House of Commons, and was a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the law of copyright, embodying the conclusions of the said conference, introduced into the British House of Commons? If so. when and what has been the fate of the Bill?
3.	Will the said Bill, when it becomes law, have effect and operation in Canada, or will it be necessary to pass an Act of the Dominion to give effect to such imperial Act?
4.	If the government intends to pass an Act declaring the said Imperial Act to apply to Canada, when is the Act to be put into force with or without any modifications or additions ?'_ If so, what are such modifications and additions?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. 26th July. 1910. The dissolution of the imperial parliament prevented fur-



ther action on the Bill introduced. We have reason to believe that the Right Honourable Mr. Buxton, President of the Board of Trade,* is introducing another Bill in this session of the imperial parliament. We have not yet received a copy of this Bill.
3.	The Bill, as introduced, contained a provision that it should not extend to a self-governing dominion unless declared by the legislature of that dominion to be in force therein.
4.	The government does not intend to introduce a Bill declaring the imperial Bill to apply to Canada, but does intend to introduce a Bill dealing comprehensively with the question of Copyright in Canada, and following on general lines the resolutions of the Imperial Conference.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-TOTAL COST.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	In the estimated amount, $55,786,000, required to complete the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, counting from 31st December last, is everything ineluded; for instance, do these figures include amounts required for steel superstructure of bridges, right of way, ties, rails, fastenings, switches, stations, and divisional point buildings, engineering expenses, Red river bridge, locomotive shop, plant and equipment east of Winnipeg, and reservoir pumphouse and other buildings and structures there, entrance to and terminals at Winnipeg, terminals at Moncton and Quebec, expenses of and incidental to the commissioners, legal expenses and all other necessary expenditure before the road is handed over to the company; and what is the estimated amount to complete under each of these headings?
2.	What was the cost under each of these headings down to the 31st December, 1910, and if there are any of these items not included in the $93,920,956.16 returned as cost to 31st December last, what are they?


George Perry Graham: I think all that detail will be found in the ' Hansard ' covered by a statement which I gave to the House.


Mr. LENNOX.: The question might stand until I have time to look it over.


George Perry Graham: Look and see if it is what you want.


MORMON PROPAGANDA.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Is the government aware that a band of Mormon Elders are said to be travelling through Canada preaching their doctrines and endeavouring to obtain converts to their faith?
2.	Is the government aware, that according
to newspaper accounts, these men have obtained Several converts in the city of Montreal?	.


Mr. FISHER.: 3.	In view of the fact that polygamy is contrary to the civil and moral law of this country, will the government take immediate steps to prevent these elders from preaching their doctrine and personally canvassing in order to obtain converts?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no information upon that subject.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY, EASTERN DIVISION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNOX moved for:
A return prepared upon the lines of sessional papers No. 46i of the^ 26th April, 1909, relating to the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, showing the actual expenditure upon each of the scheduled items upon each of the 21 contracts for construction of this division, down to the latest estimate made upon each contract, and the estimated quantity of work to be done and material to be furnished as to each of these items, and the estimated cost to complete the contract in each case.
He said:	I may say to the Minister of
Railways that if one of his officers would call on me I could probably tell him exactly the things I require, and it might save some work.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of all correspondence, telegrams, Ac., durin" the past twelve months between Mr. E. J. Walsh, C.E., and the Minister or Department of Railways and Canals in regard to the Newmarket canal.-Mr. Wallace.

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called I want a little more information from the Minister of Finance if I can get it. I have a transcript of the Treasury Board minutes for November 30, 1906, and I would like the Minister of Finance to supplement it by having the hour at which the Treasury Board met, put upon it.


Mr. FIELDING.: That cannot be done.


George Eulas Foster: It cannot be done?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Eulas Foster: ' Cannot ' is a very hard word.


William Stevens Fielding: We would not be able to give my hon. friend that.


George Eulas Foster: It is very important that it should be given. I do not see why it cannot be given. Perhaps the minister has a reason-the minister does not choose to answer.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought I did answer. I said I did not think it could be done. I did not mean to be discourteous.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has a reason?


William Stevens Fielding: No. I have no particular reason.


George Eulas Foster: It is refused without a reason then. I would like also to ask the Minister of Finance if he has yet got the curator's report from the Yarmouth bank?


William Stevens Fielding: No. We have made a request to the Bankers' Association and I expect a statement.


George Eulas Foster: The other day when the Minister of Finance was not here I put some additional questions on the ' Hansard.'


William Stevens Fielding: My attention has been called to that and I have given directions to the department to endeavour to meet the hon. gentleman's wishes so far as we can.


FISH HATCHERIES, EAST ELGIN.
Mr. MARSHALL.: We have three very large fishing centres in East Elgin and the fishermen are very much handicapped for want of a fish hatchery. Is it the intention of the minister (Mr. Brodeur) to place a fish hatchery at one of these places?


Mr. BRODEUR.: The matter has been under consideration, but, in as much as the revenues accruing from the fisheries are collected by the provincial government in Ontario, they claiming property rights in the fisheries and especially in the rivers under the judgment of the Privy Council, there is some difficulty as to the establishment of fishery hatcheries in Ontario. These hatcheries would create a new source of expenditure without any return of revenue coming to this government. The matter is engaging the attention of the department and of the government.



SUPPLY-TRANSPORTATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["If this resolution compels the government to proceed with the expenditure of money forthwith there are rules applicable to it, first, that contained in the British North America Act and, second, a rule of our own House. Section 54 of the British North America Act, which has already been referred to, would prevent the adoption of such a resolution. Rule 77 of our own rules would also prevent the adoption of the resolution if it were not recommended by the Governor General and preceded by consideration in the Committee of the Whole. There are precedents mentioned by Sir John Bourinot of certain resolutions that have been adopted, but Bourinot also states that they were generally evasions of the rule. I may be allowed to read a few lines from it:\nA practice lias grown up in the House of allowing the introduction of resolutions by private members, when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money, hut simply express au abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant. As this is a question not always understood, it may be explained that such resolutions, being framed in general terms, do not bind the House to future legislation on the subject, and are merely intended to point out to the government the importance and necessity of such expenditure.\nReferring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions, all authorities agree that it is one 'which the House exercises, and should always exercise with great reserve, and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.' Such resolutions are considered virtually 'an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should be discouraged as much as possible.' Nevertheless, neither the English nor Canadian House of Commons has ever agreed to the adoption of a rule to fetter their discretion in regard to the entertaining of such propositions.\nI see by the Standing Rules and Orders of the British House that- rule 71, which was passed on the 20th March, 1866, previous to confederation, reads as follows:\n\nIf any motion be made in tbe House for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House before any resolution or vote of the House do pass therein.\nThe only point I have to decide is whether the adoption of this amendment would compel the government of the day to proceed forthwith with this expenditure. I think it would, and therefore it is in violation of the rule that requires previous recommendations of the Crown and consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, I declare the amendment out of order."]
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, I desire, before you leave the chair, to call the attention of the House to a matter which has been interesting the the public for a considerable time, and which, in view of the circumstances which have developed lately in connection with our proposed changed commercial relations with the United States, has become urgent.
I refer to the question of transportation. It must be evident to the members of this mi
House that the agreement which has been submitted to us by the government involves a number of questions quite outside-the range of the schedules of the proposed agreement, and one of the features of that agreement which has been most largely-discussed is the question of the transportation of our traffic, and as to whether the large sacrifices we have made in the past to. promote interprovincial trade and to secure transportation through Canadian territory will not largely be nullified by this proposed new arrangement. Of all the things that have been said in reference to the agreement, probably more than one half of them con.cern that question of traffic, and
I,	therefore, think it important to call the-attention of the House and the country to-that special feature of the question. As we are aware, in the United States a very intense interest has been taken in the new arrangement by men who are far more interested in the question of traffic and transportation than in the mere trading aspect of it. Possibly the principal mover in the matter at Washington, at least-and it has even been alleged that he is one of the principal movers in the matter within the limits of our own country-has been Mr. J.	J. Hill, who commands a very large influence in the transportation of the neighbouring republic, as -well as some influence in Canada. So far as Mr. Hill is concerned it is evident it is the question of the transportation of the traffic that has drawn him into the discussion, and fears have been expressed that there would be a diversion of our traffic in consequence of this proposed arrangement. Under these circumstances it behooves us, whilst we are examining the question to take up the aspect of it at least in so far as it may be necessary to evoke from the government a frank and clear exposition of its opinion in regard to this question of transportation.
Probably the most important aspect of the question is that which arises out of the proposed improvement of our waterways and of our transportation system generally between the east and the west. In that regard great prominence has been given during the past few years to the question of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal as a method of insuring to this country the bulk of the trade of the west as against rival methods of transportation in the neighbouring republic. I do not think I would be justified in taking up the time of the House in discussing the merits of that great waterway, which has been discussed fully in this House on many occasions since I have had the honour of a seat in it and many years before. I find on reference to the records of the House that the discussion of the merits of that great highway of transportation began as


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1858.-(482) ditto.

Estimates and contracts for construction of Chats canal (777). (App. TT.)
1854-5.-Engineers' report on the Ottawa navigation and proposed oanal to connect Chaudiere and Chats lakes. (Attached to report of Board of Works, App. O.)
1857.	-Statement of work done and money expended on Chats canal (469). (App. No. 29.)
1858.	-(795). (App. No. 19) ditto.
1857.-W. Shanly's report on navigation of the Ottawa. (Attached to report Board of Works.) (App. No. 29.)
1857.	-Instructions to W. Shanly to make survey of the Ottawa for a complete line of communication with Lake Huron and his report. (Attached to report Board of Works.) (App: No. 8.)
1858.	-Further instructions and report (801).
(App. No. 15.)	(916, 935). No debate.
1858.-Report on water-power of Chats islands. (Attached to report Board of Works.) (App. 19.)
1857.-Statement of T. C. Clarke, C.E., concerning trade of the west, etc., and construction of a canal between Georgian bay and Lake Ontario or the Ottawa river. (Attached to report Board of Works.) (App. No. 29J
1863-Petition of R. McConnell for authority to construct certain works. Ottawa and Lake Huron communication by road and river (185).
1865-Series of resolutions (by Alex. Mackenzie) proposed for opening navigable communication to connect Lake Huron with tide water by way of River Ottawa (226,263). Debate on 13th September.
1859-	Report of Messrs. Norman, Clarke and others on progress of Ottawa survey. (Attached to Board of Works Report, App. No. 8.)
1860-	Report of T. C. Clarke on cost of entire work of Ottawa survey, 75, 189. (Sen. P. No. 21.)
1857-	For copies of maps, surveys, reports, &c., made last year for improvement of navigation of Ottawa and construction of ship canal to connect with Lake Huron (325). (Attached to Board of Works Report, App. 29.)
1858-	(584). (App. No. 15.)
1860-For return of recent survey and report of engineers on the Ottawa ship canal (23). (Sess. Papers No. 21.)
1854-5-For contract for construction of Chats canal and estimates (523). (App. TT.)
1858-	'For statement of expenditures on Chats canal (584.)
1859-	For statement of expenditures on Chats canal (293.)
1857-For statement of expenditures on Chats canal (324.)
1857-For copy of W. Shanly's report on survey of Ottawa Valley (611). (App. No. 5). Mr. Stanley's report attached to report Board of Works. (App. No. 29, and 1858); 584, 801 (App. No. 15.)
I	1863-Ottawa ship canal. To investigate and
report on navigable line of communication be! tneen Montreal and Lake Huron by Ottawa, i Mattawa and French rivers and Lake Nipis-sing. (Feb. Sess.) (119). (App. No. 5). No : debate.
;	i8g3-Petition for incorporation of Ottawa
i and Huron Navigation Company, 1863. (Ang. , Sess.) 141, 145, 149. No debate.
1864-Petition for incorporation of Ottawa

and Huron Navigation Company, 1863. (Aug. Sess.) 49, 379. No debate.
1885-Motion for improvements of the Ottawa and french rivers by a system of canals ccnnecting Lake Huron with tidal' water on St. Lawrence is deserving of the consideration of parliament (316). Debate. 'Hansard,' vol. 2, pp. (121L1225.
1894-Montreal, Huron and Georgian Bay canal. Petition for an Act to incorporate (148, 160, 165, 170, 171, 293, 300, 401, 415, 460, R.A. 528). (Changed to Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, 57 Vic. ,Cap. 103.)
1896-Petition for an Act to revive Act of incorporation (7, 75, 98, 119, 120, 141, R.A. 168). (60 Vic., Cap., ,11). No debate.
1896-Order for correspondence in re canal (114.)
1896-	Address, reports of Clarke and Shanly (Jan^ Sess., 181). (Sen. Pap. 64). No debate.
1897-	Order for correspondence in re canal (122, 200. Sess. Pap. 43). No debate.
1898-	Petition for an Act to extend time (52, 108, 126, 138, 225, 230, 279, 376, R.A. 435, 61 Vic., Cap. 109). No debate.
1899-	Motion for all papers in relation to the canal (228, 255, 283). Debate, 'Hansard, Vol. 2, p. 4273, &c.
1900-	Petition for an Act to extend time (32, 73, 139, 140, 147, 173, 182, R.A. ,192). (63-4 Vic., Cap. 106). No debate.
1900-Order, reports and surveys on canal (27, 136, 200, Sess. Pap. 90.)
1900-Address, order in council passed in 1856 appointing Mr. Shanly to survey the canal (96.)
1902-Petition for an Act to extend time (112, 178, 187, 193, 196, 216, 287, 288, 297, 306, R.A., 309). (2 Edward VII, Cap. 79). No debale.
1904-Petition for an Act to extend time (31, &c., R.A. 222). (4 Edward VII, Cap. 98). No debate, but a few words on the form of Bill.	,
1906.-Petition for an Act to issue bonds. (85, etc., R. A. 590).	(6 Edw. VII, c. 128.)
No debate.
1906.-Copy of instructions issued to engineers on survey. (255, 319.) (Sess, Pap. 172.)
1907-8.-Interim report on canalization of French river from Georgian bay to North Bay. (119, Sess. Pap. No. 19b.) Debate. 'Hansard,' Vol. 1, pp. 1941, 1981. Vol. 3, p. 5228.
1907-8.-Motion for all plans and reports regarding building of canal (125, 266).
1907-8-Maps and plans in connection with canal -(322, 442, Sess. Pap. 178b).
1907-8.-Report of engineer, etc. Ordered (577, Sess. Pap. 178b).
1907-8.-Report on precise levelling. (Sess. Pap. No. 19a.)
1907-8-Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Co. Petition for an Act to extend time for completion. (57, &c., R.A. 358). (7-8 Edw. VII, c. 130.) Debate. 'Hansard/ Vol. 2, pp. 3622, 3794. Vol. 3, p. 4230.
The question of transportation assumed considerable intensity after the present government came into power. I date the practical question of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal from the year 1903, when, after this government had been in power some seven years, it was decided to refer the whole question of transportation
to a commission. That commission was composed in the first instance oi Sir Wm. Van Horne, Mr. Bertram, who sat in this House, and Mr. Kennedy, oi Winnipeg. Sir Wm. Van Horne did not accept, so I do not quote him as an authority in this relation; Mr. Bertram was lost to us while he was proceeding with the study of the question; and ultimately the bulk of the work fell upon Mr. Reford, as chairman* Mr. Frye, and Mr. Ashdown, of Winnipeg. The object of that commission to study the question in all its phases, and make a full report to the government. They did so* and in 1905, two years after their nomination, they presented to the government a full report. It has often been conceded in this House that no commission upon a subject of importance has cost the country SO' little or has been so painstaking in its work or has presented conclusions with, which so little fault has been found. I have on more than one occasion since that commission presented its report called the attention of the government to it in connection with the execution of public works* and on each of those occasions the government has declared that it accepted that report in its entirety, that.it has not been shelved, as I sometimes hinted that it had been, but that the government was carrying out its conclusions and intended carrying them out to a finality. Now, let me quote to you the words of that report upon the point which I am now endeavouring to bring to the notice of the House, in the hope that we may have from the government an authoritative statement as to what its present intentions are. At page 21 of the report, it says:
Your Commission unhesitatingly affirm their belief in the desirability of a through waterway from the head of Lake Superior to ocean navigation, to aid in the carriage of the grain and the regulation of rates of a standard not less than that above set forth, so that the largest vessels navigating the Great Lakes can continue their voyage to ocean navigation or as near thereto as possible. But in view of the fact that the government has undertaken the survey of a proposed route by way of the French river to Lake Nipissing and thence by way of the Ottawa river to Montreal, and as the feasibility of this route from a commercial as well as an engineering point of view, and if feasible, its cost has not yet been ascertained, and further in view of the fact that the government has also undertaken the survey of the Welland canal and its vicinity, looking to its possible enlargement and diversion, your Commission do not see their way clear to any recommendation as to route, but would recommend that, in the case of the Ottawa river scheme because, of want of feasibility from a commercial or engineering point of view, or on account of its cost or for other reason, be not adopted, then the Welland canal be enlarged and deepened to the standard of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, with a view of enabling vessels

[DOT]'of the largest size to continue their voyage to Kingston or Prescott, thus bringing their *cargo to within, say 180 miles or less of Montreal before discharging the same.
I quote this passage to show that subject io two conditions-ascertaining the feasibility of the route and its cost-the commissioners were unanimous in calling upon the government to construct the Georgian Bay canal as a necessary link in our transportation system and the best and cheapest. Since then Mr. Reford, the chairman of the commission, in view of transportation improvements and .nanal works going on in the United States, sent an additional report to the government in the shape of a letter, which I have not been able to find, hut which was published at the time in the press of the country, in which Mr. Beford anew urged upon the government the *necessity of immediately carrying out the work of the Georgian Bay canal. And, as to the two conditions mentioned in that *report, these have since been fulfilled in a satisfactory way. We have ascertained by the survey instituted by the government at the time the absolute feasibility of this great waterway. We also have ascertained its cost. That survey has cost us, I believe, not less than $500,000. More than that, on every occasion when it has been possible for the government to be called upon to give an answer to those who were anxious to know whether this necessary link in our .purely Canadian transportation scheme would be carried out, the government, and also the Prime Minister, I believe, on more than one occasion, have declared that the waterway must be opened to our all-Canadian traffic; in other words, that the Georgian Bay canal should be constructed. And the last time, I think, when a delegation interviewed the Prime Minister on that .point, he added that it should be constructed without delay. In the United *States newspapers, in their government reports and in reviews, which undertake to treat the question of transportation, there has been a unanimous agreement and admission that successful rivalry with the Toute of transportation opened by the Georgian Bay canal would not be possible and that if that great work was carried out, we thereby assure for all time to our country the vast trade of the whole west, not only on our side of the line but of the western states as well. If one takes the trouble to examine the distances, there can be no doubt that a strong presumption is created at once that that admission has not been *made without cause on both sides of the line. Let me give the House, briefly, the figures:



[Stage Direction]
Miles.
Dulutlx by lake to Buffalo, and Erie
canal by barge to New York	 1,480
Duluth to Buffalo and thence by rail '
to New York	 1,445
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Port William to Buffalo and Erie canal
by barge to New York	 1,358
Fort William to Buffalo, and thence by rail to New York	 1,323
CANADIAN WATER ROUTES. Dulutli by lake to Port Colborue, and thence by Welland and St. Lawrence
canals to Montreal	 1,338
Fort William to Port Colborne, and thence by Welland and St. Lawrence
canals to Montreal	 1,210
Duluth to Georgian bay ports, thence
by rail to Montreal	 1,023
Duluth by lake to Georgian bay ports, and canal to Georgian bay to Montreal	 1,056
Fort William to Georgian bay ports, and Georgian bay canal to Montreal. 931
You have there the Georgian Bay canal route by water direct, 300 miles shorter than any other Canadian route, and 432 miles shorter than any American route. And there is no transhipment, whereby half the cost is saved, for you can take a cargo by steamer carrying 12,000 tons, without breaking bulk, right through from the the grain gathering ports of the west to the sea-board. In addition to this, you have features of this route which have often been adverted to and are well known. You have the advantage of opening up a country known to us as one of vast resources-a new country1; bringing freights through without breaking bulk, you have the assurance of return freight, and yon develop great manufacturing power. The result of the very complete survey made by the government engineers is to show that, as soon as this great waterway is established, we should have over 1,000,000 horse-power. In the immediate vicinity of the great manufacturing centre of Montreal is power to the extent of over 70,000 horse-power, ready to be used. In fact, the opinion has often been expressed, and is undoubtedly well founded, that when that immense waterpower development which will be made possible by the construction of this waterway is completed, the government can assure itself of sufficient revenue from the leasing of water-powers to pay the interest upon the cost of the canal, which cost has been calculated at about $100,000,000.
I need not do more than point out to the House the immense advantage we_ should enjoy in having this route exclusively to ourselves, without any interference from our neighbours. Not only is it economically the best and shortest, but it is a route exclusively upon our own territory. There is no danger of any diversion of traffic upon that route to our neighbours. The House must be aware that our neighbours can go through our canals to Lake Ontario as freely as we do; and once traffic from the west has reached Lake Ontario, it is not impossible to carry it to the waters of the Hudson. That question has been studied. Some engineers have difficulties in the way;


Kl, 1911
[Stage Direction]
but, undoubtedly, it is merely a question of money, and there would be that difficulty only to prevent the Americans from taking the traffic that has come to our own canals and carry it from Lake Ontario to the Hudson by American routes, instead of having it go from our head water ports through our own Canadian channels to the ports on the Atlantic. On more than one occasion it has been pointed out that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal involves canal construction for a distance of only 27 5 miles, and improved channel 55-5 miles, and that there are 357 miles of free, open navigation. Under the scheme of construction there would be some 25 locks, while at present in the Welland canal there are 48 locks.
George Perry Graham: There are only 26 locks in the Welland canal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister is right, there are 26 in the Welland and 48 in all tjhe canals. I believe in the proposed improved Welland 'canal there will be fewer locks.


George Perry Graham: In one scheme 6 or 7.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: not be disposed to oppose .such a project, if proper proof was made before me that it is not only feasible, but will amply repay the cost of construction.
We have there an unknown quantity, and if we are to abide by the rather superficial report made by Mr. Butler, a very competent authority on the subject, there exists grave doubts. One would have to pursue the history further without being absolutely certain that such a vast expense as is necessary there, would be perfectly justified. We must equip ports in the Hudson bay. We have a distance of some 1,450 or 1,500 miles of unknown navigation through the bay and through the straits, unprovided with the aids of navigation that we have on the St. Lawrence and everywhere else, but which would have to be provided; and we have a prospect of a short period of navigation at that point, Mr. Butler has said some two months at most. That is a matter which would require to be carefully investigated. But in the meantime we have in regard to this particular method of transportation, this particular way, all the information -which the government requires. We know its possibility, we know its immense prosnect, we know the immense utility it will be to us. I think we should at this moment particularly in no way neglect anything that could assure to Canadian routes the suprem-[DOT] acy of Canadian transportation. Members of the House have seen within the past few days that the question has been -mooted of a common waterway with our neighbours over the St. Lawrence route. For my own part, I do not think that the history of such arrangements between nations regarding waterways has ever had satisfactory results. However, that is a remote possibility. What we have to deal with are present conditions. We have this waterway, we are satisfied in regard to the information, and we should not delay a single moment in starting the work upon its construction. It seemed to me that the time was opportune to call the attention oi the House to this feature of transportation, which has necessarily and forcibly introduced itself into the consideration and discussion of the reciprocity question, and of our relations with our neighbours to the south. I think I am justified therefore in moving:
That all the words after 'that' in the main mction be omitted, and that the following be substituted:
The House, in view of the possible diversion of the country's carrying trade from Canadian channels, and in order to ensure the most favourable conditions of transportation between western points and the Canadian Atlantic seaboard, records its opinion and determination that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal should be commenced forthwith so as to preserve and further facilitate interprovincial traffic and the carriage Mr. MONK.
of freight in unbroken bulk from the Great Lakes to the sea.
When the right hon. the Prime Minister brought before the House the question of the construction of a new transcontinental railway, he insisted greatly upon the necessity of providing immediately an all-Canadian route for our traffic. I remember that on closing his eloquent remarks on that occasion he prayed God that the country was not already too late in the accomplishment of that scheme. I do not know if my right hon. friend has the same pious disposition in regard to waterways, but it seems to me that we are well founded in hoping that we have not waited too long when we have within our reach all that is necessary in order to warrant us in beginning the construction of this great waterway.	[DOT]


Mr. G. V. WHITE (North Renfrew).: In seconding the motion presented by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monkl, I deiire to make a few remarks. I heartily concur in the remarks he has made, and in the resolution he has placed in your hands. On several previous occasions I have spoken at some length upon this question, and have endeavoured to urge upon the government the desirability of commencing the construction of_ this great work. I believe that the time is at hand when the Georgian Bay canal will need to be constructed, and the work should very soon be commenced, and pushed forward to completion with the least possible delay. It has been stated that the work of construction will occupy a period of about ten years. If that be the case every moment's delay means a check in the progress of Canada, especially in so far as our transportion requirements are concerned. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length upon the immense advantages which would accrue to this country by the improvement of this waterway. It is a national project, and will tend to ensure the carriage of our products through an all-Canadian route. It will cement the east and the west by an exchange of products. Our Nova Scotian coal will find a market in northern and western Ontario, and the grain and wheat of the Northwest will be transported to the east. It will effect a saving in the cost of transportation of from two to four cents to the farmers of the west on every bushel of grain which they produce. It will promote the development of our water-powers to the extent of more than a million horse-power, and in so doing will tend to build up industries throughout the country. It-will bring Fort William, Sault Ste. Marie and Duluth 282 miles nearer to Montreal than they are by the St. Lawrence route. In short, Mr. Speaker, it will afford the quickest and most direct route from the great lakes to the seaboard. There are a great many other advantages which I

could mention, but I do not wish to delay the House more than to bring to your attention one of the resolutions which was adopted recently by the city council of Montreal:
Montreal, Nov. 28.-At a meeting of the city council this afternoon Aid. Lapointe submitted a resolution in favour of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The motion which was adopted without discussion and will be forwarded to Ottawa, was as follows :-
Whereas the construction of the Georgian Bay canal would afford for the produce of the northern and western parts of the American continent the shortest and most advantageous route, and would add an incalculable element of progress and prosperity to the commerce, agriculture and industry of Canada, and thereby to the city of Montreal, would accrue immense advantage, be it resolved that the parliament of Canada be requested to carry out this essentially national enterprise with the shortest possible delay.
Within the last month I understand that a petition was presented to this government signed by 60,000 influential men in the city of Montreal urging upon the government the necessity of building this great waterway. In so far as the improvement and betterment of other waterways throughout this country is concerned, I do not wish to place myself on record as being opposed to the improvement of any waterway that is' going to be in the interest of the 'transportation requirements of the country. I believe, as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has said, that this country will require the Hudson Bay railway, the deepening of the Welland canal and the building of the Georgian Bay canal, but the Georgian Bay canal project has been before the country for a great many years, it has been proved conclusively that it is a feasible proposition, that it will shorten the distance between the Great Lakes and the sea-board by from 200 to 300 miles, and in view of the fact that it is going to be a great benefit to the country, not only from the transportation standpoint, but from the development which will take place by the improvement of the water-powers along the route, I believe it is time that the government took action and commenced the construction of this great work. Let us commence its construction to-day, to-morrow may be too late, and let us see to it that Canadian products are transported through Canadian channels to the markets of the world, and in this way bind together the component parts of this great country of ours.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr Speaker, the subject before the House has Such a wide scope that I feel that it will require more time, and a better occasion to speak upon it than the one which has been
offered to us to-day by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have so often spoken on this subject of the very early construction of the Georgian Bay canal, that I feel it is somewhat superfluous to put myself again upon record as an adherent of the project. I believe, without any vain boasting, that this House will agree with me that I am as strongly in favour of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, which has been proven by my words in this House, as is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. It is so seldom that I am able to agree with that hon. gentleman that I am particularly pleased this afternoon to he able to congratulate him upon his speech although I am not able to congratulate him upon the propriety of the manner in which he has brought before the House this discussion upon the question of the Georgian Bay canal. On Friday last my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), when making his very able statement in this House, referred in a few words to the policy that it is understood this government would follow in a short time in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. The House will pardon me if I refer to his words which are to be found in ' Hansard ' of March 10, page 5161. In referring to the canal system I had incidentally made the remark that I believed the Georgian Bay canal route was the proper route between the Great Lakes and the sea-ports and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals said in connection with that:
My hon. friend behind me has said that the Georgian Bay canal route is the route. I would discuss the question of the Georgian Bay canal route at greater length but for the fact that it is not in my department, and I am supposed to be discussing questions connected with my department. I might say distinctly that I believe it is in the interest of Canada from one end to the other to enter upon both enterprises and at a not very far distant date. We must remember that When we bring the products of the great west to the east the products of the east are carried back to the west, and if we could take the time to go into the prospects for increasing that trade in a few years, we would arrive at a conclusion that it is necessary-in the interest of the Canadian carrying trade?-no, it is necessary in the interest of the people who produce in Canada, as well as who buy goods in Canada, that these two great waterways should be developed by the people of Canada, and I believe that no greater interest would accrue from any investment that the people could make than that which would result from the development of these two waterways. My hon. friend will see that I am quite clear upon this subject, and that the diffidence I have about discussing it in detail only arises from the fact that it is not in my department, but I believe in these projects just the same.

So we have the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), a few days ago, speaking in the city of Montreal, in a very able speech, also declared that he was strongly in favour of the early construction of the Georgian Bay canal. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) has put himself upon record in the same sense. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) likewise, and when we come to the last and certainly not the least member of the Canadian cabinet we have the.right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who has said, in the city of Hull, and I believe in other parts of this country, that h'e was strongly of the belief that the Georgian Bay canal should be constructed at as early a date as possible. That ought to be satisfactory to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and to the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. White). But apparently these hon. gentlemen, seeing a question of vital import before this House, and before the country at the present moment-I refer to the question of reciprocity with the United States and seeing that the country is entirely in favour of reciprocity and that the great majority of this House are in favour of reciprocity, they want to put if possible an obstacle in the way of the carrying out of this agreement by bringing up the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. If, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had brought the matter before the House in a sensible way -well, perhaps it is not parliamentary to say that-but, had he brought it before the House in a judicious way, then I am sure he would have every hon. member on this side of the House supporting him. But, bringing it up as a vote of want of confidence in the government, he knows perfectly well that the members of this side of the House who have confidence in the government and wish to see the Georgian Bay canal built are not going to vote against the government so as to kill the project in its infancy. That would not be sane, that would not be judicious, and yet that is what the hon. member (Mr. Monk) asks us to do. Now, I begin to doubt that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier iMr. Monk) is truly in favour of the Georgian Bay canal, and his action in bringing forward this motion to-day gives me cause to doubt. I shall give my reasons for that doubt-the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) believes in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal and he has submitted to the House on more than one occasion a resolution favouring it, and wishing to assure himself of the support of hon. members of this House he has had the common courtesy to notify hon. gentlemen Mr. DEVLIN.
who are in favour of the canal that he would propose his motion at a certain time.


George Eulas Foster: It has become so current with gentlemen on the other side of the House, that now when they attack anybody on this side they automatically refer to the hon. member for North Toronto. I do not think the hon. member for Ottawa really means to refer to me; I do not want all the honours.


Wilfrid Laurier: He was paying you a compliment.	-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the hon. member for North Toronto were a very small man perhaps he would not come uppermost in my mind.


George Eulas Foster: I am modest too.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Of course, I intended to refer to the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) but I do hope that the hon. member for North Toronto would not object to be connected with a resolution in favour of the Georgian Bay canal. My point was that I would have expected that the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk) would have had the common courtesy to notify hon. members on this side who are in favour . of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, that he would bring up this question to-day and that he would expect them to be in their places.
I do not mean that we are not supposed to be always in the chamber but there are occasions when through force of circumstances hon. members may be absent, when if they knew such a vital question were for discussion they would make it a point to be in their seats. Now, the hon. member (Mr. Monk) knows perfectly well that the question of reciprocity is not going to affect adversely the Georgian Bay canal. He knows perfectly well that an agreement of reciprocity with the United States will add to the necessity for the Georgian Bay canal. He knows perfectly well that the farmers of this country are clamouring for two things: Reciprocity and the Georgian Bay canal, and he knows that if you add to the wealth of the farmers of this country and to the possibilities of the increased production of grain you will of necessity require increased transportation facilities, and you will have to look for that to an improved waterways system. I have here the report of the Trade and Commerce Department, and I am fairly amazed to see from it the quantity of grain that has been coming from Port Arthur and Fort William by the water route. I find that our exports from Canada to the United States during the year 1907-and I refer now solely to Canadian produce-amounted to $92,283,500 worth, while in 1910 they reached $106,153,900 worth, from which it appears that

Canada's trade with the United States is constantly increasing.


Richard Blain: Have you the figures showing the trade the United States did with Canada?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes. The dutiable imports into Canada from the United States in 1907 amounted to $116,159,883 and the dutiable imports into Canada from the United States in 1910 amounted to the amazing sum of $143,777,541, which, of course goes to prove my statement, that the trade between the two countries is increasing. 1 am not a believer in the doctrine which is often preached in this House by the hon. member for North Toronto, that an increase in imports means an impoverished country; on the contrary I believe that increasing imports indicates that a country is wealthy. I therefore say that the trade between Canada and the United States is constantly on the increase, and the grain production of Canada also being constantly on the increase, as a consequence we require increased transportation facilities I find in the Trade and Navigation Returns a statement showing the receipts and shipments of grain at Fort William and Port Arthur from September 1st to January 31st. and in the month of September 1910 there were shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur by rail 241,362 bushels, and in the same month by lake 4,042,958 bushels of wheat alone.
There was a similar quantity of oats less of barley and less of flax. In the month of September there were 327,599 bushels bv rail and 5,256,055 bushels by lake; in the month of October there were 455,709 bushels by rail and 17,765.528 bushels by lake; in the month of November there were 958 915 by rail and 21,279,964 bushels by lake Now where is this grain going to? It is going to the United Kingdom and to the United [states. The greater quantity is going to the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom will continue to take a great quantity of our grain-there is no gainsaying that. Any hon. gentleman has simply to refer to the British parliamentry debates to see that Canada will continue through all time to supply, not alone the United Kingdom, but the world, with grain. The production of Canada is constantly on the increase while the production of the United States is consequently on the decrease. Canada's area of grain-producing is a wonderful area. The wheat belt of western Canada is four times the size of the wheat belt of the whole United States; so that hon. gentlemen opposite need not have any fear that our grain production will not constantly be on the increase. That being so, I ask you if it will not be necessary for us to build the Georgian Bay canal? And reciprocity with the United otates will only enhance, and will not depreciate, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would lead us to believe, the value of the Georgian Bay canal. We have a great many members of the cabinet of this country on record as being in favour of the construction of that great work; we have a great many members of this House committed to its construction; we have the press of a great section of this country, as well as many boards of trade, clamouring for it. The Georgian Bay canal is one of my pet subjects, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to go on speaking on it all afternoon and all evening; but I know that there are a number of other hon. members of this House who are only too anxious to give utterance to their views upon this 'subject. I see the Postmaster General, (Mr. Lemieux), for instance-lie hardly ever misses an opportunity to proclaim what a strong believer he is in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The hen. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), who is very familar with the waterways of this country is also a strong believer in it. I know that these hon. gentlemen will give expression to their views on this subject. But I would like to point out another reason not commonly given for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. We shall require it for the carrying of our minerals; and, as a great portion of the canal will pass through the province of Quebec, let me point out that that province, as a producer of minerals, is getting richer every year. I know that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will attribute that directly to the fact that in the province of Quebec there is good, government. Whatever may be the cause, the mineral wealth of the province of Quebec is constantly increasing. In 1909 the value of the mineral production of Quebec amounted to $5,552,062, and in 1910 it amounted to $7,072,244. That included asbestos, iron, cement and other minerals which will be shipped by water. Therefore, if we wish to carry our mineral production to a successful issue, we must construct the Georgian Bay canal.
Now, Sir, I am not going to support the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, because the hon. member has brought it in for a political purpose. If not, why did he allow so many years to go by without placing a resolution on the Order Paper in favour of the Georgian Bay canal? Why did he bring it in this particular way, just at a moment when he knew that it involved a vote of want of confidence in the government? Does he imagine for a moment that the country, especially that portion which is interested in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, is so innocent as to believe that a vote for his amendment will mean the immediate construction of the canal? Before I cast a vote upon this amendment, which would mean, if carried, the defeat

515&
of the government, I would like to ask the hon. leader of the opposition if, following out the wording of the amendment, he were called upon to form a government, would he immediately begin the construction of the Georgian Bay canal?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: If the hon. gentlemen is asking me for some instruction as to how he should vote, I would like to say before I answer that I would require some guarantee that he would follow the advice.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The leader of the opposition is a ishrewd lawyer, and I know that he does not want to commit himself, and it would be hardly fair for me to try to exact a committal from him. I take it that the opposition have not made up their minds what their policy would be with regard to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal if they came into power, which thank Heaven will not be for many a day; and, therefore, it would ill become me to help to defeat the present government and help to bring the opposition into power in order to delay the construction of that great work. Earnestly believing in the early construction of the Georgian Bay canal, I do not think that I could logically vote with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I appreciate his kindly sentiments towards this project and also toward hon. members of this House who favour the early carrying of this project to a successful issue. But Sir, as I have had occasion to say before in this House, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes-I fear the Greeks even when bringing gifts-and I fear the hon. member for Jacques Cartier because of his manner of bringing this subject before the House. I trust that every hon. member on this side at least, who is in favour of the early construction of the' Georgian Bay canal will see that we have one hope for the realization of our wishes, and that is to pin our faith to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who is earnest in his belief that this work should proceed, and who will proceed with it. His life has been given to great works, such as the construction of the Transcontinental road, and the reform which is to bring wealth to the farmers of Canada, improved trade relations with the United States, and who, I believe, as the crowning work of his life, will undertake the early-carrying out of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound).: I have no desire to follow the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) in his varied wanderings. Nor have I any desire to oast reflections upon those who are in favour of the early complete deepening of the Welland canal or the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I believe that all these works will be necessary in a few years to solve the transportation problem of Can-Mr. DEVLIN.
ada. We heard the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) state on Friday last, that the canal traffic of Canada had incresed from 5,665,259 tons in 1901 to 42,990,608 tons in 1910-an increase in nine years of 660 per cent. According to the reports of the engineers, ten years will be required for the construction of this contemplated Georgian Bay canal. If we increase one-fourth or even one-tenth as fast as in the last ten years, there will be traffic awaiting this canal by the time it is finished. The Georgian Bay canal is in a somewhat different position from any other great work now in contemplation in Canada, including the great works that I have indicated. We have a complete survey of this canal,-and not only one, but many surveys. We have one completed, I think, in 1907, which cost the Dominion of Canada upwards of $1,000,000, a survey in every way complete; and I have yet to hear that any attempt has yet been made to refute any of the statements made in the report of the engineers. In this report, the engineers were unanimous. They agreed in the opinion that this canal would be a great project, valuable to the country, and entirely feasible in every way. The hon. member for Wright has taken occasion to call the attention of the House to the fact that a great many of the ministers of the Crown, have, on various occasions, spoken in favour of this project. I myself, have heard several of them make remarks of that nature. But these were made years ago. They had the facts then that they have now; and I support the motion of the hon. member foT Jacques Cartier, simply for the same reason that I would support a similar motion if it were made by the hon. member for Wright. Those of us who are in favour of the early completion of this canal-and I think that in this we speak for the majority of the people of Canada-should support any action that will conduce to the carrying into effect of our wishes.
There is another subject mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, which demands a good deal of attention, and that is the question of cost. It must be evident to everybody that, if the land in Montreal and its vicinity that will be necessary for the construction of this canal were expropriated at this time, it would mean a great saving in the ultimate cost of the canal. There is also the fact that the government has been spending large sums of money for the conservation and regulation of the water flow on the Ottawa river. These works could go hand in hand, with the works for the canal. We had on Lake Nipissing dams put in under the direction of the Minister of Public Works for the control of the waters of the lake. But these were found un-

successful, and the country was put to the cost of blowing them out with dynamite. I understand that they are being built a second time under the Department of Public Works. All this work would be unnecessary, for the control of the water in these lakes and rivers would be effected by the works in the construction of the canal. There is also the matter of water-powers. *Canada has just awakened to the value of the water-powers of Ontarioiland of Quebec and of the Dominion as a whole. The Minister of Railways on Friday last stated that the expenditure upon the Trent canal, .great as it was, and little commercial value as it will have when completed, was entirely justified by the great water-powers that had been developed along that route. Contrast the water-powers of the Trent canal with those along the Georgian Bay canal, whether you consider them from the point of view of accessibility, volume or in any other way.
I have no desire to take up the time of the House further. This matter has been thoroughly gone into on other occasions; and I do not think it necessary that I should place myself further on record in the matter. In conclusion, I might say a word in answer to the hon. member for Wright, when he claims that he is called upon to vote against this motion because it is a vote of want of confidence. A few days ago, the hon member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. .Monk) brought in an amendment to an exactly similar motion, which amendment was accepted by the government and for which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) voted. I have no hesitation in saying that the government has the same option to-day as it had at that time; if they choose, they can accept the amendment of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and agree to its unanimous adoption by this House.


William Pugsley: Intensely interested as I am in the early construction of this most Important link in the chain of Canadian transportation, I feel the deepest possible regret that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has introduced his motion at the present time and in the form in which he has introduced it. Heretofore,- and I speak now of what is within my knowledge of the course of events so far as this great work is concerned, extending over a great many years-never until today has the subject taken on a party aspect. Years ago, when the Montreal, Ottawa & Georgian Bay Canal Company first presented its project to parliament, I happened to be one of the counsel employed by the company. I knew what efforts the company bad made to bring the matter before the attention of parliament and the
public, and it was a matter of gratification to me, as well as to those for whom I was acting at the time, that hon. members of this House dealt with the question from a broad standpoint, entirely irrespective of party. I remember that, on o-ne occasion, upwards of a hundred members on both sides of the House, irrespective of whether they were Liberals or Conservatives, signed a memorial in favour of the construction of this canal. At the last session of parliament, and also, I think, at the session before, motions were made for peturns on this subject, and different members spoke in support of the project. I am sure that hon. members who Tecall those discussions will agree with me that these motions were supported by hon. members of this House irrespective of their party affiliations, and that on each of these occasions the project was spoken of with warm sympathy by the Tight hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and by other members of the House.
But to-day the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has chosen, for what purpose I know not, for he certainly does not seem to be acting the part of a friend of this great project, to throw into it an element of partisanship. The very resolution he has moved introduces a matter in regard to which we cannot all agree. The hon. gentleman, instead of urging that the government should seriously consider the early construction of this canal, asks that the House shall, in effect, instruct the government to immediately begin its construction, and why? Because of the possible diversion of traffic to the country to the south. The hon. gentleman knows very well that a majority of the members in this House do not share that view. The hon. gentleman knows that nothing has recently occurred and nothing is likely to occur in the near future which would be likely to divert Canadian traffic to the country to the south of us. This canal, when it is constructed, is intended primarily to carry the products of the west to the ports upon the St, Lawrence for shipment to the markets of the old world; any products of the west which may be required by our neighbours to the south and which may be purchased for home consumption would not pass through this canal for the reason I have stated. If I were framing a resolution in order to bring this matter properly before the House, instead of putting it as my hon. friend has, that there might be a diversion of our products to the country to the south I would rather have said:	In view of the anticipated continuation of the rapid development of the Canadian west, and the .unrivalled position that the city of Montreal

and other St. Lawrence ports will, when the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal is constructed, occupy for the export of the products not only of the Canadian west, but of a large portion of the country to the south of us,.in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the government should consider seriously the early construction of this canal. If my hon. friend had moved a substantive motion ol that character, I have no doubt it would have met with a sympathetic response from both sides of the House. I am sure it would have met with a sympathetic reception on the part of the government and I believe also on the part of all the supporters of the government. I say that because upon the occasion when a very large delegation last met the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues and ^.presented in the very strongest way possible, the importance of engaging upon the early con-structiion of this canal, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told that delegation that it was not necessary to come to the government with arguments in support of this great project. He told ..them that he and his colleagues were thoroughly impressed with the necessity of undertaking the construction of the canal at the earliest possible moment, but that it was simply a question of finances, that whenever the Finance Minister, in the exercise of his judgment, informed his colleagues ..that the time had arrived when the government could safely ask parliament to give it authority to begin the construction of this important work, then at that moment, and the Prime Minister expressed the hope that that moment would soon arrive, the government would be prepared to submit to parliament a project for the .construction of the canal. I would ask my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier in view of what has been said by the Prime Minister, in view of the expressions of -opinion which have been given in this House by prominent members of both sides in the past, and if he seriously desires to see the early construction of this canal, whether it is desirable that he should at this time introduce into the _ discussion of this great question, something of partisanship and submit a resolution, in regard to certain parts of which it would be impossible for all the members of this House to agree. I commend the matter to my hon. friend, because as I have said, J am sincerely in favour of the construction of this most important work.
I recognize the enormous benefit it would be to the transportation interests of Canada. I recognize that when this canal is built, it is going to command the traffic, not only of the Canadian west, but much Mr. PUGSLEY.
of the trade of the States which lie to the south of the boundary line. -If my hon. friend had been here on Friday last, I am sure he would have been greatly interested in the most admirable speech made by the hon, member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) who has always been a friend of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. In that speech the hon. gentleman dwelt in the strongest possible terms upon the great importance of this work. He showed how important it would be to Canada, important not only to .western Canada, but to eastern Canada as well. He spoke as a friend, as one who for years has been in earnest sympathy with this work, and he did not seek to throw into the discussion of the question with regard to its construction any element such as that which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has sought to throw into the.^dis-cussion to-day.
With regard to my own department and to the attitude of the government towards this work, it ought not to be necessary to do anything further than draw attention to the fact that a number of years ago the government decided to ask this parliament for authority to proceed with a most exhaustive survey of the route of that canal. Years have been spent upon that work. A board of engineers was organized and the work was placed under the control of some of the most experienced and capable engineers of the department. I do not hesitate to say that they have done their work in the most thorough and conscientious manner; I do not hesitate to say, and I appeal to the judgment of members who have seen the report that the report they have made and the plans they have submitted, the detailed plans prepared which are now before parliament, show that they have done their work in the most exhaustive and satisfactory manner. Their reports show that the construction of the canal is not only feasible, but that it can be carried out at a cost which no one will say would, now or in the near future, be beyond the financial resources of the people of Canada. The cost is placed at something like $100,000,; 000. That, bear in mind, is not merely for a 14 foot canal as at first proposed, but for a canal having a depth of 22 feet, over the mitre sills, a canal which will enable quite large ocean steamers to pass right through to Lake Huron and on to the ports on the western shores of our great inland lakes. That canal will be quite capable of giving accommodation to ocean traffic. The jrro-ject has assumed proportions far beyond what was thought of in the early days when the fondest hopes of the people of this country Ionly looked forward to >a canal with a depth of some 14 feet

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) refers to what the United States has done in the way of building canals, and says that Canada has done little. I entirely disagree in that respect. The Erie canal, to which he has referred, is but little more than a great ditch, having a depth of only 9 feet, whereas our system of canals, extending from Lake St. Clair down to the city of Montreal, has a uniform depth of not less than 14 feet, thus giving accommodation to very much larger boats which are capable of carrying a very much larger tonnage than can be accommodated by the Erie canal. I think there as no reflection to be made on the people of Canada so far as their enterprise in the past in regard to the construction of our great system of canals has been concerned, and I think the very fact that the government had surveys made, shows that we are favourably considering the construction of a great canal which will have a depth not of 9 feet as the Erie canal, not of 14 feet as the St. Lawrence, at the present moment, but a depth _pf 22 feet capable of accommodating large ocean vessels and enabling them to proceed right up t<\ Port Arthur and Fort William.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say again that I regret exceedingly that my hon. friend has introduced this resolution in the way he has chosen. I regret its terms, and it does seem to me that my hon. friend, upon reflection, knowing what has been the expressed feelings of members of the House in regard to this project in the past, whenever it has been brought to the attention of the House in a non-partisan way, will feel that in thus presenting his motion he is not acting as a friend of this scheme, but he is acting in a way which is rather calculated to retard the undertaking.


Wilfrid Laurier: I desire to call your attention to the fact that in my judgment the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is out of order. By the rules of the House, and by the amended rules of the House also, no private member can make a motion which involves an appropriation of public money or a charge upon the revenue. According to the principles of parliamentary government, the responsibility for all public expenditures rests altogether upon the Crown and its advisers; it is not within the province of any member of parliament to make a motion which involves an expenditure of money by parliament. The principle is so well recognized that it is not necessary to refer to it. Still, I will call your attention to rule 53, which enacts:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any
tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed.
This enactment is not new, it is simply a reproduction of a rule which is as old as parliamentary government in England. But the framers of the British North America Act attached so much importance to this rule that they did not leave it to be ordinarily applied as a rule of the House, as it existed in 1867, but they put it in the . constitution in still more positive language. Now, the motion of my hon. friend reads as follows:
The House, in view of a possible diversion of the country's carrying trade from Canadian channels, and in order to ensure the most favourable conditions of transportation between western points and the Canadian Atlantic seaboard, records its opinion and determination that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal should be commenced forthwith

Now nothing could be more positive than these terms, the House is asked to express a determination that without a moment's delay the construction of the canal should be commenced. Now, everybody is aware that it is allowable to a member of the House, not to propose a direct motion such as this, calling for an expenditure of money, but a motion which invites the attention of the government or of the House to the advisability of providing for an expenditure of some kind. In this respect the rights of members of the House are well defined, but they are limited. While a member may, by a motion, express a desire or declare a policy in abstract terms, the moment the motion goes beyond abstract terms, and the moment he goes so far as to enjoin upon the government the immediate duty of providing for an expenditure, then he overrides the rule. Let me call the attention of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier to the last edition of May, 1906, page 571, where he will find the following words apply directly to his motion:
To a certain extent, evasions are, by usage, permitted of the restriction imposed by the standing orders upon proposals for the expenditure of public money. Bills devising a large scheme for public expenditure, accompanied by provisions for the application of the same, have been brought in upon motion, the money clauses being printed in italics. In such cases, the principle of the Bill is discussed, and, if approved on behalf of the CrowTn, the necessary pecuniary provision is subsequently made; otherwise further progress of the Bill is prevented by the refusal of the Royal recommendation. In like manner, motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract and general terms, can be entertained, and agreed to by the House. Resolutions of this nature are

permissible because, having no operative effect, no grant is made or burden imposed by their adoption.
Now, if the motion of my hon. friend were couched in abstract terms and made general, it would be in order; but if, as I contend, his motion, far from being abstract and general, is so precise as to make an injunction upon the government at once to enter upon this expenditure, then there can be no doubt that he has gone beyond the rights assigned to a member, and has made a motion which is out of order. Now let me' ask my hon. friend to read his motion over again, and he will agree that the terms are imperative, and their effect if the House were to pass the motion, would be to put upon the government the immediate duty of proceeding with this work.
The House records its. opinion and determination that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal should be commenced forthwith.
I submit that my hon. friend has gone beyond the rights assigned to a member, and the motion is out of order, and upon this I would ask your ruling.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is a great pity that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) should have gone out of his way to find in this motion a partisan spirit. If the proposed arrangements with the United States are carried into effect they will produce traffic, and if, as is contended, they will produce traffic with the United States, it is quite natural that that traffic would be removed from Canadian channels. I do not see anything in the motion that would lead anybody to believe there was a partisan motive behind the motion I have made. It calls purely and simply for a decision from the government. In answering my right hon. friend, it seems to me he has gone out of his way to avoid giving a categorical answer to the question involved in the motion. I think the public at large would have been much better pleased to see him less punctilious upon the point of order, and more anxious to give the information which is plainly sought for by this motion. We are all familiar with the rule that a private member cannot initiate public expenditure; that has been in the English constitution since 1701, I think that privilege has been with the consent of the House, reserved to the Crown. There is nothing in this motion which calls for an expenditure of money, and that is the only thing which would stop a private member from making such a motion. There is no call here for money, it is for an expression of opinion by the House, and an enjoinder, if you will, 'to the government to begin the construction of the canal.
But where do you find in that, words which correspond with the rule which my' Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
hon. friend quoted about requiring the imposition of a tax or the expenditure of any specific sum of money? That is all I have to submit on that point, Mr. Speaker. You will find authority in Bourinot for the statement that the very greatest latitude possible has been accorded since the House of Commons has existed, in the matters of motions of this kind, a motion which does not go so far as to require the spending of a specific sum of money. That is what Sir John Bourinot says in his work. There is no question of money here and it seems to me that my right hon. friend might very well have answered the question that is sought to be solved by this motion instead of taking refuge in the point of order which has no force with reference to a motion of this kind.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If this resolution compels the government to proceed with the expenditure of money forthwith there are rules applicable to it, first, that contained in the British North America Act and, second, a rule of our own House. Section 54 of the British North America Act, which has already been referred to, would prevent the adoption of such a resolution. Rule 77 of our own rules would also prevent the adoption of the resolution if it were not recommended by the Governor General and preceded by consideration in the Committee of the Whole. There are precedents mentioned by Sir John Bourinot of certain resolutions that have been adopted, but Bourinot also states that they were generally evasions of the rule. I may be allowed to read a few lines from it:
A practice lias grown up in the House of allowing the introduction of resolutions by private members, when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money, hut simply express au abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant. As this is a question not always understood, it may be explained that such resolutions, being framed in general terms, do not bind the House to future legislation on the subject, and are merely intended to point out to the government the importance and necessity of such expenditure.
Referring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions, all authorities agree that it is one 'which the House exercises, and should always exercise with great reserve, and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.' Such resolutions are considered virtually 'an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should be discouraged as much as possible.' Nevertheless, neither the English nor Canadian House of Commons has ever agreed to the adoption of a rule to fetter their discretion in regard to the entertaining of such propositions.
I see by the Standing Rules and Orders of the British House that- rule 71, which was passed on the 20th March, 1866, previous to confederation, reads as follows:

If any motion be made in tbe House for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House before any resolution or vote of the House do pass therein.
The only point I have to decide is whether the adoption of this amendment would compel the government of the day to proceed forthwith with this expenditure. I think it would, and therefore it is in violation of the rule that requires previous recommendations of the Crown and consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, I declare the amendment out of order.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of the Interior-Imigration-Salaries of agents and employees in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries, $350,000.
['I think it would be a great mistake to assume that all the people who have come into the country have remained in it. I am not taking that position; I merely say that we have counted this many people coming in, and we have not taken account of the people who went out. Of course the census will tell the tale. I am afraid that those who have been building on all the people who have come into the country remaining here, will find themselves at sea.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Graham, House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.', 'Tuesday, March 14, 1911.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was the intention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to give a general statement on this subject before we went into the matter.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: 
Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: How many immigrants came from Ireland this year as compared with last?


Frank Oliver: The immigration from Ireland in the fiscal year 1910 was 3,940, as compared with 3,609 in the previous fiscal year and 933 in the year before that.


Mr. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: Can the minister state if the United States statistics are compiled in the same manner as our Canadian statistics? The reason I ask is that the American statistics show that they received more Canadians than we received Americans, prior to last year at all events; the figures for last year I have not seen I would like to know whether the United States figures are compiled on the same basis as ours because there seems to be a difference of opinion on this matter. For instance, I suppose there is some method of dealing with tourists and transients and others who come from the United States for speculative purposes, and who go back after a few months stay here.


Frank Oliver: I think the method of counting is the same and the method of accounting is practically the same. I may mention that during the nine years from 1900 to 1909-10 there were, according to the United States reports, immigrants from Canada to the States-immigrants of countries in which we put forth immigration efforts-to the number of 126,624, and during the same period Canada received from the United States 479,262 immigrants.


William Wright: I was asking the minister as to the total migration between the two countries.


Frank Oliver: I am giving the total immigration during these years from the United States to Canada, and I am giving the figures of the United States authorities themselves in regard to the emigration from Canada to the United States, of certain classes of people.


William Wright: What I was trying to get at is the method in which the figures are compiled in each country. I have studied the immigration returns as given bv the United States up to last year, and they take credit for receiving more Canadians than there were Americans who



left for Canada. Are their figures compiled the same as ours?


Frank Oliver: We cannot be responsible for the accuracy of their figures. I do not know how they arrive at their results, and of course if they claim they have received as many Canadians into the United States during the past year as we say we have received American citizens into Canada, we can only say that we believe their figures are incorrect.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was placing before it the figures of the immigration for the current year. I pointed out not only that the total immigration was larger than that of any previous year in the history of the country, but also, from the evidence that was at hand, that the character of the immigration was superior to that of the previous year as the character of that year's immigration was superior to that of the year preceding. I want to emphasize the fact of the larger immigration of this year, an immigration which, if our estimate of 300,000 is correct, is nearly 100,000 more than that of last year, an increase of 33J per cent, and last year's immigration was only exceeded by that of the year 1907-8. The growth of our immigration is shown by the statement that in 1897 the total immigration was 21,716, in 1900 it was 49,149, in 1905 it was 189,064, and in 1910-11 it is over 300,000. The committee will remember that some years ago the conditions surrounding the immigration into Canada were such as to call for considerable unfavourable comment. There were objections made to the character of the people who were coming:	They were not well provided with
means ; they were not sufficiently well selected as to physical and other conditions. . The immigration of the present fiscal year, although larger than that of any other fiscal year in the history of Canada, has called forth less complaint upon any of these scores than has ever before been the case in the history of immigration into Canada. That is to say, there is less lack of employment, and less of unfavourable conditions on the part of the immigrants. I will deal with what appear to me to be the reasons for this in a short time. In the meantime, I will give some information as to the means that are taken by the Immigration Department to secure this large influx of people. First, let me say that it is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Immigration Department of the Dominion government at the present time to give assistance to immigrants-to Mr. WRIGHT.
pay anything to induce an immigrant to come to Canada.


Uriah Wilson: You never did.


Frank Oliver: 
Richard Blain: How does the total expenditure for immigration of last year compare with that of the preceding year?


Frank Oliver: I am glad that my hon. friend has reminded me of tnat, because while the immigration has increased from 21,000 in the year 1897 to over 300,000 in 1910, the expenditure has increased from $261,000 in 1897-98, to $960,000 in 1909-10; that is to say, that while the expenditure has increased fourfold, the returns for that expenditure have increased some fourteen fold; so that to-day the country is getting a proportionately greater value for its money than it did in 1897. I have said that Canada has no policy of assisting immigration. Canada has no money to give to any man to cause him to come to Canada; but Canada spends her money for the purpose of bringing the advantages of Canada to the attention of those who are likely to avail themselves of them. Our immigration policy is in the first instance simply an advertising policy-a means of placing the advantages of Canada before such people in other countries as we desire to induce to come to Canada in the belief that they will do well for themselves when they come here. We, therefore, keep salaried agents, advertise in newspapers, and publish literature in regard to Canada for the information of the public. Speaking in more detail, in Great Britain we nave nine salaried agents in permanent offices, whose business it is to distribute literature, to give information, to spread a knowledge of Canada wherever it can advantageously be done, and to facilitate the coming to Canada of desirable people who wish to come. On the continent of Europe we have only two such agencies, one in France and one in Belgium. In Great Britain we find that

a great deal of our publicity work is done by the booking agents, who are licensed by the British government to sell transportation. By our arrangement with these people we are enabled to get their special efforts on behalf of Canada. This is where the bonus system comes in. We pay these booking agents $5 on each ticket to Canada sold by them, provided the person buying the ticket is of the class considered desirable by us. This makes the agent interested in advertising Canada. He would rather sell tickets to Canada than to the United States or South Africa, or South America hr any other country that does not give him any extra consideration of this kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this bonus for men, women and children?


Frank Oliver: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister tell us where these salaried agents in the United States are located?


Frank Oliver: In the following cities: Detroit, Michigan; Spokane, Washington; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Watertown, South Dakota; Grand Forks, North Dakota; St. Paul, Minnesota; Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Missouri; Toledo, Ohio: Chicago, Illinois; Great Falls, Montana; Indianapolis, Indiana; Syracuse, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and Providence, Rhode Island.
In the United States we employ subagents who are paid an allowance based upon the number of people whom they bring in, the: allowance being at the rate of $3 for each adult male person, $2 for each woman and $1 for each child. These sub-agents are mainly useful in giving the people information as to how they ,ean best reach Canada with their effects.
The work of advertising in foreign countries and in the British islands is a large part of our immigration effort and perhaps the most important part. But another very important part is that of dealing with the immigrants after they arrive in Canada. While we do not. give any financial assistance,-that is, it is not our policy to give financial assistance, it is our policy to facilitate, as far as possible, the immigrant reaching the destination and the purpose for which he came to Canada. For that reason we have a system in the western provinces of distributing immigrants on the land. There is what might be called a central distribution office in Winnipeg in charge of the Commissioner of Immigration. All railroads of the west radiate from Winnipeg, and, at different points throughout the western provinces which

immigrants are likely to seek, we have immigration halls, that is, places where immigrants may be temporarily entertained on leaving the train and before they go out on the land. We have a number of officers known as land guides, who are paid at the rate of $2 per day and whose duty it is to guide parties out to the vacant lands. These laud guides are men who are acquainted with the run of the surveys, have some knowledge of the country, and can take a person who is not familiar with conditions in that country -and, naturally a person coming from the British islands or from continental Europe must find things very strange when he goes on the prairie-to the best land available in the neighbourhood. When the immigrant comes looking for land, arrangements may be made with the land guide, who is responsible to the government, and who will take the immigrant out and show him the land and indicate the boundaries and, generally speaking, assist in locating him. The immigrant, of course, has to pay for his own expenses, including transportation, but we give the land guide payment at the rate of $2 per day so as to retain his services.


Mr. SOHAFFNER.: How many of these land guides are there in the employ of the government?


Frank Oliver: At this time, 65.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How are they distributed throughout the prairie provinces?


Frank Oliver: I co.uld not, offhand, say just where they are located, but, generally speaking, they are located so as to be in touch with the land agencies, because the land agency is the place to which the immigrant must go in order to locate his land after he has decided upon it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has the minister any complaints of any of these guides ' working ' these immigrants-that is, getting an extra fee for showing them the good land? The minister, I suppose, understands what I mean. There have been complaints that guides would not show land-seekers the best land unless they received $100 or $200 extra. Have any complaints of that kind been received?


Frank Oliver: I have had no complaints on that line. Such complaints, if they were made to the commissioner at Winnipeg, would not likely reach me through the commissioner at Winnipeg, as I am sure that on receipt of such complaint the commissioner would dismiss the guide before the complaint reached me. If my hon. friend has any knowledge of such cases and the facts can be substantiated, I will guarantee that the guide complained of will be dismissed without delay.


Frank Oliver: In Ontario and Quebec, where the demand is not for free land, but for farm labourers, we have 125 distribution agents in the farming counties, whose business it is to see that immigrants for Ontario are distributed amongst the farmers who desire help. In 1909, we distributed 3,610 farm labourers amongst the farmers of these two provinces, and in 1910, 6,769. Thus the number of labourers supplied to farmers in this way doubled in one year. In Prince Edward Island we have had a Mr. Winfield employed for about two years. The conditions there are different again from those in Ontario and Quebec and the west. There is no great demand for farm labourers and no free land, but there is land which can be purchased at a reasonable price, so that Mr. Winfield's efforts are directed to bringing out a class of practical farmers who wish to buy land at reasonable rates. He sails on the 14th of next month with a party of this kind.	. .	,
On behalf of New Brunswick, we have had since Christmas, Mr. Craigie, of fet. John, N.B., in the old country. We have so far had no returns from him. At the moment we have no person from Nova Scotia, but expect to have before long.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is Mr. Craigie working in connection with the local government? The local authorities have cognizance of farms in New Brunswick which can be obtained by immigrants. Would he have a list of these farms?


Frank Oliver: I would think it would be part of his business to inform him in regard to the conditions there. Undoubtedly he would be informed and would take the action my hon. friend suggests. He will work in harmony with the provincial government in securing immigrants who will be likely to occupy land in New Brunswick.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has not the government an agent in Winnipeg who receives $25 from the farmers to bring out labourers to 'Manitoba?


Frank Oliver: We have two agents in Manitoba for the placing of labourers and we Lave sent farm delegates from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during the winter to advertise and bring to the notice of the people of England, Scotland and Ireland the opportunities offered by the three provinces in the way of free land, land for purchase and employment for labourers.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I did not mean that, but before Mr. Smith was sent to London he used to send agents round to the different towns, and the farmers used to give him $25 on condition that he would supply them with the men. Whether that custom is still continued I do not know.


Frank Oliver: That is not being done at the present time, unless under very exceptional circumstances; I think it was not found to work out satisfactorily. I think there was a man named Adamson who did that sort of work, and while Mr. Adamson was a very good man, and brought out a number of good men under that system the scheme did not work out satisfactorily with the steamship companies.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Who got the $25?


Frank Oliver: He got it,


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if there is similar co-eperation in the province of Ontario?


Frank Oliver: The distributing agent in the country districts is at liberty to use his own judgment. He communicates with our agents in the old country, he tells them there are so many men required in his locality. If a farmer desires to do so, he can avail himself of the services of the employment agent to advance the fare for a man that he wants to bring over. But that is not a part of our system, that is a transaction between the farmer and the employment agent. That is not a part of our business. If the employment agent and the farmer can arrange it between themselves, we have no objection.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: The minister will remember that before the Christmas holidays I brought to his attention a matter relating to this very point. A gentleman in Winnipeg, Mr; Hutchings, in the saddleTy business, had completed a large factory, and he wanted to get a number of operators. The saddlery business in England was dull on account of automobiles taking the places of horses and carriages. He could get good men, but these men could not comply with the provisions of the law which required that they should have so much money in their pocket on landing. The explanation the minister gave at the time, I think, was to the effect that the employer could advance the money. I mentioned the fact to Mr. Hutchings, who seemed to be much annoyed, and thought he was not well treated, and he did not agree with the minister as to the facts. I think the minister said there was an obligation which would prevent them from entering with another man's money in their pockets. Perhaps the minister could make his position clear now\


Frank Oliver: There must have been some misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Hutchings. There is no objection to Mr. Hutchings or any one else advancing money to men in England. It is none of our business how the man in England gets his money so long as he comes to Canada with the money in his pocket, and we are
satisfied it is his money. We do not care if he has to pay it back afterwards, but if he comes to Canada with the money in his pocket to spend as he pleases, then we are satisfied that he has $25 that will, keep him from becoming a public charge until he has a reasonable opportunity of getting work. But we do object to the employer furnishing that money to him at the port of landing, because the inference is that it is only handed to the immigrant to enable him to pass our officer, and then he must hand it back to the agent who is employing him. That is contrary to our policy, and we do not allow it if we can prevent it. But if the man leaves England with the money in his pocket, we do not concern ourselves whether it was advanced to him or not.


Alexander Haggart: Suppose the employer of labour here has advanced that money to a hundred different men in different places, and they are able to show the money at the port of entry. Well, if there is an obligation to pay it back, could a conscientious man with the money that, was advanced to him for that purpose, and which he knew was not his own, and which had to be earned subsequently, could he make a declaration that that was his money? Then it would be useless to advance him the money. That was the point that Mr. Hutchings made to me.


Frank Oliver: I think that is rather straining the point. I cannot imagine many men having so tender a conscience as to be unwilling to say that the money they were entitled to spend as they pleased was not their own money. As a matter of fact, it was their own money.


Alexander Haggart: So the employer has got to make a gift of it, and cannot demand it back subsequently?


Frank Oliver: He can lend them the money, but the transaction must be made on the other side before he leave*. We do not ask whether the man has to pay the money back or not; the point is that he must have the money, and that he is privileged to spend it as he pleases. If he gets it in England and brings it with him across the ocean, that is evidence that he has had the money in his possession, and the ability to spend it if he wanted to. Therefore, we are satisfied that when he comes to this side he is able to spend it if he "wants to. But if the employer is not willing to give him the money until he lands on this side, that is evidence to us that the employer is not willing to trust him with the money, and the chances are that the money is only given to him to be handed back, and, therefore, it did not belong to the immigrant.
J


Alexander Haggart: I have great respect for the minister, but I have not much respect for the law that he lays down. Even if the money is loaned to him, he still has it in his pocket.


Frank Oliver: The requirement is that the man who lands in Canada shall not be under the necessity of appealing to charity in case he is not able to find remunerative employment immediately upon landing. Now that is one purpose, and that purpose is served if the man has the money in his pocket when he lands, and can do with it as he pleases, no matter whether he bor-. rows it or not. But if it is only given to him as he lands, and must be handed back to the employer the moment he passes our officer, then that is not his money to do with as he pleases, and is no protection to the immigrant.


Mr. BRADBURY.: It seems that this is not a good law in so far as we are concerned. I understand that we have been endeavouring to secure the very best settlers we are able to get from the British possessions. In this case under discussion, these men were mechanics, they were under contract, they were coming out here with permanent employment assured in Mr. Hutchings' factory. I think the law is-I will not say a silly law-but one that is bound to work to the detriment of our country in preventing us from securing a very desirable class of men. I do not think it is wise in a case of this kind to exact the qualification of having $25 in their pockets. I think men leaving England, Ireland and Scotland, especially mechanics, or any other kind of men that come to this country with assured positions, should not be required to comply with that qualification. Mr. Hutchings complained very bitterly, and he stated that he had a factory that would give employment to four or five hundred men. He told me that he had three hundred mechanics employed to go into that factory, and that these men were refused entry into Canada because they did not hacii have $25 in their pockets. Outside of this case altogether I think the principle is wrong. I think the minister is quite right to apply it to immigrants from foreign countries, Slavs and settlers of that kind, but when you are bringing into this country our own people, because we look upon people from Great Britain as our own people, you should not put such a barrier between them and Canada. If men are enabled to come out here with employment assured there should be no barrier. I can understand that it is necessary to keep out paupers, but there is no danger where men are assured a position, and a responsible man in Canada notifies the department that these men are about to enter his employ. I think the law is a mistaken one when applied in that way.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: The law is made to meet a certain condition, it is made for a certain purpose and when the need of the law exists it is desirable that it should be enforced. I quite appreciate the fact that there are times and conditions when it is not necessary to enforce that law, and during a great part of last summer the conditions were relaxed, so that where a mechanic was coming to assured employment the $25 was not insisted upon. But that was during the summer season and when the winter season came we felt that under winter conditions in Canada it was not in the best interests of the country that a man, even if he were coming to what was called assured employment, should come without money in his pocket, because we all know that labour conditions are entirely different in the winter from what they are in the summer, and that if a man is thrown out of employment in the winter he has not the same chance to get employment as in the summer. Although a man may come to assured employment we have no certainty that he will continue in his employment. He may be inefficient, he may have been mistaken in the class of work that he was required to do and the employer would not be warranted in keeping him. Such a man under' such circumstances arriving in the dead of winter will be just as hungry if he is >ut of a job as if he had not been a mechanic or a desirable settler and will become an object of charity. Therefore, we withdrew the relaxation in the fall and it was not until the relaxation had been withdrawn that our friend, Mr. Hutchings, arrived at the conclusion that he needed these men. If he had thought of it a little sooner he would have been able to have got them in without their having the $25; in fact, if I remember aright the relaxation was still in force when my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart, Winnipeg) spoke in the House, and I so informed him.


Alexander Haggart: No, the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Frank Oliver: Yes, the relaxation was in force until the 10th December.


Alexander Haggart: He could not take advantage of it by that time.


Frank Oliver: That may be; I cannot say as to that, but if Mr. Hutchings had arrangements made for his men at the time my hon. friend brought the complaint before the House there was no bar whatever to him getting them in. But, on the 10th December the relaxation was withdrawn, and I appeal to the committee if it is not right and reasonable that during the winter months in Canada any man landing in Canada should be in a position to support himself for a little time at any rate without appealing to any one.


Uriah Wilson: The minister has given us quite a rehearsal; he has spoken particularly of what has been happening in this financial year, and no person in this House outside of himself has any opportunity of investigating any thing in connection with it. Then ihere is another thing that I think we are more interested in perhaps than the numbers he has given us as representing the immigrants who have come into this country. There are only certain classes for which the government are giving bonuses of $5 each to agents. I understand they are farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants. He has told us that they placed over 6,000 in Ontario and Quebec last year, or two-thirds of all they got in of that class. I have here a statement that was made by Mr. Scott, the immigration commissioner. He said that during 1910 we received 9,813 farmers and farm labourers for whom we paid $49,065, that we received 6,015 women for whom we paid a bonus of $30,075 and that we received 2,840 children for whom we paid ten shillings per head, the total amounting to $86,240. As I understand the government's position on this question, it is that they are not supposed to assist any other than these three classes to come to Canada-farmers,, farm labourers and female domestic servants. We have 3,000 agents who are paid commissions for getting immigrants, we have nine regular salaried agents in the old country and during last season we sent over forty special agents at a very great cost. We did not accomplish very much. My own impression is that sending over special agents is a farce. It is very nice for a friend who is in ill-health or who wants a trip to go over as a special immigration agent, get $100 a month and expenses. Some of these expenses are exceedingly high. We keep no track as far as I know of the people who leave the country. The minister told us this afternoon that we got 103,000 immigrants from the United States. If you look at the immigration report of the United States you will find at page 142 the figures given with reference to the year's immigration from the United States to Canada and the emigration from Canada to the United States as follows: Immigrants from United States to Canada-
United States citizens	 78,697
Canadian citizens	 15,203
Aliens	 22,477
Total	116,377
Immigrants from Canada to the United States-
United States citizens	 22,832
Canadian citizens	 44,328
Aliens	 27,336
Total	 94,496
According to the American statement therefore we had the better of them by
21,496 people. It seems to me there is something very strange about this. We have been told that the exodus has been stopped and that our people are not now going to the United States, but here the American statistics show that Canadians are going in large numbers to the neighbouring republic. Now, to get this number of people from the United States, we spent something over $232,347 according to the answer given to me by the minister a; few days ago.


George Taylor: For 21,000 people.


Uriah Wilson: For a little over 21,000 people. Then, there is a discrepancy between the (immigration Teport given out by the department and Lord Strathcona's report to the department. The department says we got from Great Britain and Ireland, 59,760 immigrants last year, while Lord Strathcona says we got 66,554 and strange to say, that while we are told it would cost too much to keep track of the people who leave this country so that statistics might be prepared with regard to them, yet Lord Strathcona in his report to the department at page 65 says:
Some interesting instances of the volume and character of the immigrants from the United Kingdom to Canada, and the return movement to Great Britain from the Dominion are shown by the figures quoted below which have been obtained from official sources.
Then he says there were sent to Canada 113,315 and there returned to the old country 46,791, leaving, as he says, the balance of 66,524. I should like to know why the department does not adopt some system by which we can know the number and character of the people^ who come to this country, as well as of those who leave this country, because unless we have such information, we are entirely in the dark and we are paying out such large sums of money that I think it is time to ary a halt. From 1897 to 1910 we paid out for immigration $8,847,272.33, and if you add the appropriation for this year which amounts to $1,066,250, you will have $9,913,522.33 expended for immigration from 1897 up to the end of the fiscal year. When we remember that the federal government of the United States has not now and never had an immigrant agent, and' when we remember that transportation companies are forbidden under a heavy penalty to solicit immigration, (it is a remarkable thing that last year the United States got over one million one hundred thousand immigrants on whom they collected a head tax of $4 each amounting to over $4,000,000, and they spent for the purpose of keeping out of the country-I thlink that describes

it exactly-$2,631,538, leaving them a balance collected on immigrants for that year amounting to $1,533,428. Now, it is strange to me that while we have 3,000 agents in Great Britain and Ireland, and 45 immigrant agents on commission in the United States and 17 on salary, we are not as successful in proportion as is the American Republic. I would call the special attention of the minister to this point, because I think the time has come when there should be a reduction in the amount of money we are spending, especially when we are getting such meagre results in the line of desirable immigrants. I am sure the minister would hardly like to go before a Trades Union and tell them he brought in about 300,000 immigrants last year, only about 10 per cent of whom were farmers, farm labourers, and domestic servants, notwithstanding that the Trades Unions are opposed to bringing in mechanics and the labour unions are opposed to bringing in labourers and the government declares it is their policy not to bring them in. During the last three years the government has spent over $1,000,000 a year for immigration although when we were in power the Liberal party found very great fault with our expending $120,000 a year for the same purpose. Now, I have figures here from the American report at page 55 which tend to prove that we are getting into Canada a great many undesirable immigrants and that the selection made on the other side before they start for this country is not nearly as perfect as that made by the United States. I may state that in 1907 there was a large convention held in New York at which persons of various notions about immigration met, and prominent citizens of the United States discussed the question thoroughly. That same year the Congress of the United States passed a law appointing a commission to investigate the whole matter of immigration and the commission was permitted to go anywhere it chose to pursue its investigation, and to report the result. They say, in an interim summary report, that their complete report will require about 40 volumes, and while I do not expect the Minister of the Interior to read the whole 40 volumes, yet I think it would well repay him to read the summary report presented by the commission. Now, in the figures given below it is shown beyond peradventure, that the United States were called upon to reject fewer immigrants on this side of the Atlantic than Canada rejected, and the reason for that is that the process of selection on the other side before the immigrants start for the American continent, is much more perfect under the United States system than under ours. I quote the following figures: Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington).
Immigrants admitted and aliens deported after
admission to Canada and the United
States, fiscal years 4907 and 1909-Country. Immigrants Aliens Percentage admitted, deported, deported.
Canada	
534,044	2,774	1 to 193United States.... 2,820,005	5,188	1 to 544
If this statement is true, it shows a great laxity on the part of our Immigration Department in allowing undesirable immigrants to embark for this country. I am informed that the United States have medical officers in some of the European countries for the past ten years. I believe we have one in New York; I do not know that we have any other. Then, every captain of a vessel bringing immigrants to the United States must make a declaration on reaching port that the medical officer of the ship has examined every immigrant on board, both orally and otherwise, and when they land, the medical officer on shore has to do the same thing. It is said that there are often as many rejected at the port of embarkation as are brought over. The shipping companies have got tired of carrying people both ways for one fare. Besides, if any contagious disease is found among the immigrants that might have been discovered before the ship sailed, the shipping companies are liable to a fine of $100, besides having to take back the affected people to the country from which they came. I made some mention of that last year when the Immigration Bill was before the House, and did what I could to assist in improving that measure. I wanted to have it made as stringent as possible, because I look upon the immigration business as the most important business we have in this country. If we bring into the country a lot of people who are weaklings or insane, we can never correct the mistake, whereas if we spend a little more money on anything than we should, we have only to work a little harder to make up the loss. In the Ontario report on the hospitals for the insane for last year, it is stated that during ten months of that year 168 insane persons were sent back, and that was a saving to the province of $400,000, I suppose taking into account the number of years that these people would have to be maintained if they had been left here. That I think shows that our immigration regulations are too lax. One thing the department has done which I am pleased with, although it costs a good deal of money. It has appointed, along our border, between Canada and the United States, 69 regular preventive officers to prevent undesirable people coming into this country. In addition, I understand, there are 132 customs officers who are required to act as preventive officers for the same purpose. That makes an army of a little over 200, and while it is a little expensive, these people render a valuable service. The department

has sent a number of people to the old country as farmer delegates, and it seems to value them all the same, because it pays them all the same salary, except one lady, who is paid at a much higher rate than the others. Donald Irwin, from Lloyd-minster, Saskatchewan, was employed for four months at $100 a month, and was paid $761.50 for expenses, or over $6.25 per day. Alexander D. Gamby, from Griswold, Manitoba, was paid a salary of $100 a month for three months, and $606.16 for expenses, or about $6.70 per day. S. Larcombe, of Birtle, Manitoba, was paid $100 a month for three months, and $718.28 for expenses, or about $7.98 per day. Rev. J. A. Winfield, of St. Stephen, New Brunswick, was paid $100 a month for four months and $742.68 for expenses, or almost $6 per day. J. G. Turgeon, of Hardisty, Saskatchewan, was paid $100 a month for five months and $885.47 for expenses, or $5.90 per day. Agnes D. Cameron of England was paid $200 a month for four months and $2,592.62 for expenses, or $21.60 per day. H. S. Bardal, of Winnipeg, was paid $100 a month for six months and $1,143.43 for expenses, or $6.35 per day. William Griffith, of St. John, New Brunswick, was paid $100 a month for eight months and $1,613.84 for expenses, or $201.73 per month. That there may be no mistake about this matter, I will read the heading of the statement which Mr. Scott sent to the committee: ' Farmer delegates sent to the British Isles and Europe, fiscal year 1909-10.' I do not know the position this lady, Agnes D. Cameron, occupies, but I can hardly imagine that she is properly described as a farmer delegate. I think the time has come when we should cry a halt in spending money so recklessly in connection with immigration, and for getting into the country many people whom we do not want. What we do want are farmers, farm labourers and female domestics; but I do not think the government can take credit for bringing in a lot of other people who prefer to live in the cities and towns. The United States reports show that about 40 per cent of the immigrants go home again and about 30 per cent stay when they do go. This indicates that the immigrants who are going to the United States now are not the same kind that came years ago. Formerly they came to become citizens and make homes for themselves and throw in their lot with the people of the country. Now many come during the good times when they can get good wages, and then it is so easy to go back that they return home again and take their money with them. I would like the minister to give us a pledge to-night that he will look into this matter and see if he cannot curtail the wasteful expenditure that is taking place on immigration at the present time.


Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of making a few remarks in regard to immigration.
In providing the means for starting an overwhelming influx of immigrants with the object of developing our resources, we have too often neglected to lay down strict rules for the proper selection of such immigrants. Accordingly people have been admitted whose character was not always above reproach.
In the course of the last session, parliament and the government materially improved the law in this respect. However, the form to be filled in and signed by the immigrant is not of a nature to enlighten us as to the latters' character.
The hon. minister should require from the immigrants a certificate vouching for their good behaviour. Such certificate might be delivered by a magistrate, by the physician attending the immigrant, by the clerk of a court, by a clergyman or by the mayor of the municipality wherein the immigrant resides. Such a formality might be readily complied with. Desirable citizens wouid be proud to hand to the proper officers a certificate giving evidence of their good behaviour. It would be an honourable certificate of registration for each new citizen of Canada.
Last session, I applied for the correspondence which had taken place between the medical immigration inspectors and the superintendent of immigration. I made a special study of the methods of medical inspection followed at Quebec. I appreciate the learning and the zeal of Dr. Page, superintendent of the immigration hospital and head of the inspection service at Quebec. I foresee that in the near future satisfactory results will be forthcoming from his work, his researches and his suggestions.
I wish to make a passing reference to the annual report of the Department of the Interior. The hon. minister publishes only the.reports of our inspectors, of our immigration agents and the reports of our agents in the British Isles, in France and in Belgium. Unfortunately these reports are oftentimes a mere rehash of the facts already in print. They do not impart any information in respect to our colonization societies or our agents in the New England states. I hope that henceforth the hon. minister will cause to be included in his annual report an account of the work done by all our immigration agents.
We are seeking to blend with our native-born population swarms of foreign elet-ments. We cannot be too careful in the selection of these outsiders. The United States, though their population aggregates 90,000,000, are fearful lest they may be unable to cope with such large arrivals of immigrants, and they are endeavouring by means of restrictive legislation to impede

the rush into the country of immigrants from foreign lands.
The Canadianization of foreign elements in this young country of ours, with its immense territory, presents a social problem of the greatest importance. The growing generations of immigrants, constantly increasing, may ultimately have the upper hand in the management of our affairs. It is then incumbent on us to make^ a most judicious selection of these immigrants. Some political men conceive the greatest fears in regard to the proposed trade reciprocity arrangements between Canada and the United States. They fear the effects of an immigration policy which has attracted to Canada since 1900 close on one million immigrants from the United States. In their opinion, Canadian feeling is not sufficiently developed, is not sufficiently strong, does not exert enough prestige, to allow us safely to go into a business understanding of that kind with our neighbours. But I cannot admit that such an arrangement implies the slightest weakening of our feelings of loyalty towards the mother country.
It is with sadness that I see so many of our Canadians leaving this country for the United States.
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX (Translation.) Do you mean French Canadians?
Mr. PAQUET (Translation.) I said Canadians.
Mr. MARTIN (Translation.) What about those who are coming back to Canada?
Mr. PAQUET (Translation.) Statistics go to show that during the fiscEtl year 1908-09, 18,111 Canadians emigrated to the United States for good. In 1908-09, that figure reached 43,805. During the last fiscal year, 53,448 Canadians left to take up their homes in the United States. According to the report of Mr. Rene Dupont, immigration agent at Quebec, 19,000 French Canadians have left the province of Quebec. Over 11,000 emigrated to the United States. Such figures should induce us to make untiring and strenuous efforts towards keeping in the country the sons of Canada.
Allow me to make a few remarks in respect to the French immigration. In the course of the last fiscal year, we received 1,727 immigrants from France, and in order to attain that result, we expended $10,750.71. In 1909. I voted in favour of the French treaty believing in my heart that it would make for an increase of our trade with France. In my opinion, such an arrangement would develop our business intercourse with France, help in building up the means of communication between the two countries, attract French capital and French immigration to our shores.
If the Dominion government is intent on attaining that goal, they should hasten to reorganize the office of our general agent Mr. PAQUET.
in France. We should have at Paris, as our representative, an active, able mart, thoroughly versed in business matters. We should so arrange that this agency of ours in France may become a powerful means of extending our trade, a centre whence Canadian energy may radiate with irresistible force. French capitalists will look on such an agency with great confidence. The question of Canada's representation in France is worthy of the immediate consideration of the government. I quote the following lines from the pen of Mr. Louis H. Tache in the ' Canada ' review:
The decease of Mr. Fabre has created a vacancy which it will not he an easy matter to fill. His great individuality, his refinement, his remarkable learning, and social qualities which are seldom met with to-day, had thrown on the general commissionership of Canada, a glow of which it would have been deprived under ordinary circumstances.
The powers that be have never done 'anything to surround their representative in Paris with the necessary prestige and provide him with the means required to show up Canada in the right light and to develop in an effective and systematic way our relations with France.
It is not a difficult matter to find Canadians capable of representing' us worthily. The general commissionership in Paris does not require exceptional qualities; but it is organized in such a manner, its present make-up is so different from wbat one might expect, that while the post is too important a one to be intrusted to a mere plodding, official, it would not he suitable to a man having the ability and the standing expected in one eligible to succeed Mr. Fabre. In brief, heretofore the position has not implied the authority, has not ensured that independence, or ill,at rate of remuneration, or provided the help required towards the fulfilment of its object.
The Dominion government would be meeting the wishes of all the French Canadians and I might say of all Canadians by providing for the maintenance in Paris of a representation worthy of Canada and worthy of France. At the same time it* would be the most effective manner ini which immigration from France might be fostered.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU. (Temiscouata).: (Translation.) If my hon. friend the member for l'Islet will allow, should he not, in fairness for Mr Ren6 Dupont,_ have added that, following on the publication of the statistics referred to by the hon. member, and seeing that some people were endeavouring to make political capital out of this announcement, Mr. Dupont wrote to the papers in the province of Quebec a letter of explanation, in which he stated that a number of the so-called emigrants were people who had gone to the States, not with the idea of residing there permanently, but to visit relatives or work there for a few months, having the firm resolve of

coming back to the province of Quebec? It seems to me that any one mentioning his report should also mention that explanatory letter which Mr. Dupont sent to the papers.


Eugène Paquet: In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I went to the pains of inquiring from the very people who had furnished that information to Mr. Dupont, and they stated they had mentioned only such as had left for the States with th.e intention of staying away several years to say the least.
As regards the remark made by my hon. friend on the other side, I may say that Mr. Dupont himself acknowledged that his report was incomplete and that he contemplated continuing and completing his work. That is the reason which prompted me to request that the hon. Minister of the Interior should include in his next annual report, hot only the reports of our agents in the British Isles, France and Belgium, but also such as would be forwarded by immigration agents in the New England states and the neighbouring republic generally, as well as the reports of the various heads of our colonization societies. Such a request appears to me to be perfectly justified.


Hon.   R.@: LEMIEUX (Gaspe) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks just made by the hon. gentleman from L'Islet. I must congratulate him on the spirit of fairness and moderation evidenced by the manner in which he addressed the committee. He referred to the regulations which were revised last year by the hon. Minister of the Interior in respect to immigrants who come here from the old country. He stated correctly that these regulations had been made stricter and that as a result the moral character of late arrivals was more satisfactory than in former years. As a matter of fact, even a cursory acquaintance with the course of immigration in Canada, within the last few years especially, will satisly one as to this:	while during a period of fifteen or
twejity years we may at times have shown too much leniency toward immigrants entering Canada, for the last five or six years, and more particularly within the last two years we have made the regulations such that to-day we can natter ourselves with having an immigration practically above reproach.
I shall recall to my hon. friend clauses 40 and 41 of the regulations concerning immigration, and he will aver that under these two clauses and subsection 2 of clause 42, the minister is vested with full powers, that is with unrestricted autocratic powers as regards the deportation of immigrants branded as undesirable.
There is no doubt that Canada leads among the countries of the world in looking after immigrants with a view to retaining only the best. It is almost out of the question for an immigrant with some criminal offence chargeable against him or some dark spot in his record to get into Canada, considering that very stringent regulations await him on arrival. I was happy to gather from what my hon. friend said that he gave credit to the government for having done their duty in that respect.
I shall now pass to another point raised by the hon. gentleman. He called the attention of the House to the exit of Canadian emigrants to the New England states. He will agree with me, I think, that in the course of the last fifteen years we have succeeded in checking that exit. He will admit that fifteen or twenty years ago our rural communities were rapidly being depopulated. At the time I travelled through the province of Quebec and I knoto well that in certain back settlements, and even in the streets of extensive villages, abandoned houses could be pointed to, and they made up one quarter, if not one half of the total, their occupiers having left for the United States. But to-day, thank God, when our fellow citizens leave the province of Quebec, it is to settle on the fertile western plains, in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and even in British Columbia and the Yukon. Only a very small minority, indeed, take to the New England states. They go to work there during the winter months, but they return in the spring to work the land. They still retain a sweet remembrance of home.
Of course my hon. friend is well aware that since the building of the Transcontinental has been started, new parishes have been established in the counties of L'Islet, Temiscouata and others on the south shore, new industries spring up at every point where our French Canadian fellow citizens are called upon to play a leading nart.
As regards the work of repatriation, the reports of our agents and the statistics supplied by them do not appear in the annual report of the Department of the Interior, but I shall draw the minister's attention to the wish expressed by the member for L'Islet, and no doubt such information will henceforth be included in that report.
The following is a list of the agents who are appointed especially to look after the French Canadian communities of New England and some of the near-by western states:
Berube, Rev. A. P., Vonda, Sask.
Carbonneau, J. B., Biddeford, Me.
Caron, RSv. I., Montreal, Que.
DesRosiers, Nap., Rockland, Ont.
Dupont, Rene, Quebec.
Gauthier, Rev. E. E., Saint-Alphonse, Chicoutimi, Que.
Gingras, Elzear, Providence, R.-I.
Gravel, Rev. L. P., Moosejaw, Sask.
Laurier, C. A., Marquette, Mich.
Lanrier, Romuald, Saginaw, Michigan.

Ouellette, Rev. J. A., Montreal, Que.
Robillard, J. E., Lanoraie, Que.
That is a goodly number of agents who for some years past have been doing some excellent work in New Englafid. It is only fair that the reports transmitted by these agents be included in the minister's yearly Report.
As regards the grants paid by the department to various colonization societies, the following is a list of the amounts expended in the province of Quebec.
Quebec and Lake St. John, $8,000.
Societe d'colonization de Montreal, $4,000.
Society d'immigration de la Vallee d'Ot-tawa, $2,500.
L'Union nationale fran?aise de Montreal.

My hon. friend referred briefly to the im-i migration from France. I concur in the eulogies he bestowed on the work, the zeal, the high intelligence of the late Hector Fabre, whose decease occurred in September last. He was at the time, and had been for a number of years our agent in Paris. We may find a successor for him, but nobody will be found capable of replacing him in every respect. He was a man who, not only in Canada, but in France as well, was held in the highest esteem, a first rate writer, who more than any one else revealed Canada to Old France. Unfortunately he was getting old and his salary did not allow of his advertising Canada on a grand scale, at a time when it was still practicable to do so.
My hon. friend should bear in mind that during the last decade French immigration to Canada has considerably increased. I remember the time when the sight of a French settler coming to Canada had something of the miracle about it. Of course there existed in the Northwest a few small settlements of Frenchmen and Belgians, here and there, but it was an unusual thing. Our trade intercourse with France amounted to very little and we had not yet succeeded _ in maintaining a line of steamships plying between Havre and Quebec.
Now what do we find in going through the statistics since 1901? The following figures have been supplied to me for France
and Belgium respectively by the Department of the Interior:



[Stage Direction]
1901		Immigrants.
1902		
	
1904		
	
1906		
1907		
1908		
1909			 1,830
1910			 1,727
Total			 14.195
Mr. LEMIEUX.: 


BELGIUM.
[Stage Direction]
1901,
1903 1901 1905,
1907 1908,
1910
Immigrants.   ..@: 132
..	223
..	303
..	858
..	796
..	1,106
..	650
..	1,214
..	828
..	910
Total	 7.020
It seems to me almost incredible that we should have succeeded in developing French immigration to such an extent in the space of so short a period, and I shall explain why I take that view.
I have made a special study of that question, not only in books, but on the spot, in France, as well as of the means the Canadian government had at their disposal. The problem appealed to me, not only as a Canadian, but as a French Canadian, still remindful of his lineage. I considered that we had a right to our share in that great flow of immigration which is pouring from year to year over this continent of our1'. I went to headquarters for my information, and I say to my hon. friend, with the hone that my voice will be heard throughout the province of Quebec, that the directing of a continuous and powerful stream of immigration from France to Canada is practically an impossibility. In the first place, it is admitted that the population of France is decreasing year by year. That is a sad circumstance for our old mother country, but it is the exact truth. In the second place, France is under a regime of compulsory military service; and for these two reasons the French government not only dislikes the idea of Frenchmen emigrating to foreign lands, but frowns on any scheme for recruiting immigrants. Two years ago, I was in Paris shortly after the hon. Mr. Fabre, who was already a sick man at the time, had got communication of a circular sent out from the Department of the Interior in France to prefects, prohibiting all endeavours towards recruiting emigrants for Canada. The French government complained to the British embassy that, notwithstanding regulations to the contrary, our agents in France persisted in carrying on their work. The French government took exception to certain clergymen appointed by the Canadian government travelling through the country with a view to inducing peasants to emigrate to Canada.
They complain also of the activitv of our agents who encourage school teachers to promote emigration to this country. The French Minister of the Interior called the attention of our ambassador to this matte" which he called a grave irregularity. I thereupon called on the Prime Minister Mr. Briand, whom I had the honour of

meeting a few days previously at the Chamber of Deputies and explained to him that our agents did not intend to organize a propaganda, but merely desired to convey to those peasants who desired to emigrate, information which might decide them in favour of Canada. I also left in Mr. Briand's hands a memorandum explaining the nature of instructions given to our agents, and he promised to look into the matter carefully with a view to a future conference.
Some few months ago, I was again in Paris, and in order to make it clear to the committee that it is impossible to us to undertake any propaganda in Prance, I will state that another circular was placed in my hands, it having been, this time, delivered to our commissioner through the channel of the British Embassy. I carefully read that circular; it confirms the opinion just now expressed by me that the government will not permit any kind of emigration propaganda on the part of Canada or of any other coutnry.
Mr. PAQUET (Translation.) Had that circular been altered?
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX (Translation.) It has not been altered. In fact the action of our agents is practically paralyzed, as any efforts in that direction might expose them to a fine and even to deportation.
Another fact must not be forgotten when we are discussing French emigration. How can France encourage her citizens to settle in foreign countries, when her own colonies scarcely receive a sufficient number of French immigrants to counterbalance the foreign element? I read the other day an interesting article published in 'La Revue des Deux Mondes '; it may enlighten my hon. friend from L'Islet.
In that article of ' La Revue des Deux Mondes,' the writer recalled the fact, that in Tunis, a French colony whose climate is similar to that of the South of France and only a few hours distant from Marseilles, the French population is in a proportion of 25 per cent, while the Italian element represents 75 per cent; I mean, of course, of the white population, not the native. France being unable to people Tunis, her most valuable colony, how can she encourage her citizens to settle in Canada or in America?
Of course, with due exercise of tact and discretion, our agents in France may be able to direct towards Canada those Frenchmen who have in any case decided to come to America. But as to supposing that any large number of such emigrants may be obtained, that would be an illusion. We may consider ourselves lucky to have been able during the last decade, to increase so materially the figures of French immigration; but once again I sav let us not count upon any large increase. As to Belgium, the case is different. The Belgium government is less opposed to an emigration propaganda, yet it must be carried on with due discretion. Besides we must not forget-that Belgium is an exceedingly wealthy country and that from such countries emigration is usually limited. Nevertheless, thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, our pavillion at Brussels was the central point of attraction at the last World's Fair. Hundreds of thousands of Belgians have been able to read and study our circulars, atlases and folders published both in French and Flemish describing the wealth and beauty of this land. I am convinced that in consequence of that exhibit, several thousands of Belgian colonists will settle here. It is easier to carry on a propaganda by means of these exhibitions than by agents. Besides such agents are excluded not from France and Belgium merely but from every important country in Europe. In the United Kingdom alone complete liberty of canvass is allowed. In Germany and Russia emigration propaganda is forbidden. Two or three years ago a Russian officer who was quite familiar with conditions obtaining in Germany and Russia, informed me that he could secure for us several thousands of excellent immigrants, I introduced him to the Minister of the Interior who was quite willing to authorize his work in Lithuania, provided he first obtained permission from the Russian and German governments to carry on the work. The officer consulted the Russian and German consuls, and both informed him that their respective governments would forbid anything of this kind. All this tends to establish that it is quite impossible to undertake any such propaganda in violation of the precise instructions given by the authorities either to the prefects or to the governors of provinces. England alone gives us a free hand.
My hon. friend has expressed some fear as to the future of our country. He believes that we are being invaded by Americans and he considers that theTe is danger of a change in the mental trend of the Canadian people. In my opinion that is a mistake, and the fears expressed by my hon. friend are groundless.
Mr. PAQUET (Translation.) I quoted those words vfrom certain statesmen who feared such a result, but I said that, for my part, I did not believe that the proposed commercial agreement would interfere with our attachment to the mother land.
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX (Translation.) I agree with my hon. friend. Evidently I had misunderstood him. But' I frequently hear it said when I go to Europe and especially to England, that Canada in receiving such a large number of Americans will finish by becoming Americanized and losing her distinct nationality. Invariably I reply to those who express such fears in

my presence that they are quite mistaken. It is not so much the true Americans that come to Canada as Germans, Scandinavians and even Canadians who had emigrated to the United States.
Mr. BELAND (Translation.) French?


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Yes, even French Canadians returning to this country. Look over the names of the new so-called American settlers, and you will find that they are not American ' Yankee ' names, but those of different European countries. These settlers areffresh arrivals from Europe who have heard that beyond the American frontier, in the western provinces, there are better lands, and that our laws are wiser and more equitable than American laws. Thus it happens that after a few months or perhaps a few year's sojourn in the United States, they cross the line and settle amongst us. The American ' Yankee ' colonist is becoming more and more rare. The great adjoining states of Dakota, Minnesota, &c., do not contain a 'Yankee' population; they are peopled by Germans, Scandinavians and other later arrivals. It must not be forgotten that the great majority of our so-called American colonists come from these states.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the remarks made by my hon. friend and to find that they were framed not in a hostile spirit but rather with a view to obtaining information on the immigration movement in our country. Will he allow me to state that I have frequently had occasion to confer with the Minister of the Interior concerning the interests of our fellow-conntrvme" n'+bnr in matters of repatriation or of French or Belgian immigrajfcion. My observations were invariably well received by the minister and I am "pleased to be able to add that those members of the clergy who are interested in the grave problem of immigration, have every reason to be satisfied with the treatment they have received from him.


Uriah Wilson: I have here a return which shows salary and expenses paid to Miss Cameron as different from those given in evidence by Mr. Scott. This return shows that Miss Cameron was appointed on the 20th January, 1910, at $250 a month. In Mr. Scott's evidence, it appears as $200 a month; and the expenses are' given as $1,770, against $2,500 m the evidence furnished by Mr. Scott to the committee. I would like the minister to explain that if he can; and also to state what Miss Cameron's duties are.


Frank Oliver: I cannot give a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy offhand. I ask my hon. friend to give ine an opportunity to go into the accounts and see on which side the error is. Although Miss Cameron's salary appears m the list of salaries of farm delegates, she is not a Mr. LEMIEUX.
farm delegate. The farm delegate is a practical, successful farmer, if possible, of British birth, who is sent, if possible, to the part of the country from which he came. He is not expected or required to be a man of many words, but he is expected and required to be a man of material success, so that when he goes to the place of his birth in the old country and meets his friends, and they ask him what he has done, he will have something to tell them-not what he thinks, or has heard, or believes, or supposes, but what he has done in the way of material success. He is in himself an example to the old countryman of what may be achieved in Canada. For these reasons we do not look for men who have any particular ability in speaking, lecturing or making an appearance before the public. But it is necessary to have also lecturers, people who have the ability to interest audiences by delivering addresses. Miss Cameron has a reputation as a lecturer and also a writer. She is a native-born Canadian, a native of British Columbia, has travelled a great deal in Canada, and has had a great deal of experience both as a writer and as a lecturer. We did not think we were making a mistake-and we do not think so now-in retaining her services at the price paid. We could not expect to retain the services of an experienced writer and lecturer at the same rate as a larmer who had no such experience and qualifications.


Samuel Barker: Was Miss Cameron a farmer?


Frank Oliver: I have just explained that she is a lecturer, a lady of Canadian birth who has travelled a great deal in Canada and knows a great deal of the various provinces, and also has the ability to tell what she has seen and what she knows in such a manner as to be interesting to the listener.


Samuel Barker: I understood the hon. minister to say that he would not employ a man who had not practical experience as a farmer and knew what he was talking about. Is there any reason why he should employ Miss Cameron, who is neither a man nor a farmer?


Frank Oliver: I tried to say that we employed men who are not farmers; we employ them as lecturers. We do not employ a farmer necessarily as a lecturer, but we do employ men who are lecturers whether farmers or not. So, we employ this lady as a lecturer and not as a farmer; and we pay her the salary of a lecturer, and not the salary of a farmer.


Uriah Wilson: The minister told us a great deal about the number brought to this country. Would he tell us how many farm labourers and female domestics were brought out?


Frank Oliver: The farmers, and farm labourers who arrived in 1909-10-


Uriah Wilson: I have that. I understood the figures he gave us of immigrants related to the year which expires at the end of this month.


Frank Oliver: I gave the actual figures for nine months of this year, and also the estimated figures for the whole year.


Uriah Wilson: Can you give the number of farmers and farm labourers for the nine months?


Frank Oliver: I have not that before me in a form to give it to my hon. friend.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose that will come out in the annual report?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Uriah Wilson: Does the minister think there are more of these classes this year than last?


Frank Oliver: Judging from the information I gave the committee this afternoon, regarding the arrivals by one steamship, I would say, ' Yes,' beyond any question.


Uriah Wilson: Largely?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I would say a very considerable percentage more oi farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants than in any previous year. That is the impression that has been created in sue minds of the newspaper people who have seen the immigrants that have arrived this year -that they are much more largely of these classes than in any previous year. We have been bending our energies, as I have already said, entirely to securing that class of immigrant, and we believe that our efforts are bearing fruit in the increase of these classes which come to us year by year. The hon. member (Mr. Wilson, Lennox) will remember that it is only a few years since we undertook this policy. Before that time, ours was a general or indiscriminate policy of immigration. It takes some time before we get full results.


Uriah Wilson: We got something like
18,000	last year, including children. I do not know why the government pay a bonus of ten shillings on a child, who is neither a farmer, a farm labourer nor a domestic servant. And last year the government paid for bonuses, besides expenses, $86,000. It does seem to me that there is an opportunity to look into this matter and cut off the payments to these gentlemen to whom you are giving pleasure.


Frank Oliver: I feel very strongly on the point that the money that Canada pays to induce immigration should be paid with particular attention to getting the kind of people we want and need in the country.


Uriah Wilson: Nobody objects to that.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the farm delegates, of whom my hon. friend seems to think so little, he is only one means of trying to reach the actual farmer. Now, I cannot think of any way that is more likely to reach the actual farmer in the old country than sending the actual farmer in Canada to meet him. If the experience of the successful farmer in Canada will not appeal to the successful farmer in the old country-who is a man we want-I do not know any argument that will. The old country farmer, as every one knows, is very conservative in his ideas-very slow to move-he would not be half so good a man as he is if he could be moved easily. It will take time to get a movement amongst these people; but we believe we have taken the right course and that we are starting the movement. It is well known that English and Scotch farmers are the best farmers in the world, and this country needs as many of these people as we can get. And I can conceive of no better way to reach the old country farmer than by sending the successful Canadian farmer to tell him what he has been doing.


Uriah Wilson: I moved for a return of the reports of these farm delegates. I am sorry to say that in the whole return there was not a single report from one of them. Mr. Walker wrote a little letter about one, some man had given some lectures, another man interviewed a number of people and they expected great results. If we could get returns from these gentlemen to show what they are doing for the money they get it would be of some use. I have not for some years moved for that because the last time' I moved for it it was so unsatisfactory I did not think it was worth while.


Samuel Barker: I listened to what the minister said. I am not a farmer, but I understand the hon. gentleman to argue that the old country farmer is a very conservative individual and hard to move or convince. The minister's theory is that the best way to convince the old country farmer is to send to him a man whom he does not know, a Canadian farmer. I would think the best way to convince the old country farmer would be to get some trustworthy people from there to come here and see what our farming means. Such a man would be far more likely to influence him than the paid employee of this government, and the last person who would be likely to influence such a conservative old country farmer would be a young lady like this Miss Cameron to whom the minister pays a handsome salary, and who deliver lectures on farming in Canada. I'o suppose that she can convince the doubtful farmer is nonsense.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The minister told us that the English and Scotch farmers were the best in the world. I am not prepared to combat that argument with any evidence, but I am surprised to learn that these old country farmers can succeed any better in Canada than our Canadian farmers. I wish the minister would go over and watch the operations of these men and then I fancy he would not make such an invidious comparison as he has made with reference to our Canadian farmers. I would like to know what the minister has done to dissipate the idea prevalent in the old country that this country is so cold and that our people have to work so hard. Do the lectures delivered there give any evidence of the teni-perature? From my experience in talking with men in Scotland I would think something of that kind was necessary. I was able to tell them that while our temperature may not be as moderately warm as theirs, still we have sunshine_ which I think makes up for the degree -of leisure that they have in the old country. My impression is that the man who gets along here in farming has to work pretty hard. It was a surprise to me to find that the minister was sending farmers from this country who are not as good farmers as those in the old land to instruct them what to do. The minister will have to get a better class of men than the Canadian farmers to instruct these people, if he still adheres to the idea that the Scotch or English farmer is better than the Canadian.


Uriah Wilson: Would the minister inform me how manv agents there are in Canada, and the names and salaries of the agents in Great Britain and foreign countries?


Frank Oliver: The number employed in the outside service in general immigration work in Canada outside of Ottawa is 178. There are 190 boundary inspectors, including the customs officers, who receive only $100 a year each. Then there are 52 officials employed in the United States, 42 in Great Britain, and nine on the continent. There are 471 altogether. The assistant superintendent in England is J. Obed Smith; in Belgium, the agent is D. T. de Coeli, and in France, Paul Wiallard.


James Arthurs: Are there any efforts being made to bring immigrants into the unsettled portions of Ontario? The House has been told at different times that we have a large area of clay belt along the Grand Trunk Pacific, and also along the line of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario. I have seen several publications of the department describing portions of Ontario, but I have not seen anything describing the unsettled portions of the northern part of Ontario.


Samuel Barker: 


Frank Oliver: So far the government has not taken up the question of colonization in northern Ontario. We have, however taken an interest in the colonization of what might be called far western Ontario. We have an agent at Port Arthur, who looks after the Rainy River country, and who has been employed there for seven or eight years. We have not taken up the question of the settlement of northern Ontario for the reason that until the Grand Trunk Pacific is in operation, the clay belt which has been spoken of so much is not available for settlement. There is land along the line of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway between North Bay and Co.chrane, but I do not know that the field for settlement there is sufficiently desirable to warrant the government in making any special effort. But as soon as the clay belt is made available by the construction of the Transcontinental and its operation, no doubt the government will be ready to take up the question of directing colonization into that part of the country.


James Arthurs: I think the minister is mistaken as to the clay belt. A week or two ago thirteen car-loads of machinery from one of the agricultural works were delivered at one of the stations in this clay belt on the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. There is a large settlement, outside entirely of the portion covered by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I think it would oe a wise thing for the minister to make some effort to settle up this country. It is very suitable for cultivation.


Mr. MAGRATH.: The minister stated that there were 190 inspectors along the boundary; would he say how many there were exclusive of the customs officers?


Frank Oliver: Sixty-nine.
Contingencies in Canada, British and foreign agencies, and general immigration expenses, $700,000.


Uriah Wilson: Would the minister tell us how this money is to be expended?


Frank Oliver: Advertising, printing, atlases, pamphlets, &c., $210,000. This is to meet the expenses for general advertising, printing of pamphlets and atlases, copies of papers, &c., in Canada, United States, Great Britain and the continent of Europe. The expenditure for this service for the fiscal year 1909-10 was $214,561.25, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $117,815.87.	.	.
King's Printer's accounts for printing of stationery, $17,000. This is to pay for books, forms, envelopes and general stationery supplies to head office and agencies in Canada and United States. The expenditure for this service during the fiscal

year 1909-10 was $23,823.65, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $18,957.88.
Postage on literature, &c., at head office, $6,000. This is to meet the expenditure for postage on literature and immigration letters mailed at Ottawa to points outside of Canada. The expenditure for the fiscal year 1909-10 was $10,377.44, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $2,273.29.
Contingencies and general expenses in Canada, $20,000. This is to meet the travelling expenses of head office officials; the expenses of officials in connection with the inspection of British immigrant children; the expenses of officials superintending the location of farm help and domestic servants, and for general miscellaneous expenses at head office and in Canada. The expenditure for the fiscal year 1909-10 was $30,855.45, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $5,140.36.
Seaport expenses at Halifax, St. John, Sydney, Quebec, Montreal, Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, $20,000. This is to provide for the general expenses of the port officers and officials, covering expenses of meeting boats and trains, temporary assistance, uniforms, maintenance of immigration halls and general office expenses. The expenditure for the fiscal year
1909-10 was $17,641.25, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $13,200.84.
Commissions for locating farm help and domestic servants, $4,000. This is to pay for commissions to agents appointed in Ontario and Quebec for placing farm labourers and domestic servants at the rate of $2 for each person so placed.
The expenditure for 1909-10 was $3,923.50, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $2,542.60.
General expenses of officials in connection with deportation of undesirable immigrants, $15,000. This is to provide for the travelling and living expenses of officials accompanying persons deported, and also for expenses of deportees. Whenever such expenses are borne by a transportation company a refund of same is obtained from the company. The following officials are employed in connection with this service: R.. Boston, P. Devlin, R. Dow, A. Blanchet, C. Choquette, Mrs. M. Killeen and Mrs. E. Tasse. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $15,905.91, and for the six months ended September, 30, 1910, $6,201.15.
Telegrams, telephones, freight and express charges at head office, $7,000. The expenditure for these services for the fiscal year 1909-10 was $8,797.15, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $3,242.57.
Medical services and supplies $3,000. This is to meet the expenditure for treatment of immigrants at the various immi-164
gration halls at the eastern and western ports and at Winnipeg. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $869.24, and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $1,588.50.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What was the last statement-treating patients?


Frank Oliver: Treating immigrants at various immigration halls.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Outside of Winnipeg? Mr. OLIVER. Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: At Winnipeg they have a regular physician paid a salary?


Frank Oliver: There is a special vote for Winnipeg^ which goes to the hospital and the hospital attends to the treatment of the immigrants.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand that, but have you not a physician in Winnipeg paid a salary to treat immigrants?


Frank Oliver: There is a salaried physician at the immigration hall.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why should there be extra treatment in Winnipeg?


Frank Oliver: There formerly was a hospital in connection with the hall, .but we found it was better and more economical to arrange with the hospitals to treat patients and so the medical man has simply to diagnose the cases.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The next item covers that?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then what is this amount for treating patients?


Frank Oliver: It is at places outside of Winnipeg.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: And does not touch anything in Winnipeg?


Frank Oliver: No.
Customs duty, $1,000.
This is to provide for customs duty and customs brokers fees' on literature, maps, pamphlets, &c.
Boundary inspection expenses $20,000. This is to cover the expenses of officials employed along the boundary between Canada and the United States for the inspection of immigrants entering Canada. The expenditure during 1909-10 was $59,364.70 (including salaries, which are charged to the salaries vote) and for the six months ended September, 1910, $5,688.87.
Detention hospitals: Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal and Victoria, $10,000.
This is to provide for the equipment and maintenance of the hospitals above named; for the treatment of immigrants who have contracted some minor contagious disease



on ship board, and detention of those not receiving treatment. For every immigrant treated, the rate of $1.25 per day is charged and 50 cents per day for those not under treatment. No charge is made for infants under one year. All the amounts earned at the above rates are collected from the steamship companies who brought the immigrants to Canada.
Farmer delegates, $35,000.
This is to cover the salaries and expenses of delegates sent to the old country in the interest of immigration. The men so engaged are all practical and successful farmers. The expenses during 1909-10 were $36,076.57.
Locating settlers in the west, $65,000.
This amount is to cover the expenditure to be made by the commissioner of immigration at Winnipeg, for locating settlers in the west. The bulk of this expenditure is comprised of:
Salaries and expenses of interpreters, land guides, temporary agents and clerks, caretakers, &c.; of contingencies of the Winnipeg and other agencies in the west, including postage, telephones, telegrams, advertising, provisions, and supplies for needy immigrants, homesteaders, equipment, maintenance of halls, uniforms and travelling expenses of officials.
The expenditure for 1910 was $59,766.30 and for six months ended 30th September, 1910, $29,483.36.
Collection of exhibits, $20,000.
This is to cover expenditure in connection with the purchase of fine specimens of fruit, grain and vegetables grown in Canada, to be used as exhibits in the offices of our agents; at fairs in United States; in the offices of our agents and on motor cars in Great Britain. This is thought to be one of the best means of advertising Canada and experience has proved that the sight of those fine exhibits has influenced many to settle in this country. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $23,429.13 and for six months ended 30th September, 1910, $2,449.76.
Contingencies and general expenses in the United States, $60,000.
This is to provide for the travelling expenses of our agents and their living expenses while travelling, especially while attending at fairs; for rent of offices, temporary assistance, telegrams, telephones, postage, office furniture and general expenses of the various offices in the United States. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $64,319.06, and for six months ended 30th September, 1910, $33,922.59.
Commissions on settlers from United States, $9,000.
This is to provide for the payment of commissions to local agents employed in Mr. OLIVER.
the United States who issue settlers' certificates which entitle the holders to transportation at a reduced rate of one cent per mile over the Canadian Pacific Tailway, Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern railways. These certificates are returned to the department by the railway companies and commissions are paid to the various agents who issue them at the following rates: $3 peT male; $2 per female and $1 per child under 18 years of age. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $3,900.75 and for six months ended September 30, 1910, $2,162.
British bonuses, $57,000.
Bonuses allowed as follows: fl on each person 18 years of age or over and 10 shillings on those between 1 and 18 years of age. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $39,145.65 and for six months ended September 30, 1910, $47,989.17.


Uriah Wilson: That does not correspond with the evidence given by Mr. Scott. The bonus paid agents in Great Britain and Ireland last year amounted to $86,000, according to Mr. Scott's evidence.


Frank Oliver: The statement I have quoted is $39,145.65 for 1909-10 and we are asking for $57,000 for this year because they expect a larger immigration of that class of people.


Uriah Wilson: Ia that the amount of money you paid to agents at the rate of $5 per head for adults and 10 shillings for children?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Well, the statement is certainly greatly at variance with that made by Mr. Scott. There were about
18,000	people that the bonus was earned on last year.


Frank Oliver: The number of people does ru t give you the amount, because some would be children and some adults. I have a copy of Mr. Scott's statement here, and I will turn it up in a moment. My statement here is that the expenditure for 1909-10 was $39,145.65 and for the six months ended September 30, 1910, $47,989.17.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is bonus?


Frank Oliver: Bonus actually paid.


Immigrants.   ..@: For farmers, farm labourers and domestics?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and we are asking for the same service for the coming year $57,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is it not so that quite a number of these men who have come out and upon whom the bonuses have been

paid, as farm labourers, have gone to work on railways?


Frank Oliver: It is quite passible.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That would hardly be the proper designation for them would it?


Frank Oliver: No, it would not, but in so far as we are aware, the payment is only made on those who go into domestic service or farm labour. If we find that a man upon whom the bonus is claimed, has gone to railway work, and not farm labour, we do not pay the bonus, or if we have paid the t onus already, we deduct it from the nexo claim made by that agent.


Uriah Wilson: How long does it run for?


Samuel Barker: How many cases have they found where a farm labourer was really a railway workman going to work upon a contract, and how much was deducted on that account?


Frank Oliver: It would be impossible to answer that offhand without having an opportunity to get the details in the department.


Samuel Barker: Are there any such cases?


Frank Oliver: Certainly there are.


Samuel Barker: You found that a number brought out ostensibly as settlers have been really* brought out to work on railways?


Frank Oliver: No, but they have gone to work upon railways.


Samuel Barker: I have looked into the matter, and I am quite sure that a large number of these have never done anything else, but work upon the railways and I have reason to believe that as soon as they finished working upon the railways they went back again. If the hon. gentleman says that his department has investigated and deducted the money in such cases or had it refunded, I will be willing to take his word in the meantime.


Frank Oliver: I can give my hon. friend absolute assurance as to that.


Richard Blain: The statistics show that from July 1, 1900, to March 31, 1910, 497,390 immigrants came from the United States direct. Of course, a considerable number of these might come through the United States from foreign countries and not be United States citizens at all. Is there any information which tells what nationality these people belong to?


Frank Oliver: We take account of the different nationalities of the people who come from the United States, but we have never published it. VVe have given the 1644
United States credit for all those who come from the United States.


Richard Blain: What proportion were born in the United States, and are really United States citizens?


Frank Oliver: We have the statistics as to that, but we have not compiled them, although the officer of the department makes a guess that possibly 50 per cent of them would be born in the United States.


Richard Blain: It is misleading to publish that this large number came from the United States when in reality only about half of them are United States citizens.


Frank Oliver: Oh, the large majority of them are United States citizens naturalized but a considerable proportion were not born in the United States. If it is thought desirable to compile the figures it could be done.


Uriah Wilson: In the United States returns they give the nationalities of those who went over to the United States from Canada.


Samuel Barker: It is important that we should know the origin of these people who come from the United Stares. For example the Doukhobor and the Norwegian stand on a very different basis, and it is well to know whether out of 100 people who come from the United States we are getting one Norwegian and 99 Doukhobors or the reverse.


Frank Oliver: Heretofore it was not considered of sufficient interest to compile that information, but it might be done.


Samuel Barker: I suppose there is no better settler than the Scandinavian, and other people of northern continental Europe, while there is a prejudice against some other nationalities, and it is desirable we should know whether we are getting what we consider the desirable class or the objectionable class.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact the immigration that has come from the United States into western Canada has been chiefly or I might say entirely of the desirable class.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They are mostly Anglo-Saxons.


Frank Oliver: Or Scandinavian or German. We have an exclusion service now along the frontier which comes in contact with the undesirable class to such an extent that last year we rejected at boundary points over 14,000. But we have not up to the present time considered it important because the people coming to settle on the land were of the desirable class.


Uriah Wilson: Will you try after this to keep track of those who leave the country as well as those who come in?


Frank Oliver: If it is considered necessary, we will do so, but it would add very considerably to the expense, and I do not know that the information would compensate us for doing so.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister tell us how Lord Strathcona collected the information that 46,000 returned to the old country of the 113,000 sent out? That statement is on page 65 of the report.


Frank Oliver: The figures were, I presume, secured by Lord Strathcona from the British Board of Trade, which takes account of all the people going and coming from and to British ports.


Uriah Wilson: How do the Americans get their figures?


Frank Oliver: They simply keep a sufficiently large staff to enable them to collect these statistics.


Uriah Wilson: If you are going into partnership with them on reciprocity, perhaps it would be as well to do so in regard to these statistics. I want to refer to the bonuses. According to Mr. Scott's evidence, we paid bonuses in 1909-10 on 9,813 men, 6,015 women and 2,840 children. If you multiply the number of the men and women by five and the number of children by half that, you will get the same amount of the bonuses paid. I make it $86,240.


Frank Oliver: 
Uriah Wilson: How are we to know about these matters? The minister gives us the calendar year at one time and the fiscal year at another.


Frank Oliver: 
Frank Oliver: Contingencies and general expenses in Great Britain and Ireland, including the London office, $55,000.
This is to meet the expenditure of the London office and of our agents; for rent of offices, taxes, light, postage, telegrams, furniture, temporary assistance, expenses re motor and exhibition wagons, &c. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $55,073.42 (including salaries), and for the six months ended September, 1910, $21,048.29.
Contingencies and general expenses on continent, $7,000.
This is to cover the expenditure in connection with our offices in France and Belgium, including rent, postage, telegrams, stationery, printing, living and travelling expenses, &c. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $12,009.44 (including salaries and for six months ended September, 1910, $1,062.48 (excluding salaries).
Grants to hospitals in the west (not including Winnipeg and St, Boniface), $4,000.
This is to pay for the difference between the provincial government's grant of 50 cents per day in Alberta and Saskatchewan and 25 cents per day in Manitoba for each patient, less whatever may be collected from the immigrants, and $1 per day which is charged by the hospitals on every destitute bona fide immigrant who is treated before he has been one year in Canada. The following hospitals are granted the allowance above stated; The Calgary, Edmonton, Medicine Hat, Regina, Prince Albert, Brandon and Holy Cross, and the Margaret Scott Nursing Mission. The expenditure for 1909-10 was $2,106.13, and for the six months ended September, 1910, $1,588.50.
Grant to Quebec and Lake St. John railway, $8,000.
The above grant is made in consideration of colonization work carried on by the above company in the Lake St. John district. One of the inducements offered to colonists by this railway is free transportation to every bona fide settler locating in that district. The grant is for same amount as for 1916-11.


Uriah Wilson: Do you also pay a bonus to the agent who causes these people to come?


Frank Oliver: We pay salaried agents in the United States to induce them to come to the Lake St. John district,


Uriah Wilson: Have you not got in that district men on commission?


Frank Oliver: No, this is the only local aid we give.
Province of Quebec Repatriation and Colonization Society, $4,000.
This society has been doing good work for many years in the interest of immigration in the province of Quebec and north-

ern Ontario. The grant is the same as for
1910-11.
Ottawa Valley Immigration Aid Society, $2,500.
This society is chiefly operating in the Ottawa Valley, distributing immigration literature and pamphlets, and giving each year a series of lectures on the interests of general immigration and colonization. The grant is the same as for 1910-11.
L'Union Nationale Francaise, Montreal,

This is in aid of the above society which has been keeping a house of refuge for quite a number of years, and which makes a special effort to receive, aid and care for French immigrants and to distribute them in various parts of Canada. The grant is the same as has been made for the last six years.
Womens' National Immigration Society, Montreal, $1,500.
This society established a home in Montreal for the purpose of giving aid and caring for female immigrants arriving in that city. The home is comfortable and attractive, and rendering valuable assistance to immigrants in procuring lodging and meals at a very low rate. The grant is the same as for former years.
Womens' Welcome Hostel, Toronto,

This Home was incorporated in 1906 and has for its object the reception and general assistance to immigrant women. One day's board and lodgings is given free, very low rates being charged when remaining longer at the hostel. The grant is the same as for previous years.
The Girls' Home of Welcome, Winnipeg, $750.
The above home was established twelve years ago. The object of the institution is to aid and care for immigrant women and domestic servants. Under agreement with the government, female immigrants coming to the home are given one full day's free board and lodgings. This is the same grant as for the last few years.
The Calgary Womens' Hostel, $500.
The aims and objects of this hostel are similar to the Girls' Home of Welcome in Winnipeg. The grant is the same as for previous years.
Canada West Publicity Office, $5,000.
This is an organization of business men of Western Canada and United States, promoting immigration from the western states. Their mode of operation is by having special articles on immigration to western Canada published in newspapers circulated in western states, the aggregate circulation of which amounts to over thirty-four millions in the year 1909-1910. The Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern railways each make a similar grant to this organization. The grant is the same as for 1910-11.	,11
Salvation Army grants, $15,516.66.
This is to cover the different amounts granted to the Salvation Army to help that organization to carry on their good work in the interests of immigration, for the rent of London, (England) office, $4,866.66; advertising in the Salvation Army publications, $2,433.33; special articles in the 'Emigration Gazette ', $1,216.67; allowance for distribution of immigrants and domestic servants in Canada, $7,000.
Miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, $1,233.34.
Total contingencies and expenses for
1911-12, $700,000.
The Canada West publicity office is aided not merely by the government, but, as I have indicated, by the three great railway companies as weil. This institution conducts a publicity campaign in the United States through newspapers and magazines. Instead of an ordinary advertisement, an article dealing with the publication of articles setting forth Canada's advantages, is secured in different publications in the United States. It is not an ordinary advertising propaganda, but it is very useful.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The three railways have joined in this?


Frank Oliver: They co-operate with the government. Each of the four organizations pays $5,000. The accounts are audited by the railway and the vouchers-that is, the articles clipped from the papers, are furnished to and audited by them.


Mr. BURRELL.: What percentage of the large expenditure on advertising, lecturers and so on, is devoted to directing immigration to British Columbia? i am not sure of the position now, but a year or two ago a great many of the lecturers practically ignored the existence of British Columbia. I may tell the minister that it is exceedingly important that we should get all the immigration possible. The labour situation has been rather acute during the last two or three years, and it is getting more acute every year, especially in fruit growing districts. Many of the agents sent over to lecture on Canada have been absolutely ignorant of the conditions in British Columbia. I remember, on one occasipn, when in England, I listened to a representative of Australia, who was declaiming vigorously on the advantages of immigrants going to that country rather than to Canada. He spoke of the extremely severe conditions of the Canadian winter, and said that cattle had to be kept housed up for six months of the year, and even then frequently starved to death. I asked him if he would be surprised to know that within a hundred and fifty miles of my home was a place where, to my knowledge.
12,000	head of cattle were kept by one company, and these cattle never had shelter at all. He asked me where this was, and I

told him in British Columbia. His answer was: That maj be in British Columbia, but not in Canada. I found a great many like that of those who should have given information about British Columbia to people anxious to obtain it, and it seems to me important that they should be familiar with the conditions beyond the Rocky mountains. I know that the minister has had one or two good men there, and has also published some pamphlets, but, I should be glad to have some assurance from the minister that his department is paying rauier serious attention to our immigration needs. He knows that in British Columbia we pay a larger share per capita of the Dominion revenues than any other province, and I think that in this matter ot immigration we deserve special consideration.


Frank Oliver: The conditions in regard to British Columbia are the same as in regard to the older provinces. That is, the attraction of free land ready for cultivation does not exist there as it does in the prairie provinces, and therefore it is not as easy to secure the attention of prospective settlers for British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia as for the prairie provinces.


Martin Burrell: I am aware of that, so far as the actual settler goes who wants to acquire land. I was thinking, however, especially of the large number of labourers on whom the minister pays a bonus and who go on the land to work but not to take up land for themselves.


Frank Oliver: I intended to cover that point. The main purpose of the immigration effort of the Dominion government, of course, is to bring into cultivation tRe vacant land of the prairie provinces. But, in doing that, we put out literature which covers the whole Dominion. I suppose that all the members of the House are aware of the atlas which was published and which covers all the provinces. The lady whose employment my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) has been criticising is a native of British Columbia, and has been lecturing in Great Britain last year and this year. She has strict instructions to give British Columbia the full benefit of her talents and knowledge.


Martin Burrell: I suppose the hon. minister is referring to Miss Agnes Deans Cameron. To what class of people would her lectures be addressed? I can understand it would be that class in Great Britain who are likelv to come out with money to invest in fruit lands. But I presume that she would not direct her attention in lecturing work so much to the labouring class.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) has the idea exactly. But, besides lecturing, Miss Cameron furnishes articles Mr. BURRELL.
to magazines and newspapers which would be more likely to reach the people he has in mind. Besides Miss Cameron, our arrangement with the Salvation Army is with a special view to their attention to that particular side of the work that my hon. friend has mentioned, always with due consideration, of course, to the other side of the question. Our records show that British Columbia has not suffered so badly in the general effort to secure increase of population. Our statement is that in 1900 and, 1901 the immigration to British Columbia of which we had knowledge was 2,600, and in 1909-10 the immigration of which we had knowledge was 30,721.


Martin Burrell: Of course my hon. friend would not wish to assume for a moment that' that was all due to the immigration work of the Dominion department. I do not wish to minimize the work of the Dominion, but the provincial government has gone to a great deal of expense of a special kind to promote immigration. I want to impress on the minister the strong need of immigration into British Columbia to meet the serious conditions that exist there now.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the situation and can assure my hon. friend that our department in Great Britain is cooperating with the British Columbia department in every way possible. Samples of British Columbia fruit are given display in our offices and in every way we are working in harmony with the British Columbia government. I do not wish to claim that this large movement was entirely the work of the Dominion, but I point out that the province has at least had some consideration in the flow of immigration.
Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospital, $15,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How is that divided? It does not seem a large sum.


Frank Oliver: Accounts are rendered and checked. This sum is to provide for the treatment of immigrants who have been less than one year in the country. The hospitals charge $1 per day for each immigrant treated, one-half being paid by the Dominion and one half by the provincial government. The expenditure in 1909-10 was for the St. Boniface hospital, 3,590 days at 50 cents per day, $1,795; and for the Winnipeg General hospital, 7,288 days at 50 cents a day, $3,644, a total of $5,439.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It seems hardly fair to make the province pay one half. Of course they pay all hospitals for all patients but it seems hardly fair to make them pay for the immigrants who have been in the province less than a year.


Frank Oliver: Of course it is a matter of compromise.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Why is there no report of the Chief Medical Officer in the current report of the department?


Frank Oliver: He was in Germany at the time of the compilation of the report, and his report will appear separately.


Martin Burrell: The minister said that if a man had $25 it did not matter to the department where he got it, whether it was by charity or not. How does that work in the case of an immigrant helped by a charity society at home?


Frank Oliver: There is quite a difference between the man who borrows $25 and the man who is given his passage or assistanc,-. out. If the charitable society pays the man's passage and furnishes him with $25 that he would have on his arrival here, we would not question his entry. The exclusion of the charity aided immigrant, was made to meet the case of the charitable society furnishing an immigrant with a passage to Canada, and landing him here without means of support or employment.


Martin Burrell: As long as they lend him the extra $25 you accept him?


Frank Oliver: If he is sound physically.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I suppose we have fairly definite information as to the mini ber of Americans who have come into Canada as settlers.


Frank Oliver: In the fiscal year 1909, 103,798; for the 10 months to the end of January, 1911, this fiscal year, 102,017 people who came from the United States to settle in Canada.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Have we as definite information as to how many people have gone from Canada to the United States?


Frank Oliver: No.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why?


Frank Oliver: It would add to the expense of administration and we did not realize that there would be the serious benefit that would warrant us in going to the expense.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then how would we know what we were gaining? There might be half as many going to the United States as came into Canada. It would be hardly business to say that we were getting 104,090 or whatever the number was, in the year, if we have half as many going from Canada back again,	.


Frank Oliver: It is a matter of judgment whether we should go to the expense or not. No doubt we could get the information, but
it would cost something, and the material result would not be altered. If we have the people we have them, whether we count them or not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: And if they have gone back we have not got them.


Uriah Wilson: I remember distinctly in the old days when the government used to keep a record of all that came in and no record of those that went out; and I also recollect when the census was taken the very comfortable position the government was in; they would not find their natural increase, and showed nothing but the immigrants that came in.


Frank Oliver: I think it would be a great mistake to assume that all the people who have come into the country have remained in it. I am not taking that position; I merely say that we have counted this many people coming in, and we have not taken account of the people who went out. Of course the census will tell the tale. I am afraid that those who have been building on all the people who have come into the country remaining here, will find themselves at sea.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham, House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.

Tuesday, March 14, 1911.