[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 267, for the relief of William Edward King.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 283, respecting Central Finance Corporation.-Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 297, to amend the Penny Bank Act.-Mr. Robb.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Edith Laura Hewitt.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Roland Emory Anderson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Olive Marion Gerrard.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 305, for the relief of John Beck.- Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Ruth Leonard Wiser.-Mr. Rowe.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of George King. -Mr. Bowen.

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

Mr. BISSETT:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a national park in the province of Manitoba, as requested in a memorandum submitted to the Minister of the Interior on March 9, 1928. bearing the signatures of all the Manitoba members of the House of Commons?
2.	What methods are adopted in determining the suitability of any given areas for national park purposes? Is there a set standard as regards physical characteristics of the area so chosen? If so, what is it?
3.	Who made the examination of the proposed eastern Manitoba park site, and the proposed Riding mountain park site?
4.	What portion of the whole area in the proposed eastern Manitoba park site was covered by Mr. R. W. Cautley of the Department of the Interior, on which his report dated February 11, 1929, is based, and on what evidence does he report:	(a) that there is no uninterrupted waterwray through this area; (b) that there are no trout or bass in this region; (c) that it is impossible to construct motor roads except at uneconomical and impractical costs in this area?
5.	Has the government expressed its willingness to the government of Manitoba to establish a national park within the province of Manitoba? If so, when and what answer was received?
Questions

6.	Has the government of Manitoba been asked to submit or approve of any given area for national park purposes? If so, what answer was received?
7.	What mining claims have been staked and what other lands have been alienated in whole or in part in the proposed eastern Manitoba park site since the passing of an order in council on April 19, 1928, setting aside this area as a provisional reservation for park purposes?
8.	What amount of money has been spent: (a) in connection with the Riding mountain forest reserve during the last three years; (b) in connection with the recreation ground established within that reserve and on whose recommendation ijvere those expenditures made?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton);
1.	Under consideration.
2.	When it appears that there is a responsible body of public opinion urging the establishment of an area as a national park, the department considers, first, whether the area is available for the purpose; secondly, whether the area is of national parks standard,
i.e., that it is the best example available, typical of any region which is nationally interesting and valuable from a scenic, ecological, educational and recreational point of view. This is determined by inspection.
3.	R. W. Cautley.
4.	The portion north of the Canadian National railway, (a) The Whiteshell river is the only continuous waterway through this area and there are thirteen unavoidable portages in the 48 miles from its mouth , to where it flows under the Canadian National railway embankment in a culvert; (b) On the evidence of his Indian guides, and local squatters; (c) Because of the generally rocky and difficult character of the country for highway construction from an engineering point of view.
5 and 6. The subject has been discussed tentatively with the province, but not finally.
7.	None.
8.	(a)
Fiscal Years	Total expenditure
1925-27	 $ 23,807 31
1927- 28	 33,905 88
1928- 29	 47,086 33

(b) Project-Fiscal Year-Amount-Total Expenditure.
Clark Beach summer resort:
1926- 27	$	45 00
1927- 28	 169 95
1928- 29	 12 15
Clark Beach summer resort-cabin:
1923- 24	$ 939 46
1924-	25	 79	31
1925- 26		20 79
1926-	27	
12	301927-	28	
66	251928-	29	
121	23

Clark Beach summer resort-kitchen: 1928-29	$ 110 04
Clark Beach summer resort-toilets:
1923-24	
75	001926-	27	
17	501927-	28	
38	431928-	29	
10	00

Clark Beach summer resort-grounds:
1926-	27.
1927-	28.
1928-	29.
	$	22 50
	 13	75
	 107	95
$ 144	20
Clark Beach summer resort-fire	places:
1926-27	$	500Clark Beach summer resort-auto road: 1917-18	$	60001922-	23	
334	951923-	24	
488	791924-	25	
188	471925-	26	
473	721926-	27	
47	891927-	28	
188	501928-	29	
876	18

Clark Beach summer resort-pier:
1928-29	$ 466 62
Clark Beach summer resort

wells:
1926- 27	$ 58 13
1927- 28	 15 30
1928- 29	 38 40

North Shore summer resort-clearing streets:
1928-29	$500 00
Clark Beach summer resort-telephone: 1923-24	$ 163 57

Total	$5,767 13
These expenditures were made on the recommendation of departmental officers.
(Mr. Bissett.l

Questions


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: 1.	By whom are the employees in the National Gallery appointed?
2.	Is it necessary for applicants for vacant positions on the staff of the National Gallery to pass an examination set by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	If so, is preference given to Canadians?
4.	Have any appointments been made to the National Gallery staff within the past two years?
5.	If so, what are the names of appointees, and if not Canadian born, how long were they resident in Canada before appointment was made?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Civil Service Commission.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Civil Service Act makes provision that " no person shall without the authority of the governor in council, be permitted to enter an examination unless he is a natural born or naturalized British subject and also has been a resident of Canada for at least three years."
4.	One permanent appointment has been made during the past two years. Two temporary appointments for special service have been made. All appointments were on certificates issued by the Civil Service Commission.
5.	Permanent: Miss E. P. Mountain, Canadian born.
Temporary:	David H. Baker, Canadian
born; Miss Kathleen M. Fenwick, not Canadian born.
Miss Fenwick came to Canada in January, 1928, at the request of the board of trustees of the National Gallery to perform work of a highly specialized and technical nature; opportunities for obtaining the requisite experience in which are not as great in Canada as in England or France.


FOX CREEK POST OFFICE
Mr. PRICE:: What amount of revenue has been received from the Fox Creek post office, county of Westmoreland, N.B., from the sale of stamps, money orders and other receipts for the year ending March 31, 1929?


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Veniot):: Sale of:
Postage stamps, $142.28;
Money orders, nil (not a money order office);
Postal notes, $252.77.


AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Mr. FAFARD:: 1. How many square miles have been photographed each year in the Dominion by means of aerial photography?
2.	How many square miles have been photographed in each province?
3.	How many square miles have been mapped out for each province?
4.	What are the titles of these maps?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Questions

Sioux Lookout, map sheet No. 52 J, Out. Ivenora, map sheet No. 52 E, Man.-Ont. Pointe diu Bois, map sheet No. 52 L, Man-Ont.
Carroll lake, map sheet No. 52 M, Man-Ont. Island lake, map sheet No. 53 E, Man. Oxford House, map sheet No. 53 L, Man. The Pas, map sheet No. 63 E, Man.
Grand Rapids, map sheet No. 63 G, Man. Cormorant lake, map sheet No. 63 K, Man. Wekusko, map sheet No. 63 J, Man. Kississing, map sheet No. 63 N, Man. Berens River, map sheet No. 63 A, Man. Norway House, map sheet No. 63 H, Man. Battleford, sectional sheet No. 267, Sask. Reindeer lake, special area, Sask. Edmonton, sectional sheet No. 312, Alta. Vermilion, sectional sheet No. 316, Alta.
Maps being compiled
Shelburne, map sheet No. 20 P/N.W., N.S. Port Mouton, map sheet No. 20 P/N.E., N.'S.
Loch Lomond, map sheet No. 21 H/5, N.B. Beaupre, map sheet No. 21 M/S.E., Que. Gatineau Forks, map sheet No. 31 O/S.W., Que.
Kempt lake, map sheet No. 31 O/S.E., Que. Parent, map sheet No. 31 O/N.E., Que. Buckingham, map sheet No. 31 G/N.W., Que.
La Tuque, map sheet No. 31 P/S.E., Que. Lachute, map sheet No. 31 G/N.E., Que. Grondines, map sheet No. 31 1/9, Que Dubuisson, map sheet No. 32 C/4, Que. Abitibi, map sheet No. 32 D/N.W., Que.-Ont.
Muskoka, map sheet No. 31, E/S.W., Ont. Parry Sound, map sheet No. 41 H/S.E., Ont. Hudson, map sheet No. 52 K/S.E., Ont. Sudbury, special area, Ont.
Dryden, map sheet No. 52 F, Ont.
Deer lake, map sheet No. 53 D, Ont.-Man. Hecla, map sheet No. 62 P, Man.
Waterhen, map sheet No. 63 B, Man.
Cross lake, map sheet No. 63 I, Man. Selkirk, map sheet No. 62 I, Man.
Pelican Narrows, map sheet No. 63 M, Sask. Lac La Ronge, map sheet No. 73 P, Sask. South end Reindeer lake, map sheet No. 64 D, Sask.

Prince Albert national park, special area, Sask.
Fort Assiniboine, sectional sheet No. 364, Alta.
Chipewvan, map sheet No. 74 L, Alta.
Peace Point, map sheet No. 84 P, Alta.
Claire lake, map sheet No. 84 I, Alta.
Sicamous, map sheet No. 82 L/N.W., B.C.
Fitzgerald, map sheet No. 74 M, Alta.


T. L. CORY-TRAVELLING EXPENSES
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: What travelling expenses have been drawn during the period from January 1, 1929, to date, by Mr. T. L. Cory, of the Department of the Interior?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: $1,272.26 January 1 to March 31, 1929; $900 advanced in April and May, 1929.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence and other documents referring to the promotion of Mr. Arthur Lovett to the position of inspector of customs at Halifax, in August, 1925.


PENITENTIARIES-RULES AND REGULATIONS
Mr. SPENCER (for Miss Macphail):: For a copy of the rules and regulations governing officers of the penitentiaries.


BRANTFORD PUBLIC BUILDINGS-EMPLOYEES
Mr. RYERSON:: For a copy of all letters, reports, rating sheets, decisions, memoranda and any other documents on the files of the Civil Service Commission, Department of Public Works, or any other department of the government, relating to the appointment of a heating engineer, grade 2, advertised March 20, 1928, and the appointment of an engineer caretaker in May, 1929, for public buildings, Brantford, Ontario.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that the time for receiving applications for insurance under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act be extended for one year from the 31st August, 1929.

Special War Revenue Act
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to answer a question which
was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). The Department of National Revenue transmitted to the Depart of Justice the findings of the Customs commission in a number of cases, and upon consideration of the same, proceedings were instituted by the Department of Justice, but in the case of Harry Bronfman the department reached the conclusion that while, as found by the commission, there might be a prima facie case on the facts, the crown was not in a position to make out a good case in law, and that opinion was expressed to the Department of National Revenue by the Deputy Minister of Justice.



NOVA SCOTIA COAT OF ARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should like to reply to a question
put to me yesterday by the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) with reference to the return of correspondence laid before the House of Commons respecting the arms of Nova Scotia. The interpretation of the arms referred to in the Hon. Mr. Rhodes' letter of the 3rd instant, a copy of which was included in the return, was merely a coloured representation of the arms asked for by the province and a copy of such could not be supplied.
No correspondence has been exchanged with the premier or other officials of the province relative to this matter since the departmental despatch of the 15 instant.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrenee-St. George):: I should like to state, in the absence of the hon. senior member for Halifax, that in his request of yesterday he asked that a certain letter, which was mentioned in the correspondence brought down but which was omitted from the return, should be furnished to the house.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The reply I just made
bears on that very point. Premier Rhodes uses the word "interpretation" of the gentleman named in his letter, but the word "interpretation" refers not to a letter but to a 78594-173-5
coloured drawing of the arms, and a copy of this- cannot be supplied. If the hon. member wishes to see the drawing, of course he will be welcomed in the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg your pardon. I just remembered the request.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member for Ontario
(Mr. Kaiser) was desirous of knowing when the report would be forthcoming that he asked for some time during the latter part of last month regarding certain live stock diseases. This entails a great deal of work on the part of my [DOT] staff and they have been busy on it ever since. I am afraid it will be still another eight or ten days before the information is fully compiled.



PENSION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Some
time ago I asked the government if they would lay on the table order in council P.C. 8481, dated January 16, 1928, as referred to on page 223, volume 1, of the Auditor General's report. I have not yet received the order in council and I would like to know whether it will be 'brought down before the militia estimates are before us.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will1 look into the matter and see
if I can expedite the return.



INTEREST ON REFUNDS OF TAXES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Has the government under consideration the question of the payment of interest on refunds, such as excise tax, made by the government?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: A considerable lobby has been carried on for that purpose, but we have not yet seriously considered the matter.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 278 to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: I wish to move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Macdonald):
That all the words in the motion after "that" he struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Special War Revenue Act

"In the opinion of this house the application of the sales tax in respect of personal clothing and boots and shoes places a heavy and unnecessary burden upon the people of Canada and should be discontinued forthwith."
No extended argument is required to establish the merit and justice of the amendment which I have just submitted to the house. The sales tax was distinctly a war measure. When first adopted in 1919, it could be justified. At that time Canada was just emerging from the world war. For four years this country had given unstintingly of its man power and financial resources in that great struggle. The obligations arising out of the war were colossal in their nature. Under the circumstances, ordinary methods of raising revenue were not sufficient; extraordinary means had to be resorted to, and the sales tax was one such extraordinary method. But to-day the scene has changed; the circumstances are entirely different. The fiscal year under review records abounding revenues and the Minister of Finance was able to tell the house of a surplus of $69,000,000 in national bookkeeping. Eleven years have elapsed since the consummation of peace. To-day our land, and I use that word in its broad economic sense, our labour, our capital, the creative genius of our people, are all alike devoted to the pursuits of peace, and under these entirely differ-*ent circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the sales'tax, which was distinctly a war measure, now lingers superfluous on the stage of national finance and in my judgment should be completely abolished.
But in this amendment I do not ask for its complete abolition, and for this reason: When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) presented his budget to parliament he told us that out of the $69,000,000 of surplus, some $40,000,000 would have to be earmarked to retire maturing obligations. The revenue derived from the sales tax during the last fiscal year totalled $71,000,000, and were I to move at this time for its complete abolition the Minister of Finance might well reply that complete abolition would interfere with plans that he had for the retirement of maturing ' obligations. I have consequently in my amendment limited the abolition of the sales tax to boots and shoes and clothing, a source from which only about $7,000,000 of revenue is derived, and derived from commodities which enter directly into the family budget of the poor people of this country. Whatever argument my hon. friend the Minister of Finance might make against complete abolition of the sales tax at this time, there is no semblance nor shadow of an excuse for not abolishing it in respect to the commodi-
[Mr. Macdougall.l
ties which I have mentioned in my amendment-commodities which as I have said enter directly into the family budget of the poor people of this country.
In the matter of levying taxes and of remitting taxes every government must be guided by some canon of taxation, and what better canon could this or any other government adopt than the canon of human welfare? What more just than where taxes are levied the strongest backs should bear the heaviest burdens and those who are best able to pay should pay the most? In the matter of remitting taxation and giving relief to the taxpayers, what more equitable than that relief should be given first to those people in our country who most urgently need relief. Under the amendment which I have proposed the beneficiaries will be our farmers, our fishermen, our miners, our lumbermen, the artisans and common labourers of Canada. All I ask this house to do is to relieve those classes of our population of a burden of taxation amounting to some $7,000,000. All I ask this house to do is to join with me in attempting to reduce the cost of living of the masses and correspondingly increase their standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has presented to parliament a rich man's budget. It is my privilege to-day to move a poor man's amendment to a rich man's budget, and I move that amendment with the confident expectation that it will be given the sympathetic support of every hon. member of this house, irrespective of party, who wishes to bring a little more of comfort and happiness into the homes and a little more of cheer and encouragement into the hearts of the great masses of the people.


James Alexander Robb: The resolution before you, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill be now read a third time. That bill provides for a reduction of taxation amounting to over $20,000,000, and my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) moves an amendment which I have not before me, but happily we have two years' notice of it because it is exactly the same amendment as moved by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in 1927, hamely, that all the words after the word "that" be struck out and other words substituted.
Now if that means anything it means that the house will reject the reduction of taxation as presented in the budget of $22,000,000 and will not be declaring for a policy such as was presented in the amendment which was moved to the budget by my hon. friend from South Wellington, speaking for the opposition-a

Special War Revenue Act
policy of protection and the safeguarding of industry. When the budget was under discussion the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite all indicated, not a desire to help the poor man, not a desire to reduce taxation, but a desire to impose indirect taxation because every hon. gentleman opposite will admit that protection is in a measure indirect taxation. To-day we have the issue put straight before us. We have before us to-day an amendment which proposes to reduce direct taxation. The amendment goes still further. It proposes to wipe out altogether the reduction of $22,000,000 in taxation as provided for in the budget and declares for a policy which, after all, is a policy of direct taxation. It is interesting to consider just how the various elements in this house will regard the amendment. I can quite understand that my hon. friends opposite who seek to impose indirect taxation would support a policy of reducing direct taxation, but I cannot see how some parts of the country that favour a policy of direct taxation could support the amendment.
I admit at once that the sales tax is a direct tax. In that regard it is similar to the income tax, which everyone will admit is a direct tax. If anybody has any doubt as to who pays the sales tax as collected by the retail merchants, because in the last analysis it is the retail merchant who collects the sales tax, and if anybody has any doubt as to who pays the income tax, all they have to do is to consult the circulars that are being sent out at this time by the electric power and light companies in the province of Quebec, who say to their customers: If the government would only reduce the income tax, we should be able to reduce to you the cost of light and power. Now if the electric power and light companies in the province of Quebec are right in that contention-I am not going to discuss that for the moment-then I ask this house who pays the income tax which the government imposes upon corporations, great transportation companies, the big life and fire insurance companies and the banks of this country? And, remember, the larger portion of the income tax, which is a direct tax, comes from the corporations. So I submit that the policy of my hon. friends opposite is a policy of increasing indirect taxation, while making a gesture that they are in favour of reducing direct taxation. I said a moment ago that after all it is the consumer who pays this tax.
Ain hon. MEMBER:	Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: I notice my hon. friend in the corner applauds that remark. Now, if we
accept this amendment, what do we do? At once we declare that we are not in favour of the reductions in taxation, amounting to over $22,000,000, provided for in the budget.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is what it means.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It will take something
*more.


James Alexander Robb: But we go further. If hon.
gentlemen are right in saying this would not be the effect of the amendment, then we impose uipon the treasury the same obligation that was imposed upon it in 1920 when the luxury tax was wiped out. On that occasion certain automobile dealers throughout Canada contended that they had paid the tax and therefore it should be refunded to them. This parliament recognized the reasonableness of their contention and provided in the estimates for a refund, which totalled $1,699,464.


Mr. BENNETT:: Does that include
interest?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. My hon. friend who has moved this amendment claims that the amount involved will be $7,000,000. Now, I have before me a statement from the Retail Merchants' Association-I will quote it in a moment-claiming that a considerable part of the tax in the year referred to was paid in advance. I think about one third. It is reasonable to suppose that if they were right then they are right to-day, and that one third of the tax has already been paid. It has been assessed by the manufacturer on the wholesaler, and by him passed on to the retailer who has the goods on his shelves. He has paid this tax. If the amendment is carried, not only do we wipe out the budget provision for the reduction of $22,000,000 in taxation, but we also invite a further raid on the treasury for one third of the $7,000,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister permit
me? If that argument is sound, does it not apply to the reduction in the sales tax that he has made this year and last year?


James Alexander Robb: No. I aim glad my hon. friend has raised that issue, because it gives me the opportunity of bringing to -the attention of the house what the people who collect this tax directly from the consumer think of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite and the policy of the government. In December of
Special War Revenue Act

1926 my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), speaking of the sales tax, used these words:
How are we going to get relief from this oppressive taxation? The method I propose is boldly to strike out and do away with the sales tax.
Apparently that speech was brought to the attention of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. The secretary of the association directed to the Prime Minister this letter, dated December 15, 1926:
To the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister and President of the Council.
Dear Sir,-We would call to your attention the following statement made by the Hon. Mr. Guthrie, leader of the opposition, in his reply to the address from the throne, delivered on Monday, December 13, 1926, and reported on page 25 of Hansard of that date as follows:
Then they quote the passage that I have just cited.
We cannot find any reply in your address to this statement, and as this is a matter which very vitally concerns every retail merchant in Canada, and more particularly the merchant than the manufacturer, we would like to refer to this statement.
The retail merchants ultimately pay the sales tax and not the manufacturer as the manufacturer simply hands the sales tax on to the merchants who are carrying the stock. The manufacturer does not pay the sales tax until the goods have been sold or invoiced to the purchaser.
If there was approximately $90,000,000 collected in sales tax last year, and the average turnover of the class of merchandise by the merchants on which the sales tax has been paid is four times a year, which we believe is very much higher than the average turnover would be found to be, as while groceries are turned from ten to twelve and even a greater number of times per year, clothing and wearing apparel, in most instances, are not turned in excess of three times and some of the other lines of merchandise even less, but even taking the turnover at a maximum of four .times, the merchants must have merchandise in stock to-day on which they have paid a sales tax in advance to the government in excess of $22,500,000.
We do not believe that the government could do away with this amount of revenue in one year, and we are certain that the merchants in Canada could not afford to take this loss, most of the merchants still holding that the gradual reduction of the tax, as set out in the resolution, would be preferable to its total removal at one time.
The Retail Merchants Association of Canada.
Per N. B. Douglas, Secretary-Manager.
That is the point of view of the men in the trade who collect this tax for the government.
I submit to my hon. friends that in presenting this amendment they are doing no kindness to the many retail merchants throughout the country who have already paid this sales tax in part on the goods on their shelves. Just as sure as we are in this chamber, if this amend-
ment is adopted we will again have before us claims similar to those made by the automobile dealers.
I submit to hon. gentlemen that the policy of the government in gradually reducing both debt and taxation is a sound and sane policy. My hon. friends opposite have frequently referred to the position of the finances of the country. We are glad to have it acknowledged from all sides that Canada to-day is in a good financial condition. The mover of this amendment has said that the sales tax was a war measure. True, the war is over, but the war debt has not yet been paid; the country still has obligations to meet in this respect. We are gradually reducing those obligations. We say to parliament frankly, we are budgeting to take care of maturities as they come along. We propose to take care of those maturities from now until 1933. We are budgeting for that purpose, and I submit to hon. gentlemen, and especially to my hon. friends who are in favour of direct taxation, that the country will prefer the policy of the government in gradually reducing taxes to the resolution as presented by my hon. friend, which I am sure he does not expect to carry. All he wants to do is to be able to say that a hard hearted Minister of Finance refused to accept this proposed reduction of taxation. I submit to him that the orderly method of the government in reducing our debts and taxation is more acceptable to the country than the abrupt wiping out of a tax that will create embarrassment to the retail merchants throughout the country.


Mr. JONES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae


Mr. CLARK:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Descoteaux):. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LAWSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had t voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired
with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CAHILL:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JENKINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.



SUPPLY-IMMIGRATION POLICY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply.

Mr. A. D. MicRAE (Vancouver North) : Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of the country what I believe to be its greatest problem. I refer to immigration and colonization. In order to do this I will move an amendment to the motion to go into supply.
The ominous silence on this subject which has prevailed on the government side of the house this session-uninterrupted but for the speech of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) in March last- indicates that the government has decided to permit the hon. minister to continue to muddle along. His speech breathed an atmosphere of satisfaction, which must be discouraging to those throughout the Dominion who have been endeavouring to goad the government into action. The minister in his speech, as reported in Hansard, said:
Everything seems to point to the fact that things seem to be going fairly well with us.
Again he says:
Perhaps we have about reached the point where we can absorb the stream of immigration now flowing in. That means that as the country develops and capital increases, there would be an increase in population and under normal circumstances we will be able to absorb more immigrants.	.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, means, if it means anything, that his government is content with the situation as it stands, and that no special effort will be made to improve the present unsatisfactory immigration.
What is this movement that so satisfies the minister? He says that for the last calendar year we received 166,782 immigrants, but I prefer to deal with the fiscal year as shown in the recent report of his department. These monthly reports do not check with the official annual reports of the department; invariably they leave too favorable an impression and are apparently issued to soothe the troubled feelings of those Canadians who are becoming impatient with the government's inaction in this matter. As a a matter of fact, taking our official immigration reports for a number of years, they do not hold out; ever since the inception of the department, they have been inaccurate and misleading. If we take the returns for the last 45 years, including the natural annual increase estimated at 2J per cent, we find we should now have in the country about seventeen million people. We are short seven millions at least.
Let us accept the minister's return for the last fiscal year as accurate. It shows an immigration of 151,597, or an increase of 7,606 over the previous fiscal year. Is such an infinitesimal1 increase satisfactory to the

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
country, even if correct? What are the facts? We find the annual report of the department since 1924 contains a. new schedule, headed "Returned Canadians", not included in the immigration figures. Evidently this schedule is inserted by the government in an effort to minimize the effect of the serious movement of Canadians to the United States. In the year 1927 it shows 56,957 Canadians, who came back to Canada to live. In 1928 the number was reduced to 39,887, which, even if' accurate, equals only about one-half the Canadians who left our Dominion for the United States last year. However, taking this new schedule for the past two years, there is a decrease of 17,070 last year as compared with the previous year. Deduct from this, the reported increase for last year, already referred to as 7,606, and there remains a net loss in our immigration last year, compared with the year 'before, of 9,464. This is a decline of 6 per cent and not an increase as we have been led ito believe, and estimates of our immigration for 1929 by those who ought to know predict a further falling off this year of 25 per cent. A British report published in March states that after allowance was made for the harvesters who returned, British migration to Canada last year fell off about
6,000,	and this is the result which the minister thinks is "doing fairly well."
The minister says that the immigration we received last year constituted a better record than for some of the preceding years, when we had over 400,000 annually. What do the records of his department show? In the five years in which immigration returns have been most discussed, that is 1910 to 1914 inclusive, when we reached the enormous total of over 400,000 in a single year, 38 per cent were from Britain, in our largest year, 1913, over 37 per cent came from the British Isles. Last year, with the immigration about one-third as large, only 34 per cent came from Britain. This, I submit, Mr. Speaker, does not justify the minister's conclusion.
The report for the past year refers to the establishment of the overseas medical examination, both in Great Britain and on the continent. Notwithstanding all the trouble and expense this has occasioned, it is worthy of note that of a total of 2,205 immigrants who were either deported after having been admitted, or were rejected on arrival at ocean ports, 1,256 were British. That is, while only 34 per cent of our immigration came from Great Britain, 57 per cent of our rejections were British. Such figures furnish their own interpretation. Our immigration is back where it was in the early years of the century,
over a generation ago. With all our increased business as evidenced by our trade returns, and with a largely undeveloped country, capable of supporting comfortably at least a population of fifty millions, are Canadians to be content with the present stagnation?
The minister says capital and immigration are closely allied; this may be granted, but with our capital increasing by hundreds of millions, why has the increase of our population failed to keep pace with our financial development, as apparently the minister thinks it should? In his speech this year and also last year, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization complained of the criticism of his department; in referring to the discussions which occurred throughout the country on this question of immigration, he said:
"The difficulty that I experience, however, is that there does not seem to be any unanimity in regard to this question."
In reply to the question of the late hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) as to what was his idea, the minister said:
"I have not yet heard from the member for Frontenac any well-defined policy of immigration."
Well, Mr. Speaker, who is the responsible Minister of Immigration and Colonization? Certainly it was not the late member foi Frontenac. Has the minister any definite plan? Of course he has not; his department is as barren of ideas as the sands of the Sahara are barren of farms.
The minister has a big staff, a deputy, an assistant deputy and four commissioners in Canada, and a director and an assistant in London. If all are accurately accounted for, it is said the staff of his department will total
1,000.	I am reliably informed that 86 per cent of our colonists come to us through the solicitation of the various outside agencies at work. If so, then less than 15 per cent of those we receive are in any sense the result of the direct solicitation of our Department of Immigration and Colonization. We may well ask the minister what he is doing with this huge staff for which we vote on the average §3,250,000 a year. The opinion of these agencies which are struggling to work through and under the orders of his department can be summed up in the suggestion I heard from one of them a few days ago, that we should change the name of our Department of Immigration and Colonization to the department of interference and confusion.
There is little evidence that the other members of the government are concerning themselves with the minister'*- dilemma; the
272s
[Stage Direction]
Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
right hon. Prime Minister himself does not appear to be much concerned. I think I might say, Mr. Speaker, he usually talks about the things that interest him, but he is very silent on this subject.
Last year, in response to the minister's request, I made bold to submit to this house a definite colonization program, but owing to an accident I was unable to appear before the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization. To-day, I am prepared to support that program in its entirety; I believe it is practical, conservative and not beyond the ability of Canadians to put into effect. It was a program for the whole of Canada; every province would benefit, more particularly in the west where the settlement of the vacant lands adjacent to our railways is so essential. My colleagues sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, will discuss the problem with reference to the settlement of their provinces.
I wish, however, to refer to-day to the potentialities and the development of the great Peace river district; that was the part of my proposal last year most vigorously criticized by the government. Having that criticism in mind I took occasion last fall to make my third trip to the Peace river country, this time far off the beaten trail. Peace River cannot be seen on a parliamentary pass; railways and motor cars afford facilities for a very limited view of this vast country. The Minister of Colonization was there last fall, on a bit of a joy ride with the Edmonton Board of Trade. I concur in his endorsement of that section of the country. I was requested by the settlers at Fort St. John to express to him their great disappointment that although he had spent the night on the flats, 1,100 feet below their great plain above, his time did not permit him to take a personal view of their magnificent country.
['Then I will pass this book\nacross to the Minister of Immigration for revision. I well remember the occasion when', 'Immigration Policy-Mr. Rowe\nin the city of Toronto he declared himself in these words: I am not only a Progressive, I am an advanced Liberal. So I could scarcely understand how he was elected as a Liberal-Progressive in the last election. However, this red book shows that he was elected a Progressive in September 1926, and on November 2, 19216, he was nominated as a Lilberal-Progres^ give candidate and reelected. Apparently there are grave errors in this red book. I have no doubt that his friends on this side of the house who followed him so loyally through those years will be satisfied with his declaration that he no longer wishes to bear their name.\nWhile, Mr. Speaker, we have had no lack of schemes proposed in the immigration department, those schemes have never been put into execution. Since this government came into power we have had eight speeches from the throne enunciating six different policies on immigration; in two years there was no policy set forth. In 1922 the speech from the throne contained this pronouncement: We must have a renewal of effort on the part of the Immigration department in order to bring in an increased number of immigrants. In 1923 the speech from the throne contained this statement: We must have a wide expansion, a new publicity program, a program to reach throughout the empire and also into the United States and other foreign countries. In 1924 there were two or three changes of ministers and no policy. In 1925 the speech from the throne contained another pronouncement on immigration. In that year we on this side of the house recall the manufacture of that famous phrase "The high cost cf living". It *was discovered that the only relief for this condition was greater production, and that the only way to bring this about was to increase the flow of immigration. Therefore the government decided that efforts must be made to increase immigration to bring about that greater production\', and incidentally to extend the settlement of crown lands, with special consideration of the Peace River district. In 1926 the speech from the throne stated that in view of the favourable conditions prevailing in the Dominion the government had formed a new and comprehensive immigration, policy, and as a eorolliary the government proposed a broad repatriation scheme by way of rural credits \'and other benefits to the country districts\'. In 1927, although six new ministers had been appointed since 1921, the then holder of the portfolio started the year without any policy at all. But in 1928 another new policy was announced. The speech from the throne stated: We must have cooperation \nwith the different provinces, we must pass the responsibility on to the provincial authorities, and we are now going to make a definite attempt to bring in British youths under a special settlement scheme. In the speech from the throne this session, in pursuance of the recommendations of the committee on immigration and colonization, we were to enter into an arrangement with the different provinces to bring to Canada juvenile immigrants who were to be strictly selected for their adaptability as settlers with a view to promoting general prosperity throughout the Dominion.\nNow, after all this publicity, after six years with programs announced and two years without any at all, we find the Minister of Immigration still drifting peacefully on the quiet waters of government inactivity. Today we realize that the government of Canada has practically no immigration policy. It is not much wonder that through all this confusion we have the present stagnation in immigration. Illuminating figures have been placed on Hansard to-night. Everyone throughout the Dominion realizes that the flow of immigration has been changed almost to a flow of emigration; tens of thousands of our best sons and daughters have left their native land for the United States. I venture to say that in the New England states to-day there are almost as many French Canadians as there are, Mr. Speaker, in your native province. We have heard supporters of the government state to-night that they do not want any more immigration. They are prepared to concede that Canada needs a few more of the right class, a few "hand-picked" immigrants. I submit that while they are handpicking those immigrants the department will have no time for any other activities. In fact the real work of the department will stagnate as usual.\nOn motion of Mr. Rowe the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. FORKE:: The hon. member knows
the reason why.


Mr. McRAE:: No, I do not; it is quite a
walk.


Robert Forke: I would have had to walk.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I walked 100 miles.


Robert Forke: You are a young fellow.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I did not see the Peace
River district that way. I spent over a month there, travelling by boat, pack horses and on foot about 1,500 miles, mostly in the districts away from settlement, in an endeavour to learn through first-hand information the extent and character of the country, the fer-
tility of its soil, and its ability to support an agricultural population. During this time I interviewed between 250 and 300 merchants, traders, trappers, natives and old-timers who were supposed to know the country. By comparing the information they gave me on the country I had not seen, with their judgment of the country I had just passed through, I have arrived at what I believe to be reasonably sound conclusions. The district is so extensive that it would take years for an individual to cover it all.
On my return, to reinforce my conclusions, I spent some weeks reading the many reports of the district which are on record. I want to take this opportunity of expresing my appreciation of the splendid assistance I received from the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and especially from the Natural Resources branch in charge of Mr. Lynch. They went to no end of trouble to place at my disposal all the reports on file with the government. These reports present a romance which I believe cannot be equalled in the history of any other section of the Dominion.
It begins with the discovery by Alexander Mackenzie in 1789 of the great river which bears his name-a river which drains a larger area than the St. Lawrence with all its great lakes and tributaries. This statement should give hon. members some idea of the vastness of our great empire in the north. I have not the time to note all the great explorers who followed Mackenzie, but it is worth mentioning that history records Daniel William Harmon of the Northwest Company, who in 1808-over 120 years ago-reported the country as capable of growing wheat. He says he finished cutting his barley on July 21 that year.
Then we have Sir John Franklin, 1827, expressing great enthusiasm over the fertility of the district.
Sir George Simpson, in 1828, and Sir John Richardson in 1857 both said that wheat could be grown as far north as the 58th parallel of latitude, which is approximately Fort Vermilion.
Professor Macoun in 1878, spoke of the splendid wheat grown at Chipewyan, latitude 58-70. This was grown by the Roman Catholic mission, which in 1876 won first prize at the Centennial exposition at Philadelphia.
Coming along, we find the reports of Ogil-vie in 1877-78, in which he says that the country is suitable for wheat and actually reports a yield of 41 bushels per acre. And again, in 1884 he estimates the land available for

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
agriculture as a district 600 miles long by 40 miles wide. Not a small vision for half a century ago.
Then we have the reports of the special senate committees, the first in 1888, the second and the most valuable of all, in 1907.
Time does not permit me to dwell on the dozens of reports which make up the history of this great district. Is it any wonder that the Peace River country now attracts so much attention? It attracted more attention one hundred years ago than the now settled sections of the prairie provinces. The present enthusiasm is no accident. It has been built up on the story of the achievements of a great race of explorers and hardy pioneers, extending over the last one hundred and forty years.
It fell to the lot of my old friend, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who I notice is not in his seat, to throw doubt on my proposals of last session. I was somewhat surprised at the levity with which he approached the subject. However, as regards his witticisms, I -think we on this side of the house a-re sometimes too harsh with him. After all, perhaps he agrees with Harry Lauder who says, "If you can even laugh at 70, you're lucky." I propose to take up in detail the points -disputed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture	-last	session.	Theagricultural section	of	the	Peace -Rivercountry extends from th-e foothills in British Columbia on the west four hundred miles to the Ath-abaska and Slave rivers on th-e east. The abruptness in	the	change from	thealluvial deposit on	th-e	west	side of	the
Atha-baska and Slave rivers to the rock formation on- the east side is a phenomenon as true as it is unusual.
Beginning a-t the 55th parallel of latitude, this plain extends faT to the north. In my opinion the northern limit of successful wheat growing a-t present is about the 61st parallel of latitude. This gives us a distance north and south of four hundred miles. In suggesting the 61st parallel as a northern limit for successful wheat growing to-day, hon. members should keep in mind that Mr. Elihu St-ewar-t when before the senate committee in 1907 reported wheat as being successfully grown at Fort Providence, which is at 61.25, and further, that he had seen it there in the milk on July 15th, fifty-six days after planting.
Henry A. Conroy in his evidence before the same committee says wheat was ripe at Fort Providence on August 1st.
Fort Liard, about the same latitude in Brit'sh Columbia, has a milder climate. Here
th-e Hudson's Bay Company records, as well as Ma-ooun's reports, show wheat to have been successfully grown -many years ago.
These conditions -existed over 20 years ago. The improvement which has been made in the maturity of wheat -in -the interval has shortened the time not less than two weeks. This leaves no doubt of the successful growing of wheat as far north as 61 north latitude.
I estimate the area suitable for agriculture in the Peace River country as 400 miles square being 160,000 square miles and containing roughly 100 million acres.
It is rather interesting to note that this estima-te, which includes the northeast corner of British Columbia, is the same as that given by W. F. Bred-on -before -the special senate committee in 1907 for Alberta alone, north of the 55t'h parallel.
In further support of my estimate I refer hon. members to the government map of 1910 which has one of -the wheat growing provinces of Russia,-Tobolsk,-superimposed in -the -correct latitude in the Peace River district. It shows Tobolsk, the capital, a city with 20.000 population in 1906, to be on the exact latitude of Fort Vermilion. Tobolsk province had a population in 1906 -of 1,656,000 and their wheat crop in 1907 was 11,779.000 bushels. Following the same idea, I have had a map prepared showing Finland similarly superimposed. Hon. members will be surprised t-o know that the extreme southern boundary of Finland is latitude 60 and Finland's largest city, Helsingfors, with a population of 215,800, is in the same latitude as Fort Liard. Finland with an area of 133,000 square miles, practically all north o-f our Peace River district and smaller in area, had a population in 1926 of 3.558.000, an average of 26 people t-o the square mile. Among the exports of the republic of Finland in 1926 was one item of 106 million dollars for food obtained from animals. Finland cannot successfully grow wheat but does grow large crops of rye, oats, barley and the like.
I have also -prepared a -map showing in a general way the location, of the agricultural land in the Peace R-i-ver district. With your kind permission, M-r. Speaker, I should like to table, for the information of the hon. members of the house, the three maps to which I have referred.
It is my opinion that, when Canada has a population of 50,000,000, as I believe it will have, parliament will still be engaged in considering the development of districts as yet not in our calculations.
I am very familiar, Mr. Speaker, with the agricultural areas of North America, and I

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
say to hon. members that in no other part of this continent is there such an extensive area of uniformly good land as in the Peace River district. It was originally, so geologists say, the bottom of a great lake. The soil is an alluvial deposit of great depth, free from stone. Some idea of the character of the soil may be obtained from the fact that the Peace River has worn itself down from the plain above a depth of 1,000 feet at St. John-where the minister was not able to walk up, and I do not blame him very much-and 700 feet at Peace River crossing.
As to the percentage of the 100,000,000 acres available for agriculture, probably 10 per cent should be allowed for land covered by water. In many districts there is no waste at all. A conservative estimate is 75,000,000 acres of good agricultural land. Hon. members will note that this is 50 per cent more than the acreage I assumed in my proposal of last year. Seventy-five million acres means 468,000 homesteads of 160 acres each. As the Peace River district is preeminently a grain country, short seasons make it imperative that the work for the coming year's crop be done during the summer months. This will undoubtedly result in the average farm being much larger than the original homestead. Half a section would be the ideal farm. The average farm, however, will probably be about 240 acres. This means that homes could be found in the Peace River district for at least 300,000 farmers or a rural population of 1,500.000.
The census records for 1926 show that in the province of Saskatchewan 70 per cent of the population is rural and 30 per cent urban. On this basis, 1,500,000 rural population will support an urban population of 650.000. This makes the entire population which I estimate the Peace River district alone would support,
2.150,000.	The population of the three prairie provinces in 1926 was 2,067,000, so that my claim last year that the development of Peace River would double the population of the west still holds good. Hon. members should keep in mind, however, that this great development would mean an increased population in other sections of Canada as well. The cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will all grow. It is difficult to arrive at a basis on which to estimate the development of these cities resulting from this rural development. I am inclined to think that the increase in population which would result outside Peace River would be as great as the Peace River development itself. If so, 2,000,000 people in Peace River would mean an addition of 2,000,000 to our population elsewhere, or 4,000,000 in all.

Some such national development as I am proposing has to come about, if the boys and girls we are educating in our schools and colleges are to find opportunities in Canada. There is no other solution-we must grow in population, or we must continue to lose the best of our young Canadians. What can be done to bring about this development in our day and generation? That is the question which concerns the country. u Last year, I proposed what has been called "the wholesale clearing of land by the government." My plan contemplated clearing and breaking the easiest half of each homestead; the erection of the necessary log buildings from timber available on the ground; and the financing of this expenditure by the government, amortized over a period of 33 years, the first five years to be free from any repayment such as interest, principal or taxes.
This plan apparently did not meet with the approval of the government. I presume the Minister of Immigration and Colonization refers indirectly to this proposal in his speech this year, when he said:
The amazing development that has taken place in western Canada did not come about by means of any great settlement scheme.


Mr. WARD:: In the face of the crop we had last year, with an enormous surplus on our hands for which we have hardly any outlet, where does the hon. member hope to sell the tremendous increase in production from such a scheme as he mapped out last year and as, I presume, he has in mind at the present time?


Alexander Duncan McRae: I presume the hon. member agrees that we must increase our population. My idea is that the only place where it can be increased is on the land. During the last forty years I have observed the development on this continent march from far south of the line up as far as it is now north of Edmonton.
I have seen sections wear out as wheat growing land and come into diversified farming. I have no doubt that in the development which will come about in this country and which will take care of our ever-increasing population, the same process will follow as has followed in Kansas, Iowa, and even Minnesota where wheat is no longer the principal crop, although a little over twenty years ago it was practically the entire crop. This development will all take time; the wheat line will move gradually northward and as, after all, wheat is a world commodity, whether we grow 100,000,000 bushels more or less in Canada is not vital to the world situation. That, however, is a question which is open to discussion and

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
which I am not going to deal with now because I have a good deal more to say on other subjects. There will be an opportunity later for the hon. member to deal with the matter.
The Minister of Agriculture, speaking for the government regarding my Peace River proposal last session, said:
I know of no other such scheme since settlement first began on the north American continent.
Of course not! But why should our land settlement work not progress the same way as every other line of endeavor? Why should this, the greatest of all work,-the transplanting of people,-stand still for twenty-five years, when the whole world has made such progress? Would the hon. ministers have us return to the old reapers to harvest the western wheat crop? This would be in line with their colonization efforts.
During the amazing period of development to which the Minister of Immigration and Colonization refers, the railway companies owned millions of acres of agricultural land, large tracts of which they sold en bloc to land companies who greatly assisted them in their settlement work. Land taxes in those days were practically nothing; lands investment was attractive and thousands of non-resident purchasers became active colonization agents throughout this continent and Great Britain. To-day things are different. The railway companies have disposed of a great part of their lands. Owing to high taxes unimproved farm lands are no longer considered a desirable investment, and active land agents have largely disappeared.
Besides, the best of our districts awaiting settlement to-day are more or less covered with timber of varying density, from open parklike country, light brush or scrub, to the so-called timber land, little of it giving promise of ever becoming of commercial value so far as the timber is concerned. Peace River district is very fortunate. About 50 per cent of that country is what is termed park-like land, and of this at least half is open prairie. Our problem is to make this -land available for settlers with the least cost and at the earliest posible date. I quote Hansard as to my exact proposal last year:
Using modern methods, confining the clearing to the easiest half of each homestead, avoiding heavily timbered areas, and pro-rating the expense over the whole district, I estimate the cost on the whole would not exceed at the most $12.50 per acre.
Presumably criticizing this statement, the Minister of Agriculture said, and again I quote Hansard:
Why, twice that amount of money will not clear off the heavy scrub lands in the northern parts of the prairie provinces.
It will be apparent to hon. members that we were not talking about the same thing at all. I wonder if the hon. Minister of Agriculture, with his usual political adroitness, hoped to get away with that sort of criticism. He was talking about heavy scrub, while I was talking about park-like country, that is, open prairie and light scrub. It just happens that I am in a position to prove to the Minister of Agriculture, from government reports on file, that even the kind of country he refers to can be cleared well under my estimate.
I said last year that the grub hoe and the axe, so far as clearing land is concerned, should be relics of the past. The hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization, speaking of the settlement in the west, states it was brought about by:
.. .people beginning in a small way, humbly adding to their belongings-bit by bit- until the -whole country was transformed.
That was true in the old days, but holds good no longer. It is not in the national interest that they should make such slow progress, even if new settlers would be content to do so. I believe it is just as necessary for us to conserve our man-power as our money. It certainly is much more human to put the new settler on a partially prepared homestead, than to place him on scrub land where he must spend years of effort clearing it in the old way. This is not only an unnecessary waste of many years of his life, but in most cases results in breaking his heart before he gets on his feet. The men who will tackle such a proposition to-day are few and growing less.
The individual settler cannot afford even to consider purchasing the expensive equipment necessary to open up economically and rapidly the scrub lands which are practically the only lands now available for homesteads.
I found in the north many experienced men who support my estimate of the cost of clearing this park-like land. First, there were the government's own officers who estimate the park-like country in their district at between forty and fifty per cent and the cost of clearing and breaking it on the average $11.50 per acre. At Fort Vermilion the United Farmers estimated the park-like land in their district to be 50 per cent, which they say can be cleared and broken at $10 an acre. My estimate of $12.50 per acre they think too high.

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
Mr. Robert Jones, superintendent of the experimental farm at Fort Vermilion, also estimates the open park-like country at 50 per cent and gives $12 per acre as the outside figure for clearing and breaking. He says the land when cleared will be worth $25 an acre. There are many others. All these figures are based on the old out-of-date axe ind grub hoe methods of clearing land.
I took occasion to investigate very carefully the experience of such brush cutting machines as I could find in action. At Grande Prairie a light 25 horse-power outfit had just finished clearing 30 acres for a Mr. Curtiss. It was considered very heavy clearing, poplars up to 6 and 7 inches in diameter and heavy willow.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At page 103 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, rule 314 reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the, time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention.
I quite understand that in the first session of a new parliament there is always a generous interpretation of that rule. The members coming in are new to parliament, tenderfoots, many of them, and some consideration is shown to them, but I do not think the hon. member who is now reading his speech comes in that category. I understood that he was the leader of the people's party in the province of British Columbia, a party now defunct, I believe, but as leader he must have had a great deal of experience and so I do not think he should claim the privilege of a new member. Another point is that the hon. gentlemen in this particular case does not come within the forty minute rule. If the rules of this house are to be observed by hon. members, I do not know why we should discard rule 314 more than any other. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: On the last point, the
hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) is in order in speaking beyond the forty minutes because he is moving an amendment under standing order 37.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I quite admit
that, Mr. Speaker. I was simply pointing out that as he was not limited to forty minutes it was more important that he should

observe the other rule as to not reading speeches; but I have seen the hon. gentleman read page after page. He is doing nothing but reading his speech.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How about the Minister
of Finance reading his budget speech?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the Prime Minister?


Hewitt Bostock: Of course the hon. gentleman is entitled under rule 37 to speak beyond the forty minutes because he is making a motion of no confidence. As regards the other point, I have followed the hon. gentleman very closely and I have seen him refer occasionally to his notes, but I can conscientiously declare to the house that he. has not been reading his speech all the time. He has been reading technical notes.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ruling is not debatable. An appeal is the only thing that is in order if the hon. gentleman does not like the ruling.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Speaker, I would-


An hon. MEMBER:: Take a dose of castor oil.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be some
observance of the rules, Mr. Speaker. I certainly think it is most objectionable after the Speaker has given a ruling that the house should not be bound by it. The traditions of this house are worth something. There is the right of appeal, if the hon. gentleman so desires.


Hewitt Bostock: No remarks should be
made upon a ruling after it has been given unless there is an appeal.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I was referring, Mr
Speaker-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: To your notes.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I was referring to the observations I had made with respect to the brushcutting machine. Mr. Curtiss told me he cleared this land in three days, an average of 10 acres per day,-and it cost him $66.76 actual outlay to do the job, not including depreciation or capital investment. This is exactly $2.23 per acre. The burning he said cost him practically nothing. Curtiss estimated it would cost to break the land with this power outfit $2.50 per acre. Allowing $1 per

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
acre for burning, the total cost for clearing and breaking would be somewhere around $6 per acre, not including depreciation.
The average cost of clearing land with the brush cutter in the Grande Prairie section was given to me as $2.77 an acre, which is 50 cents higher than the instance I have just quoted.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Was it seven inch
poplar?


Alexander Duncan McRae: There were six to seven inch poplars on the land. The whole thing including breaking would figure around $6 an acre. I decided to see the largest operators in this line of clearing in the west, so I visited Didsbury, Alberta, where I saw the Weber Brothers in action. They are no amateurs, having cleared about 6,500 acres in that district, and their experience on such a large acreage extending over several years is very interesting.
We'ber Brothers keep accurate accounts. Their average cost for cutting, piling, burning and breaking somewhat over 6,000 acres is $6.50 per acre. This includes interest on the investment and depreciation, but no profit.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Were they
selected lands?


Alexander Duncan McRae: No, they were the residue
of the lands in that district. When I was there in November they were on their last contract.
Weber's brush cutter cuts on an average 15 acres per day, at an outlay of $2.57 per acre, a trifle less than the experience at Grande Pr. irie, which is perhaps due to their using heavier equipment. They think on the average $3 per acre will include depreciation and upkeep, but not profit. His tractor also breaks 10 acres a day. By deep ploughing, ten or twelve inches, the stumps are successfully ploughed under, and as two crops are taken off before again plowing the land, the refuse largely disappears and there is little further trouble with it.
Weber says that heavier equipment would be advantageous and thinks a 100 horse-power brush cutting outfit would cut 25 acres a day, and do it for less money. Mr. Weber claimed this cleared land is much more productive than the open prairie in his district, which he accounted for by the fact that repeated prairie fires had more or less burnt off the humus. He states he is willing to take on a contract at any time to cut and burn the scrub at $6 per acre and would make good money. This would leave of my estimate of
$12.50 per acre the sum of $6.50 per acre available for the breaking of the land. This I am sure the hon. Minister of Agriculture will agree is the top price for breaking, even in his old fashioned way, with horses.
I do not know if I have made this modern brush cutting operation clear to hon. members. So as to remove uncertainty and more particularly in the hopes of enlightening my hon-friends, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization and the Minister of Agriculture, as to present day methods, I have arranged for an exhibition. With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the assistance of the Motion Picture Bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I have arranged to give in the railway committee room, at one o'clock next Wednesday, a moving picture of the modern brush cutter and breaking plough in action, followed1 by other pictures of the up-to-date farming appliances in use in the west. These explain how so few men take care of the ever increasing western crop. I hope all hon. members will attend. I have seen the picture and can guarantee that they will find it worth while.
I now direct the attention of hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to the opportunity we have to make a large number of farms immediately available for settlement in the Peace river district.
It would not require any great administrative ability to assemble and equip clearing units, which might be located at several points, in numbers sufficient to clear and make available along the lines I have indicated homes for at least 2,000 new settlers a year. The personnel of these units would in all not exceed 1,000 men. That is the equivalent of the strength of one battalion. During the war Canada maintained in France 100 battalions as a fighting force engaged in the work of destruction. Should we hesitate now, in peace, to maintain the equivalent of one battalion in the work of construction? We can increase this force as desired.
The clearing and breaking equipment required for the work would not exceed the cost of the guns for a single battery. I can seen no reason, Mr. Speaker, why we should not have the courage to tackle this proposition in a large way, particularly as it could be done under my plan without costing the treasury a dollar.
I have promised the hon. Minister of Agriculture that I would show him a way to clear the heavy scrub land, which he says will cost $25 an acre, for very much less than my [DOT]

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
mate of $12.50, to which he has taken strong exception. I refer to clearing land by controlled spring fires.
Through the kindness of the Minister of the Interior I have been furnished with a copy of the report, with before and after photographs attached, which clearly show the result of the experiment carried on by G. J. Lonergan, under the direction of the Surveyor General in May, 1919. This report is a very illuminating one and I commend it to all hon. members who are interested in the clearing of the great Peace River district in a comparatively few years.
I suggest to the government that, instead of keeping forest rangers fire-guarding useless forest reserves in that district, they put these men at the head of crews to burn sections of the country systematically in the spring, and to occupy themselves during the rest of the year providing fire-guards for the following spring's burning operations, and in protecting the country from fall fires, which are undoubtedly injurious to the Land. This could be made a very much needed opportunity to furnish work for new settlers during certain periods each year when it would not interfere with their farming operations.
The report to the Surveyor General shows thac allowing his men 87.50 per day-certainly sufficient-the cost of fire-guarding and burning a very considerable tract, approximately 6,000 acres, was only 10 cents an acre. The report says this acreage was the average scrub country of the north. This statement is borne out by the photographs. It was the same kind of land that the Minister of Agriculture was talking about last year. Lonergan estimated the cost of clearing before burning at $25 per acre. After the fire he estimated the cost of clearing what remained at $5.25 per acre -a reduction of 80 per cent. So by the expenditure of 10 cents an acre a saving of nearly $20 an acre was effected in the cost of clearing this heavy scrub land. The report shows clearly that this spring burning did not damage the soil in the slightest.
This report was endorsed by the officials of the Alberta government-of which the Minister of the Interior was then premier and who, it is said, had great faith in it-as well as by every member of the crew. This included a practical farmer, a resident of the district for about 40 years. Clearing by controlled spring fires is said to have been first advocated by the Association of Dominion Land Surveyors. The report in question was submitted to their annual meeting in 1920, and, I am informed, met with general approval.

The spring fires are possible in the Peace River district as the great growth of grass of the previous year easily carries a hot fire early in the spring before the frost is out of the ground. With two or three burnings at the most, open prairie country results.
I made careful inquiry into this matter during my sojourn in the Peace River country last fall. Of the many men I interviewed on the subject, I did not find one who was not enthusiastic about it. Spring burning they all agreed was not injurious to the soil. All claimed it was the only way to clear up the country. This was endorsed by the government inspector at Peace River Crossing, who added that no damage would result from spring burning. I interviewed the United Farmers of Alberta at Fort Vermilion. They said it was the only way to clear the country.
Mr. Robert Jones, superintendent of the experimental farm there, a very conservative man indeed, supported this method of clearing. The Dawson board of trade held it was the only system and that two burnings would clear the district.
Perhaps the man who was most emphatic on the subject was Mr. W. D. Albright, superintendent of the experimental farm at Beaver Lodge, who said that spring burning is the only way; that it did not hurt the soil, that at most only two or three annual fires would be required to clear an area, and that with a systematic, aggressive policy the whole country could be cleared in from five to ten years.
I am sure the hon. member for Peace River, whom I visited last fall just as he was completing the clearing of a tract of land in the old-fashioned way, will agree with my statement that the proper way to clear the Peace River country is by controlled spring fires.
The cost under this plan would be very much less than my estimate for clearing with mechanical equipment, but the results would not be so immediate. Mechanical equipment should be depended on to provide for the first few years, then systematic spring burning. Beginning to prepare for it this fall would clear the land as fast as required, thus relieving us from most of that part of our expenditure. In a few years at most, open prairie, country fire cleared, would be available to take care of all our incoming settlers.
Once the country is opened up the so-called muskegs which, with an odd exception, are merely the alluvial soil of the country in depressions, covered with moss, will soon disappear and such land will be equal to the best in the district.

Immigration Policy-Mr. McRae
An opportunity to develop an area capable of supporting two million people, thus repeating the western development early in this century, is available to the government with sufficient courage to carry it out.
I proposed last year that the government issue land bonds against their expenditure on such a development. I gave as the maximum required 1300,000,000 for a ten year program, an average of $30,000,000 per year. The hon. Minister of Agriculture in referring to my program, made reference to the loss in the soldier settlement scheme. Buying improved farms at top prices bears no resemblance whatever to partly developing what is undoubtedly better land at no cost for the land to begin with. The soldiers would indeed have been fortunate if some such scheme had been adopted in their case. The history of farm land values is always the same. In good dis-[DOT] tricts, as settlement intensifies, prices move upward. It is the settler who gives the value to the land. This is emphasized by the sale of school lands by the province of Alberta in the Peace river district last year.
On July 16t.h last 36 pieces of raw school lands were sold in the Waterfiole district by auction at an average price of S20.61 per acre, the highest price being $30 per acre.
At Berwyn, north of the Peace river, 50 pieces brought an average of $20.26 with the highest price $40 per acre. The hon. member for Peace River told me last fall that in his district private lands eleven miles from the railway had been sold as high as $25 per acre.
What gives these unimproved lands such values? The answer is-settlement, neighbours. We may expect even better results in the consolidated settlements I am proposing, especially with the improvements I suggest we make on the land.
When the settlement of a district is complete, a land value of $30 an acre would 'be in keeping with the present Peace River values. This means that the homesteader who gets a partially improved homestead for the amount spent on it by the government (which I estimated last year not to exceed $1,500) would not 'be long in seeing that at $30 per acre for his 160 acre homestead he would have a prospective value of $4,800, on which he would owe the government only $1,500. Such a substantial equity in his farm, particularly if, as in the case of the ordinary homesteads, a five-year residence is required, would be a great incentive for the new settler to stick it out, and few homesteaders would abandon their claims and lose their equity 78594-174
by moving into town; and anyway in that event others would be anxious to immediately take their place.
Under my proposal the government would be expending on the land about one-third of its value when surrounded by settlers. Reasonably administered, it should not be possible for the government to lose money in this work. Mortgages on improved farms for about half their value have constituted for years the safest security available on this continent and the experience of the government should not be different from the record of our great mortgage companies, who have made a specialty of farm loans.
It is probable that the maximum advance I have mentioned, namely $300,000,000, will never be reached, as repayments would probably assume proportions which would take care of advances long before the end of the ten-year period. I base this assumption on the fact that our federal government in the early colonization of Manitoba advanced $100,000 to the Mennonites, which was repaid in full with 6 per cent interest within six or seven years. There is no reason why the repayments of advances under this plan should not result in a revolving credit which could be continued indefinitely.
The opening up of Peace River district is a sound national development, even without any fixed settlement scheme. In undertaking it, there need be no worry about farmers to occupy the homesteads when semi-improved. In any event, preference must be given to our own people and more particularly to Canadians. We must look after our own boys first. Making available desirable farms, such as Peace River can offer, will do much to keep our Canadian boys on the farm and will offer them a real inducement to stay in Canada. Not a few labour men in the cities through the country, as a result of my discussion last year, have written me that they would welcome such an opportunity to get back to the land on a farm of their own.
Colonization is the major task before the government. 1 do not believe it can be delegated to a committee or commission with any hope of success. If for no other reason, the doors of approach to government officials at home or abroad would be barred against such a committee or commission. It would have no status abroad and is certain to be abused at home and probably would not be supported even by the government that created it. No, Mr. Speaker, this is the major problem before the country-the first and greatest responsibility of the government today. It cannot be sidestepped.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length and I hope to finish by six o'clock. Although I had some intimation that an amendment would be moved when the motion was made to go into supply on Immigration, I had no idea as to what line that amendment would take. One of the peculiarities of the Department of Immigration is that you have no idea from what quarter an attack is likely to come, it may come from one direction or it may come from another. You may be accused of flooding the country with immigrants or you may be charged with failing to obtain enough immigrants; so I was entirely at a loss to know just what the amendment would be. I was quite relieved when I heard the speech on the amendment, and I want to pay to the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) the compliment of saying that he always has something to offer; it is not a negative amendment, it has a plan and a scheme. Probably it is a product of the imagination; I am sure I could sit down and work out a very nice scheme under ideal conditions, dot the country with fine homesteads and have prosperous and happy people everywhere. It would make very nice reading and perhaps I would get on the front pages of the newspapers and they might say that I had some imagination and some foresight.
I have had forty years of pioneer life and I know something of the conditions which govern the success or failure of these people. I have no fault to find with the proposition which has been offered by the hon. member for North Vancouver and I do not intend at this time to criticize at any length the plan which he has put before the house. I do not believe that any government scheme involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars will in the end turn out to be successful.
In regard to immigration, as I said before, I have observed the people who succeed and the people who fail. I think the people who live on the prairies will bear me out when I say that quite a large percentage of those who started with open prairie under very favourable circumstances have failed and the duty of the Immigration department in connection with any scheme that is brought forward is to see that the immigrant has at ieast a fair chance of succeeding by not being loaded up with too heavy an overhead charge to commence with. I will repeat: I have more faith in the man succeeding who begins slowly as many of our immigrants have done. They have gone up into the northern part of the prairie provinces; they have built themselves log shanties where they have placed
their wives and children, and they have gone out and worked by the day or by the month to earn a little money to start with. Then they have gone back to their homesteads; they have cleared them, and I can tell hon. members that those people, starting with practically nothing, in four or five years find themselves comfortably situated and with good homes. This is being and can be done if you have people who will buckle to and face the difficulties which they are likely to meet.
As regards the trip into the Peace River district, let me say this because I think the hon. member for North Vancouver thought I had lost heart right there at Taylor's Flats and that that was the reason why I had not gone up to Fort St. John. The real truth or the matter is that there was a tremendous downpour of rain and, excepting in the city of Winnipeg thirty or forty years ago, I had never encountered such slippery mud anywhere as on the banks of the Peace river. 1 walked two miles-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And went back three.


Robert Forke: That is the old schoolboy
Story we used to tell when we were late. The automobile in which I was riding refused to take the slope and I walked two miles down into the flats, expecting to meet the Hudson's Bay boat there at the river. When we arrived there, it was raining very hard and no boat was to be seen. There was no shelter but the woods where I spent the entire night while it rained heavily most of the time. Next morning a small boat came forty miles up the river and I went in that small open boat, on a very cold morning with heavy rain still falling and my spirits not at the highest, though I did not lose heart.
Mr. MiA'NION: I am afraid my hon. friend is a temperance man getting lost in the woods at night.	[DOT]


Robert Forke: When I reached the beat
about six o'clock in the morning I received a very hearty reception from the captain, and the first thing he did was to fetch a bottle of whiskey, put it on the table and say, "That will put you all right."


An hon. MEMBER:: Did it?


Robert Forke: It was the temptation o
my life.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Say whenl


Robert Forke: I am very proud to be able to say that I withstood the temptation, got a good, hot cup of coffee and felt as well as one or two other gentlemen who applied the spirits.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Forke


Mr. McGIBBON:: The hon. member did
not climb the hill?


Robert Forke: No, I slipped over the hill. I saw a good many hundred miles of the Peace River district although I admit it was mostly in the settled portions. I have nothing but praise for what I saw. It was a revelation to me and I think I will repeat what I said in my speech on the budget, namely, that I was surprised to see the fields of waving wheat ripening in the sun at least ten days earlier than in the older parts of the prairie provinces. I suppose most of that ripening wheat was reaped before the frost did very much damage. The difficulty that [ saw regarding the Peace River country was that of clearing the scrub and small trees which were growing on land that could be made available for homesteads. Of course a large portion of the country is covered with pretty heavy timber and it will take a great deal of work to clear it although something can be realized on the timber. I am quite in accord with what the hon. member for North Vancouver has said as to what can be done with steam power and ploughs in ploughing up scrub. I was very much surprised at the size of the trees that could be pulled down by one of those great ploughs with a strong motor pulling it, but at the same time I think $10 to $12 an acre is possibly too small an estimate for clearing the land.
It would take a good deal of time to analyse all the propositions that have been laid before the house by the hon. member for North Vancouver. He spoke about settling people in a close community and how many families you could place on so many square miles. Human nature being what it is, one cannot control these things as one would like to. He stated that the Department of immigration had allowed people to go into the Peace River district miles and miles away from the railway; in fact he said that was encouraged by the Department of Immigration. That is the Only statement t-o which I am going to object. The Department of Immigration does not encourage people to go any distance away from a railway. I have always contended that no one can carry on successfully more than fifteen or twenty miles from a railway and I have never advised immigrants to go far away from one. I know people have been crossing the Peace river and going as far north as Fort Vermilion almost 100 miles or perhaps more from a railway. I am not very sure of the distances. There is no doubt that this is a

mistake, but they are doing it and what can you do about it? They are free people: they can do as they like. They have the spirit of adventure and if they are making a mistake, they will find it out in the future. But that is what they do, and no department of immigration will prevent their doing it. The same thing occurred on the prairies; when good land could be secured near a railway, you would find people going twenty or thirty miles away just to find the piece of land they wanted at that particular time. The same thing will happen again and you cannot prevent people from doing this.
As regards immigration from the United Kingdom, that was mentioned by the hon. member for North Vancouver, that has been one of the difficulties during this year. We have been continually criticized on account of the lack of British immigrants. The fact of the matter is that there is no difficulty in getting all the British people we want of a certain type if the country could absorb and take care of them. It has been the duty of the department to see that so far as possible the supply of immigrants is not larger than the country can absorb. That is perhaps a little different from the criticism we hear ail the time, that we cannot get immigrants for the Dominion. I would not be afraid to flood this country with hundreds of thousands of people if we want to open the doors and allow all to come who really want to come, but the difficulty is to get the type of people we want who, we know, will succeed and do well for themselves and the Dominion.


Peter McGibbon: Why the difficulty?


Robert Forke: Because those people are
not used to go on the land and suffer the hardships and the pioneering work necessary in commencing a new life in a new country. If we can work satisfactorily with the British government, no more of these people wiil come than we think can properly be taken care of, so that no idle people will be walking the streets and seeking employment if the department can possibly help it.
I want to say a few words in regard to the statistics quoted by my hon. friend from North Vancouver (Mr. McRae). He seemed to think that I had made a mistake. I used the figures in a little different way from what he did, but my figures are just as correct as his and hon. members can draw their own inferences. I have had some statistics made up in just a little different way. When immigrants enter this country they are entered by race as well as by country and I tried to

Immigration Policy-Mr. Forke
ascertain how the 166,722 immigrants who came to Canada last year were made up according to race. The figures are as follows:
Racial origin	Number
British		75,581
Northwestern	European	 41,059
All others	 51,082
It will be noticed that the British and northwestern European nations made up 116,640. This constitutes two-thirds of all the immigration that came to Canada last year. Some of these immigrants of the British race may have come from the United States or elsewhere than the British Isles, but they were all British people.
In the calendar year 1928, 54,709 people left Great Britain for Canada; 33,689 for Australia and New Zealand; 7,095 for South Africa; 13,489 for India and other parts of the empire, and 22,345 for the United States. More people came to Canada from Great Britain than to all the other dominions put together, and 32,364 more people came from Great Britain to Canada than to the United States.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Do the figures the minister has given include the harvesters brought out last year?


Robert Forke: No. We do not include in any immigration figures more than the 2,000 harvesters who did not go back.
I would also point out that 78 per cent of Canada's population was born in Canada, 12 per cent in Great Britain, and 10 per cent in foreign countries. Surely in view of those figures there is no need for any great alarm on the part of those who are afraid that Canada is going to cease to be largely British and French in its population. I am not saying that to belittle in any way those immigrants who have come to Canada from other countries, because I believe that some day we are going to have a Canadian nationality that will conserve all that is brightest and best in British institutions, and perhaps those immigrants who are coming to our shores from other than British countries will be able to contribute something to our nationality.
The statistics of the department show that we have received 30,560 immigrants from the United States and 33,793 returning Canadians who made declarations that they intended to make their permanent home in Canada. That makes a total of 64,353. The figures I have from Washington of Canadians going to the United States is 57,330, showing a balance in favour of Canada of 7,023. I have some doubts in regard to this figure from Washington because I have seen it stated that the number was 70,000. As the house may know,
we have no records in the Immigration department of Canadians who left for the United States, and we have to trust to the Bureau of Statistics in Washington, which is not always correct. It is difficult to get a correct figure of the number of Canadians who are leaving Canada. My hon. friend from Fort William quoted a figure around 73,000.


Mr. MANION:: I have the figures here of the American authorities, and they show that last year 72,616 Canadians went to the United States.


Robert Forke: Those figures were compiled at the border, and they are just as liable to be wrong as right.


Robert James Manion: That is true of both sides of the line.


Robert Forke: It is not a correct figure, but we will let it go at that.
I should like to give the figures for 1924. Our immigration from all sources in that year was 148,560, but instead of 73,000 Canadians leaving this country for the United States, 159,058 Canadians left this country for the United States in that year. So surely the tide has turned and things are very much better than they were just a few years ago.
There is one point of view that I should like to put before the house in regard to the colonization of western Canada, which the hon. member for North Vancouver has brougn* up in his address to-day. It is a fallacy to suppose that the western provinces were colonized by the immigrants who came to this country. Most people seem to think that the great flow of immigrants to Canada colonized the western prairies. I know exactly what took place in Manitoba because I was there. Who can ever forget the long trains loaded with horses and cattle and implements coming from east of the great lakes and colonizing that western country? These were Canadian people. No doubt there was quite a sprinkling of British people too, and there was a colony of Mennonites which has done well, but in the main that western country was colonized by Canadian people from Ontario and the maritime provinces. It was not the 'big immigration that came to this country that colonized Manitoba; I know that. There was at that time a large immigration of foreign people into Canada; a great deal of railway building was going on and public works of all kinds were being undertaken, and these people did that labouring work. They came mostly from Europe; a large part of the money they earned was

Immigration Policy-Mr. Forke
sent back to Europe, and when the era of railway construction ended these people returned to their own countries. That large immigration, therefore, was not at all the benefit that some people really think it was. It was a benefit in the sense that these people by their labour performed a service for the country, but it was not an immigration that was of permanent benefit to the country as a whole.	.
We are told that immigra tion is the supreme need of this Dominion. The whole argument of the hon. member for North Vancouver was that Canada needs a tremendously large immigration. I am not going to say that we do not need immigration; indeed, I should not be true to the position I occupy if I suggested such a thing. But there is this to be considered: will the population that is at present living in Canada gain 'by a tremendously increased immigration? Does anyone here think we shall all be wealthier and happier if we have a population of twenty millions instead of nine and a half millions? That is the thought I wish to suggest. Not that I am condemning the development of the country, but a large immigration does not necessarily mean that we shall be happier or more prosperous. Why has Canada come back so soon after the war compared with other countries that were engaged in it? Because we are a country of nine and a half million people, endowed with great natural resources, and we had something wonderful to fall back on. That is why Canada, with its sparse population and great natural resources, has recovered more rapidly than any other country.
Now, I am afraid I shall be quoted in the newspapers to-morrow morning as condemning immigration. I say we do not want immigration that we cannot take care of; we do not want immigration that will be a burden on the country. We do not want to bring here discontented people who will be unhappy in this country. We want people to come here who will enjoy our prosperity and who will themselves be prosperous. That has been the aim of the department since I have been at the head of it.
Statistics prove that the lack of immigrants has not been the trouble. Last year we absorbed 166,000 immigrants-and our population is only nine and half million. I am going to repeat what I said in my speech on the budget, that we are trying to absorb more people per capita than the United States ever attempted to absorb. When they absorbed 850,000 immigrants their population was at least 100,000,000. Unless you have

some tremendous scheme such as that proposed by the hon. member for North Vancouver, I claim that 166,000 immigrants is no small number for a population of nine and half million to absorb and take care of without dislocating the whole economic system of the country. In the five years from 1910 to 1914 Canada attempted to absorb 1,761,425 immigrants. What happened? Canada suffered from indigestion, and a very small percentage of those people remained with us at the end of ten years. As I said before, the big era of railway building and expansion came to an end, and thereupon those immigrants left the country. It does not do the country any good for this to happen. It may help the transportation companies to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, but when those immigrants do not stay in the country it damages our reputation.
In the past few years great changes have taken place. The wealthiest country in the world, the United States, is facing an unemployment problem. This is one of the paradoxes of modern time-a country the wealthiest in the world and enjoying unprecedented prosperity, and yet with a million and a quarter of its people unemployed. An hon. member speaking some little time ago complained that during the last twenty years this country has been standing still. Well, twenty years ago we were producing 100,000,000 bushels of wheat; last year, with practically the same population, we produced 500,000,000 bushels. That is the economic situation that we have to face. It is so easy to be critical in speaking of this question. It is when you are face to face with the situation that you realize the tremendous difficulties that must be overcome. To-day we have fewer hands engaged in industry, yet there is increase in production. This has brought about unemployment. In the United States the farm population has decreased five and a half million in twenty years. Canadians do not go to the United States to farm. Notwithstanding the great increase in urban population in the United States-and I want the house to pay attention to this-the United States farmer still exports as large a percentage of his produce as he did twenty years ago. He is still dependent upon the foreign market for the price of his goods. I hope those farmers across the line who think they are going to be helped by more protection will realize the fact that they are exporting just as large a percentage of their produce as they were twenty years ago, and that the price they will get for it will be the price which it brings on the foreign market.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Forke
There need be no anxiety for the future of this Dominion. We are the happiest and most prosperous people in the whole world at the present moment. Why all this criticism and discontent as if things were not satisfactory?


Peter McGibbon: You are speaking only for the government.


Robert Forke: I am speaking for every individual in Canada.


Peter McGibbon: No.


Robert Forke: I know there are no happier people anywhere than in this Dominion, no people who have better reason to be happy. I am not speaking from the political point of view. I am simply stating a fact, and I am sure anyone who considers the situation will admit it to be the fact. There need be no anxiety, I say, for the future of Canada. Development is taking place in all directions. Our business people are holding their own in industry, and we are exporting more per capita than any ether country in the world. Why this despondency? The railways are prospering, reaching out into new districts and providing railway facilities for those people who were venturesome enough to settle in remote districts. In a word, optimism and hopefulness are abroad in the land. Immigrants will come to Canada, Mr. Speaker, I have an idea that in the not far distant future we shall have to take measures somewhat similar to those adopted by the United States to restrict the number of newcomers to the point where we can absorb them.


John Arthur Clark: When we get a new government that might be.


Robert Forke: I think you might call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Forke: Since the house rose at six
o'clock I happened to pick up the report of the oversea settlement committee in Great Britain, and I came across a few sentences which I shall read, because I fancy they will afford an answer to those who are under the impression that the British people do not appreciate the difficulty of getting their own population to migrate.
In their report for the year 1927 the settlement oversea committee enumerated some of the chief causes, partly political and partly economic, which prevent the more rapid distribution of population as between this country
and the dominions, and particularly of those for whom state aid, o-r at any rate employment on arrival overseas, is essential. Chief among these are:
A. (In Great Britain)
1.	The industrial habits and the townward bent of the general population and its consequent unwillingness, and, without training, unfitness, to take advantage of openings overseas (such openings as concern men, are for the most part in land work, and, for women in domestic work).
2.	The upward tendency of the standard of living and comfort in Great Britain during the present generation.
That is rather a peculiar sentence and it is worth noting, because a great many people in Canada do not believe that there is a higher standard of living in Great Britain to-day than prior to the war.
As I have once before observed, the people have hard times in Great Britain and know destitution, but that is in spots, in the mining districts and among those engaged in trades whose workers have been thrown out of employment. This would be in large districts and would, of course, make for hardship. But the fact is that there is an upward tendency in the standard of living and of comfort in Great Britain during the present generation.
3.	The cumulative effect of schemes of social insurance and especially of unemployment benefits. The effect of these schemes is probably greater than has hitherto been supposed, and it seems inevitable that they should tend to anchor population in this country and decrease its mobility.
4.	The fact that Dominion governments have not hitherto seen their way to grant assisted passages to any except single men or families
' going to land work, single women going to domestic service, or nominated persons.
5.	Although it is true that emigration may at times be stimulated by sheer necessity and want, it is clear that under modern conditions the population of this country is most ready to undertake the adventure of migration when it is prospering, and least ready to do so when it is faced with adversity. The spirit of successful migration is a spirit of buoyant optmist.
I have read this to show that the oversea land settlement committee, who have in hand the work of immigration, really understand the position in their own country; so that when we hear the department in Canada criticized, as throwing obstacles in the way of British immigration, I believe that these sentences which I have quoted will serve a useful purpose.
This afternoon we listened to the scheme enunciated by the hon. member for North Vancouver, and I shall make no attempt at the moment to criticize that scheme. It is so vast, it involves such a large sum of money, is so comprehensive and considerable in a great many ways, that I should have to

Immigration Policy-Mr. Forke
analyse it very carefully before undertaking to criticize it. Being of a certain nationality, however, I must say that I have my doubts. Probably^ it will be remembered that last year when the committee on agriculture had under consideration the subject of immigration they made this recommendation:
The committee having heard the evidence in connection with the experiment of the three thousand settlement scheme, now almost completed, recommends that time be given to test this form of land settlement before embarking upon extended schemes of this character.
Under the circumstances I do not think it would have been wise, even had it been thought practicable, for this department to undertake any land settlement scheme in view of that recommendation submitted last session. It was recommended by that committee that where the Department of Immigration could enter into tripartite agreements with the imperial and the provincial governments in connection with land settlement, such a course should be encouraged. We have made every endeavour to work in cooperation with the provinces in that way, but so far as the west is concerned nothing of a practical nature has been accomplished. They have taken the stand that the Dominion retains their natural resources, and until they possess those resources they are not prepared to enter into anyr scheme of land settlement. However, we have entered into a land settlement scheme with the province of New Brunswick, and I am happy to say that I believe it will work out very successfully. Under that scheme I believe it is intended to bring out about five hundred families in five or ten years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister, without difficulty or inconvenience, give the details of that agreement up to the present?


Robert Forke: I would ask the leader of
the opposition to excuse me; I have those details in my desk, and when my estimates are up I shall be glad to give them.
We have sought the cooperation of the provinces in immigration and land settlement and, in fact, in every way we have thought it possible to work together, because the provincial governments are in a position to know the requirements of the provinces perhaps much better than the Department of Immigration and Colonization can know them. Hon. members may remember the severe criticisms which were levelled at the Department of Immigration because to some extent we curtailed the immigration from central and southeastern Europe. Two very prominent gentlemen in Canada went to the newspapers and published articles about a column and a [Mr. Forked
half in length criticizing the department for this policy and claiming that the country' would suffer from a lack of labour during the coming summer. I think time has justified the stand I then took, when I said I thought I had a better estimate of what the country required with regard to labour than was possessed by either of these prominent gentlemen, who no doubt thought they were speaking in the best interests of the country. I had taken the opportunity during the summer of visiting the western provinces and discussing with the provincial governments their needs and requirements, and I came to the conclusion, as I have said already, that thirty per cent of the immigration from central and southeastern Europe would amply fill all the labour requirements during the summer. I may tell the house that during the last two or three weeks I have been just a little anxious over what was taking place in the west; I sent wires to the different large centres in the three western provinces just to keep in touch with the labour situation, and at times there has been a surplus of labour, with a large number of idle men looking for employment. I believe that condition now has disappeared; it occurs every spring just after the close of the winter work and before the summer work opens up. However, I am satisfied that the immigration has been quite sufficient to take care of all the labour requirements up to the present. It is a favourite saying of the railway companies that once you stop the stream of immigration it is very difficult to start it again, but I do not think we will find any difficulty in that regard. Whenever this country wants immigrants from Europe all we have to do is open the door and we will get them without trouble. The great difficulty will be in selecting the ones we really want.
Before I sit down I wish to pay' a tribute to the voluntary societies which have been working on different immigration lines. The hon. member for North Vancouver stated that these societies had been doing perhaps the large part of the work in regard to immigration. I do not think that is true, although I recognize their services and am glad to have their assistance. At the same time, all that work is carried on under the Department of Immigration; we take the responsibility for all immigration and we see that the people who are brought in by these voluntary societies are of the right type, in addition to making sure that the societies take care of them after they have come to Canada. I have taken what I believe is the correct stand, that in the last analysis no matter who

Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
brings the immigrants to the country the Department of Immigration is responsible; consequently while I am in charge of this department I have no intention of letting my responsibility rest upon any other shoulders. Whether this work is carried on by the railway companies or by other voluntary societies I hold that all selections and examinations must' be under the control of the Department of Immigration.
However, as I said before, I want to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by these societies. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in particular is doing very splendid work in this regard. That work may not always have been a success from a financial point of view, but while the land settlement work carried on by a large corporation such as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company may not be quite as profitable as it could be, still I believe they get their reward in many ways not available to colonization societies. We are ready and willing to assist these societies in every way and we will accept their assistance wherever it is possible for us to do so.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house. I have already said that I have every faith in the future; I believe in Canada; I believe we will continue to prosper and grow day by day, and there is no doubt that the population will increase if the country prospers. It may be asked, what of the future? Who can tell what the population of Canada will be one hundred or five hundred years from now? We talk of Canada's destiny, but each generation will meet its own problems and to-day we cannot foresee what the years will bring. However, a responsibility rests upon this generation to see that the stream of humanity which mingles with the native population shall be of such a character that the highest and best traditions of the past shall be maintained and that Canada's influence in world affairs in the days to come may be for the "healing of the nations." I remember some words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which perhaps I may be permitted to quote. Speaking of Canada, he said:
Her bark is on the ocean making for the harbour. I know not where that harbour will be, but it will be a safe harbour.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage in the session. I do not intend to take uip very much of the time of the house, but I have given some study to this question and it is so important that I should like to make a few remarks. Before doing so I should like to congratulate
the hon. memiber for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) on the effort and energy, the time and probably the money, he has spent in making the thorough investigation which was indicated by his speech this afternoon. Whether or not the house agrees with him and his conclusions we must admit that he has devoted a great deal of time and effort to this difficult problem, and he deserves much credit for his work.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question of immigration is in such an unsatisfactory state that regardless of any attempt at defence on the part of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) the opinion throughout 'the country is .that the immigration policy of this government has been a complete failure. I do not intend to discuss it at length but I do wish to put on record some statistics; to a large extent my remarks will be a story of statistics, which may be very dry but which will perhaps demonstrate the conditions better than any general remarks of mine could do.
Before going into that, however, I wish in a few words to deal with the remarks of the minister. I am sorry to say, for the sake of the country, that to me he appeared to make a very Jamie defence of the policy, if it can be called a policy, which he has been carrying out. He complimented the hon. member for North Vancouver on bis remarks, and said that at any rate they were constructive. I am sorry I cannot say the same about the minister; as far as I could see-and I say this quite honestly and with no desire to be unfair-his remarks were largely destructive. His whole attitude seemed to be one of despair, a sort of throwing uip of his hands in an admission of national failure.
In Canada we have a country covering 3,-
500,000	square miles. With twice the area of the whole of Europe, we have a population of only ten millions. Europe, with half our area, has a 'population1 of 300,000,000. The hon. minister practically stated this afternoon that we are a happy little family and should be content to remain as we are and not look for other people to come to our shores.


Robert Forke: I did not say that.


Robert James Manion: Not in those words, but
that was the sum and substance of what the minister said, and anyone who reads his speech cannot help but see that he practically doubted the need of immigration. Had he gone but one step farther he would have been praising the exodus and arguing that if we could get rid of a few more thousands of people then we would be still happier; we would

Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
have our great resources to divide among a smaller number and would therefore be that much happier and that much more contented.
We have one of the greatest countries in the world and if it were properly handled it should be the mecca for all the desirable peoples in all the overcrowded portions of the earth. I do not intend to comment further upon the minister's speech except to say that the whole of his remarks were an excuse for the fact that his policy had been a failure. The French have a proverb, qui s'excuse s'accuse-he who excuses himself accuses himself-and I am afraid the minister accused himself this afternoon. Some of the figures which he quoted were not quite correct, but the difference is small. I have the figures from his own department showing that 72,000 British immigrants, including English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh, came into this country from the United States instead of the 75,000 he mentioned. The immigration has been very small while the emigration has been quite large.
We are spending to-day $5,862,900 on immigration and colonization. The Department of Immigration and Colonization will spend $3,462,900, and $1,400,000 will be spent for general land settlement advances. The railways will spend about $1,000,000, which gives us a total of a little less than $6,000,000. Will the country receive full value for that amount of money? That is not the opinion of the people in Canada; the opinion is that there seems to be something radically wrong.
During the calendar year 1928, 166,782 immigrants came to Canada. From the British Isles there came 55,848, from the United States, 29,933, and from other countries, 81,001. In other words, there were 110,934 from other countries and 55,848 from the British Isles, which is a ratio of two to one. It is true that some of the immigrants from the United States were British bom, but that ratio still applies.
During the first year of Liberal rule the British immigration into Canada amounted to 47 per cent of the total immigration; last year it was 33 per cent, which shows that the British immigration is decreasing, whatever the cause may be. During the last four fiscal years before the war, 1911 to 1914, we received into Canada 1,451,000 people. During the last four years during which this government has been in office we have received exactly 501,000, or a little more than one-third of the immigration during the four years before the war. The proportion of British immigrants to immigrants from other countries is about the same.

but the total must be disappointing to anyone who wishes to see this country prosper and build up.
British immigration during 1925 was 53,000, while last year it was 51,000. In this case I am speaking of the fiscal years, as the figures are easier to get for that period. During the year 1925 we received 15,000 immigrants from America, and in 1928, 25,000, an increase of
10,000.	The immigration from countries other than Great Britain or America amounted to
42,000	in 1925 and it had increased to 75,000 in 1928, an increase of 33,000. These figures show that British immigration is the only class which seems to be decreasing, which is certainly not a very satisfactory condition.
Let us consider this question from another angle and take the first fiscal year of the Liberal government, ending March 31, 1923. During the larger part of the year ending March 31, 1922, the affairs of the country were under the direction of a Unionist government or a Conservative government, so I have taken the year 1923. From countries other than the British Isles and the United States we received that year 16,372 immigrants, while we received 75,038 during 1928, or four and one-half times as many. British immigration increased from 34,508 in 1923 to 51,552 in 1928, or an increase of one and one-half times. In other words, British immigration increased one and one-half times *while immigration from other countries increased four and one-half times. My complaint is not so much that the number of British immigrants is not larger, as that our immigration of all classes is much too small. The question is often asked: how many can we absorb in this country? I submit that we can absorb as many as we can put at useful occupations and as many as we can handle without crowding out the other classes of the people already here, whether they be farmers or labouring people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we could take many times the numbers of people of all kinds than we are getting at the present time.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: How about doctors?


Robert James Manion: My practice has been pretty well shot since I got into politics, but the doctors have not raised any particular objection to medical men coming in.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the hon. member
have them submit to an examination when they come to this country?


Robert James Manion: There is no doubt that
they should be fully qualified. I would not

Immigration Policy-Mr. Mamon
like to have even the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) attended by a doctor who had not passed an examination. I am not saying that in any offensive tone, because my hon. friend is a very good friend of mine and I do not want to hurt his feelings.
I submit that we can take many more immigrants of all kinds. During the last fiscal year before the war we had an immigration of 384,000, but during the fiscal year 1928 it had dropped to 151,000, or a little more than one-third.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in any way criticizing or attacking those who came from countries other than the British Isles or from the United States.
I have many of those people in my constituency and I have the utmost confidence in them. I have practised medicine among them for many years and my feelings towards them are of the kindest. The children of these newcomers to our land make very fine Canadians and I certainly do not object to their coming into this country. I submit that we have a need for people of all classes. These people from the continental European countries are willing to do certain classes of work which the Canadian, British or American will not do and they are needed for those purposes. If our country is as prosperous as the right hon. the Prime Minister and some of his followers claim it is, we should be able to absorb hundreds of thousands of all classes of immigrants from all countries. If immigration is to be taken as a criterion of prosperity, we are certainly not particularly prosperous at the present time.
I know that many hon. members of the house will not agree with me, but my contention is that one of the reasons we do not have a proper immigration to this country is that a wrong practice respecting fiscal affairs has been followed.
I remember being struck, I think a year or two ago, by a very fine speech delivered by the present Premier of British Columbia, the Hon. Mr. Tolmie, a man who was loved in the house and whose opinion on agricultural subjects commanded the respect of not only the house but the country. He spoke of the lack of protection for our sheep industry. He pointed out that in Canada in 1871 we had a little more than 3,000,000 sheep, and that in 1927, fifty-six years later, we had practically the same number, perhaps 100,000 more, whereas in the United States, instead of 3,000,000 sheep as we have in Canada, they have
44,000,000. He claimed-and I have no reason for doubting his word-that we have just as good facilities and just as good a capacity for
sheep raising in Canada as they have in the United States. He pointed out that in British Columbia there are 160,000,000 acres of good range land, but they have only 100,000 sheep, and he said that they have room for twenty times that number in that province.
I remember reading last year the evidence of Sir Henry Thornton before the committee on agriculture, and - he claimed that the maritimes were just as good a sheep raising section as any other section of the country. The trouble is that we have been giving no encouragement to sheep raising. I made it my business to-day to make sure that my statements were correct, and I found that there was no protection on raw wool coming into this country, whereas the United States has had protection at various times, ranging from 15 cents to 45 cents a pound. The United States as a consequence, although having no greater capacity for sheep raising than we have, have fifteen times the number of sheep. This is another instance of our treating the sheep industry in the same way as we treat the fruit and dairy industries. It might be well to put on Hansard these figures which I took from the International Year Book of agricultural statistics, and I think they are correct. This shows the number of sheep in various countries in 1927:
Country	Number of Sheep
Canada	 3.263,000
United States	 44,455,000
Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Chile and Uruguay	 50,000,000
These five South American countries have a total of something over 50,000,000 sheep though they have an area about the same as that of Canada.
Australia	 104,260,000
Thirty-five times the number that Canada has.
New Zealand	 25,640,000
So far as area is concerned we could drop little New Zealand into lake. Superior, yet that country has more than eight times as many sheep as we have.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: How many sheep have they in Great Britain, where they have no protection at all?


Robert James Manion: I was going to give those figures:	In Great Britain and Northern Ireland they have 25,000,000 sheep. Great Britain, by the way, as my hon. friend says, may not have protection on raw wool, but the reason for that is that Great Britain is the greatest manufacturer of woollen goods in

Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
the world and requires raw wool as a raw material for the manufacture of woollen goods. That is why they have no protection, and probably my hon. friend is correct in saying they have not.


Mr. HANSON:: Manufactured goods to
export to Canada.


Robert James Manion: Yes, to Canada where we do not protect our sheep industry as the United States are protecting theirs. Let me mention two or three other figures in order to show the small countries which have large numbers of sheep. France, with half the area or less than that of northern Ontario, has more than 10,000,000 sheep. The little Irish Free State has as many sheep as Canada has. Roumania has nearly four times as many.
The same story could be given with regard to cattle. The figures are as follows:
Country	Number of cattle
Canada	 9,172,000
United States	 55,696,000
Germany	 17,982,000
France	 14,940,000
Great Britain and Northern Ireland	 8,183,000
These little countries with probably one-thirtieth of the area of Canada have practically as many cattle as we have.
Australia	 11,880,000
Speaking of prosperity, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave as a proof of prosperity the figures for the acreage under field crops in Canada in 1928-59,351,000 acres -'but in 1921, seven years before that, we had under field crops 59,635,000 acres, or practically
300,000	acres more the year before the present government came into power than we have now, and a lesser acreage under field crops than in any year between 1921 and 1928. Certainly that is not a very good indication of prosperity, and it does not seem that immigration is interfering with competition in other markets, since our acreage is not increasing. Immigration, according to the figures as to acreage, does not seem to be interfering with the farming sections of the country.


William John Ward: Is the hon. member saying
that the acreage under field crops is no greater to-day than it was eight or ten years ago?


Robert James Manion: It was 300,000 acres less
in 1928 than it was in 1921.


William John Ward: Why, then, has production
so tremendously increased?


Robert James Manion: I do not know; I cannot
answer that. I am giving the acreage as it is set out in official sources. My hon. friend [Mr. Manion.l
can get them from the Bureau of Statistics, where the Prime Minister got his. The facts are as I give them, but in any case the acreage is less to-day than it was in 1921. That is not due to lack of room in our country, because I made it my business also to ask the Department of the Interior as to the acreage which is not settled at the present time in the western provinces alone. I find that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta there are in round figures probably 30,000,000 acres of land suitable for agriculture within fifteen miles of the railway. The Minister of Immigration, speaking to-day, said that he would not like to place anybody further than fifteen miles from a railway.


John Ewen Sinclair: Broken land or raw prairie?	.


Robert James Manion: This is land fit for agriculture. Mr. Beatty gave the figures last year before the same agriculture committee as that before which Sir Henry Thornton made the statement which I quoted. Mr. Beatty said that in 1922-and I think I am quoting his exact words-there were 34,000,000 acres of fairly fit land in the three prairie provinces within fifteen miles of a railway.
I intend, however, to give the official figures from the Department of the Interior. This is a letter dated April 11, 1929, to myself from the Deputy Minister of the Interior; I shall simply give the essential parts:
The last compilation of unoccupied and uncultivated privately owned land was made in 1922, and the result was as follows:
He shows that in 1922 there were 18,003,040 acres of privately owned land, uncultivated. That is divided amongst individual owners, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian National Railway Company, other companies, and unclassified. That is the last compilation of privately owned lands. He gives Dominion lands available for entry in 1928 as 23,167,000 acres, and also unsold school lands 1928, as 6,314,787 acres. These three classes of lands, total 47,484,817 acres. Then he adds:
With regard to the suitability of the above lands for agricultural purposes, I may say that railway lands were selected by the companies concerned-	.
The railway lands amount to 5,197,520 acres. -and may therefore be looked upon as being suitable for agricultural (purposes. There is no definite information as to what proportion of the other above-mentioned classes is suitable for agriculture.
Practically all of the privately owned unoe-. cupied lands are within fifteen miles of a railway, possibly one-half to one million acres being outside that distance. Of the crown lands still available for homestead entry, nearly 12,000,000 acres are within fifteen miles of a railway.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
Summing this all up, taking it as well as I can from what he has said about it, I estimate that in round figures there are 30.000,000 acres suitable for agriculture within fifteen miles of a railway.


Robert Forke: Why then go hundreds of miles away up into the Peace River?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the minister
encourages them to do so.


Robert James Manion: There are also vast
quantities of land in other sections of the country that are suitable for agriculture, though in many cases a little more difficult to clear. Northern Quebec, northern Ontario, British Columbia, and the maritimes are empires in themselves. Northern Ontario, extending from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary, is as large as Germany and the British Isles put together, and yet in that area there are but 150,000 people. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) said that the land in northern Ontario was mostly rock. There is a good deal of rock, but there are also fine agricultural valleys in many sections; if my hon. friend would some time stay off with me at Fort William I could show him fine agricultural land just a few miles from my own city, cultivated by prosperous and successful farmers. In many such sections throughout that northern part of Ontario, there is as fine agricultural land as can be found in the western prairie provinces. The same is true of northern Quebec, British Columbia and the maritimes.
But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we are not getting immigrants. Whatever the causes may be, that remains the fact. Or if we are, as has been shown many times-the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) stated recently in the house what the population now should be if we had retained our immigrants and the hon. member for North Vancouver gave the same information to-day -we are losing them to the United States. Immigrants mean nothing to our country unless we keep them here. Unfortunately, we not only are not keeping the immigrants that-come here, but we are not keeping our own Canadians. Our immigration from the United States last year-I am giving the minister's own figures-was 29,933, or in round numbers,
30,000.	Now I will give the American figures for Canadian immigration to the United States. I have them under my hand in letters that I have obtained from the department in reply to my queries, and they show that we lost to the United States last year 73,605; in other words, two and one-half times as many left this country for the United States as we
obtained from the United States last year. The minister's figures differed a little from those I am giving, but I accept the minister's figures as to the number coming into Canada and the American figures as to the number going into the United States.


Robert Forke: The hon. member has forgotten the immigrants we got from the United States.


Robert James Manion: No. I mentioned that. 1 said that we got 29,933 from the United States, and that we lost 73,605 to the United States.


Robert Forke: Returning Canadians also?


Robert James Manion: The Americans do not give any as Canadians coming from the United States, but as English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh or French, as the case may be; because there is no Canadian nationality in the census and the United States follows the same.method.


Robert Forke: What I wanted to say was that immigrants from the United States and returning Canadians make up about 65,000.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid the minister's figures are rather high. As a matter of fact, I tried to get from the United States the figures of returning Canadians, but as I said, they do not classify them on that basis, and I have therefore taken the minister's own figures on that.


Robert Forke: We have the figures here.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry, but the minister will have to use those figures himself. I have given the official figures as I obtained them. I have very grave doubts, without attempting to impugn the honesty of the minister at all, as' to the accuracy of the figures as to returning Canadians from the United States given by the Immigration department of this country. I know that as I go through this country in almost every section pretty nearly every family of any size that I meet has some member of it in the United States, and I rarely hear of their coming back.


Mr. McINTOSH:: When did they start
going to the United States?


Robert James Manion: They have been going for forty or fifty years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Before 1896 how many went?


Robert James Manion: I have not the figures for 1896, but I will give my hon. friend these figures; they may have some effect on his enthusiasm. I will give the figures of Canadians leaving this countrv for the United
2750	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
States during the last four years of Conservative rule, or Conservative and Union rule, and the figures for the last six years during which this government has 'been in power, according to the American figures.
From 1919 to 1922-part of 1922 was under Liberal rule, but we would have to take whatever blame there is coming for the greater part of the year-we lost to the United States, according to American figures, 267,920 people, or an average during those four years of Conservative rule of 66,980, or in round numbers, 67,000. From the fiscal year 1923 to 1928, which are all Liberal years, we lost, according to this same set of statistics, in those six years, 666,338 or an average for the Liberal years of 111,056, or pretty nearly twice as many per year as we lost under Conservative rule.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What are the Liberal
and Conservative figures from 1867 up to the present time?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend can give
them; he has more time than I have.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You are debating the
question.


Robert James Manion: There is nothing to prevent my hon. friend from debating it; he is ready to debate any question. As I was saying, the average for the six years of Liberal rule was 111,056 and the average for the four years of Conservative rule, 66,980, or almost twice as many under Liberal rule as under Conservative rule. The showing would have been very much worse had I taken the first four years of Liberal rule instead of six, for that would have shown the average to be
127,000	instead of 111,000. The emigration has eased down a little in the last two years, firstly because conditions have improved in this country, thanks to Providence, and secondly because most of our people who wanted to go to the United States have already gone You cannot go on draining the life-blood of a man forever.


Mr. DUNNING:: Why does my hon. friend start his calculation from the fiscal year 1918? Perhaps he would give the figures separately for the different years.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend would
hardly expect me to take the war years. I have left them out of my calculations altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: But why start with that particular year? Why not one year later?


Robert James Manion: I do not think it would
make any difference. I took 1919 because the
fMr. Manion.1
war was over. I had no ulterior motive at all in taking that year. I should like to point out to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) who has asked that question, that during the four years we were in power hundreds of thousands of soldiers were being disbanded in this country, and in spite of that we lost only 267,000, or an average of about 67,000 a year, while in the year 1922, all the soldiers had been disbanded and the Liberals since that time have been losing Canadians at the rate of 111,000 a year to the United States.
I did not intend to take quite as long as I have done, but these interruptions have delayed me. Our problems at the present time I consider are four. First, and this is most important, we should retain our own Canadian people in this Dominion.


Robert Forke: I happened to read an
article in the Dalhousie Review recently in which it was stated that immigration to the United States started in 1830 and has continued ever since. I only hope it will stop in a short time.


Robert James Manion: Nobody ever questions
that a great big country like the United States will always act as a magnet to some of our Canadian people, but I state without any possibility of disproof that never in the history of our country' from long before confederation -and I say this after looking up the figures- have we had six years in which we lost so many people to the United States as we lost during the six years under Liberal rule to which I have referred. I say that without any fear of contradiction.


Robert Forke: But the population is now
greater. It is nine and a half millions as compared with five millions in those earlier days, and so the percentage must be taken into account.


Robert James Manion: The population of this
country has not been increasing anything like as rapidly as it should have done, so that the percentage is not a factor of very much importance.
I was saying that our first aim should be to keep our own Canadian people in this country. That is most important because, with all due respect for the immigrants from other lands, our own Canadian people are more valuable to us than any other people who are coming here.
Secondly, our aim should be to get British immigrants because they understand our institutions, our history, our language and our laws. They are the first people we should attempt to get from outside.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Manion
Thirdly, I should say that the next group we should attempt to get are the Americans, who next best understand our institutions, our language and our laws. Finally, Europeans. And I have no quarrel with the minister's division of them into preferred and non-preferred countries.
This should be our aim, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with a proper fiscal policy we would get this immigration. This policy would help the 2,000,000 farmers in Ontario and Quebec who are selling from 90 to 95 per cent of itheir products to the industrial centres of their respective provinces; it would aid our dairy farmers; it would assist our fruit producers; and it would so aid our industrial life that we could absorb immigrants as we did before the war at the rate of 300,000 to
400,000	under ithe Laurier regime and the Borden regime. A' proper fiscal policy,- whether my friends agree with it or not, I am entirely sincere,-a proper fiscal policy would enable this country to produce in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of commodities which are now being produced in other countries and imported by us. In other words, it means wages, work and prosperity,-not a fictitious, spotty prosperity such as we have to-day, but a real .prosperity.
Some of my hon. friends opposite argue continually that under free trade we get cheaper goods. I do not dispute that that may be -true, but there are many exceptions, and I have put them on Hansard in years gone by. Under protection prices have been reduced in some cases 75 per cent. Take, for instance, the price of steel rails in the United States. Under free trade they were four times as high as they now are under protection with proper competition in the home market. But, anyhow, even if we admitted that cheap goods were the be all and end all of our existence, we must not forget that the cheapest countries in the world to-day are the poorest countries -for instance, China and India.
The prosperity brought about by a proper fiscal policy would act as the greatest magnet that we could have to draw people from the other countries of the world. Our land, I repeat, should be the mecca for all the desirable people from all the overcrowded portions of the earth.
Apparently nobody in -this- country is satisfied with the immigration policy of the government. Perhaps one or two in the house may express satisfaction, and some even seem to think we are getting too many immigrants. The minister himself gave me that impression.


Robert Forke: No.


Robert James Manion: Well I do not wish to be unfair, but his speech was the most despairing effort that I have heard for a long time; it was almost a funereal wail. But it is common knowledge that the people generally are not satisfied with .present immigration conditions. The railways are not satisfied. I have before me the joint statement of Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Beatty expressing their dissatisfaction, but I have not time to read it. I also have under my hand a statement from the Saskatchewan section o-f the United Farmers of Canada which I got in my mail this morning. Apparently they are not satisfied. But the "most unkindest cut of all" is Mr. W. T. R. Preston. He is absolutely disgusted and dissatisfied with immigration conditions as they are to-day. I like him so much, and his authority has been so often quoted in this house on behalf of the Liberals, that I am going to read his letter.


James Dew Chaplin: Who is he?


Robert James Manion: For years he was the
organizer of the Liberal party and a lifelong Liberal. I never heard of him making a speech or writing a letter in support of the Conservative party. On January 19 last, only a few months ago, he wrote a letter to the Manitoba Free Press. I am going to read the last two or three paragraphs which sum up Ms idea. He says:
Since the Liberals -assumed power in 1921 the aggregate expenditure by the government and the Canadian National railway on immigration propaganda exceeds $25,000,000. 'The addition to the population by immigration scarcely overshadows -the volume of the exodus of our own people to the United States. Public bodies, regardless of politics, have requested the government to spend hundreds of millions in a wide immigration propaganda. But supineness, lethargy and indifference has been the official reply.
I know that I am expressing the judgment of a large number of lifelong Liberals when I say that -the present declared policy of the government will fail to establish -an abiding confidence in their political leaders at Ottawa. The future is fraught with serious consequences to Liberalism, but that is a minor consideration in comparison with the greater .and more serious consequences to the Dominion at large, if the sponsors of the openly declared immigration policy continue to dominate the situation.


James Dew Chaplin: They had better give him another job.


Robert Forke: The h-on. member for
Lincoln has struck the nail on the head all right.
-Mr. MANION: I hope Mr. Preston will observe the m-inister's remark that all he needs is another job to keep him quiet.



Immigration Policy-Mr. Adshead
It is obvious to my mind that the government has not a satisfactory immigration policy. If Canada is to grow, prosper, and progress, it is the duty of this government to awaken to its responsibilities and really try to bring down an immigration policy adequate to the needs of this Dominion.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, as one who thirty odd years ago in the province of Alberta took up the class of land mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae), and who had nothing to start with except a couple of cows and an old team of horses, I may be allowed the indulgence of the house for a moment or two while I make a few observations on the immigration proposition that my hon. friend has put forward. I am afraid that I shall have to disagree with him, and possibly I shall also have to disagree with a good many things in connection with the administration of the Immigration department.
It seems that the basic idea at the root of my hon. friend's proposition is that Canada *leeds more population in order to make her prosperous. My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) stated that Canada had only about 10,000,000 of population as against Jiurope with its 300,000,000 to sustain. I wonder if he implied that the prosperity of Europe with its 300,000,000 population is the kind of prosperity he would like to see in Canada. I want to say that population is not an indication of prosperity. It requires something more than population to create prosperity. Great Britain has a large population but she is not prosperous. There is an infinitely larger population in China, but that country is not prosperous and is seeking means to bring about prosperity. That population is the basis of prosperity is an entirely false doctrine.
The question arises, why do you want a greater population in the north land, in the Peace River country. Is it for the purpose of raising more wheat in order to depreciate the present price which is already too low? Our farmers are not particularly desirous of having greater competition in marketing their wheat, for at the present low level of prices they can hardly live on the returns. The fact is that if you would make our farmers themselves prosperous you would need no immigration policy. It is quite true that last year we raised somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000,000 bushels of wheat, but our farmers, the primary producers, are not necessarily prosperous as a consequence. True, that tremendous crop brought prosperity to

Canada, as pointed out by hon. members in the budget debate. But who are they who are really prosperous? The gentlemen whom my hon. friend from Fort William indicated, those who live on the backs of the primary producers, the railway companies and other great corporations; they do not touch the primary producers' product unless at a profit, and the farmer has to take what is left.
I submit that if the farmers of this country were prosperous you would have no trouble in attracting desirable immigrants. I-n fact you would not foe able to keep them out with a five barred gate if every farmer in this country was able to produce and sell his product on a cost plus basis as the manufacturers are doing. That is the secret of our lack of prosperity. That is the secret of the lack of immigrants. Population, I repeat, is not a criterion of success, because the people who are contented and happy are those who are prosperous irrespective of whether our population be 10,000,000 or 20.000,000. True, it is prosperous for a few. I think it was Stanley Baldwin who gave this advice to Canada:	Don't be in a hurry to settle your
land; there is plenty of time for that. Let those within your gates become prosperous and you will have no need for a rush of population. So far as I am concerned, and I believe I am speaking for those whom I represent, we are absolutely opposed to spending money to coax people to come to Canada. Canada was a good enough country for me to come to as a boy fifty years ago. At that time I came here and went into the wilds of Ontario, and I have managed to survive. Similarly, it was good enough for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), the Minister o-f Immigration (Mr. Forke) and several others who came to this country and were not at all spoon-fed; they were mot treated as though they were babies; they had to make their own way. It is men of that type who will make good citizens of Canada.
My hon. friend from North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) this afternoon made a fine reference to our forefathers of long ago in Ontario. I do not know whether he was referring to the United Empire Loyalists, the old forefathers of whom he is so proud. But I would ask him this question:	Does he suppose that
those men were spoon-fed? When they came to Canada did they find a ready-made farm, a well built house, a stove burning, the tea kettle steaming, and someone greeting them with, "Come in and have a cup of tea and a piece of cake"? Not at all. They were men who had to hew their homes in the wilds of the province, and it was such men that

Immigration Policy-Mr. Adshead
made Upper Canada what it became. Any man who knows the conditions which will confront hiim when he comes to this country and who has grit and determination enough, knowing those conditions, to come to the country and to remain in it, is the sort of man. whom wie will heartily welcome with open arms, giving him all we can. He is the man who will make a good citizen of this country. But, I repeat, we may not look for good citizens among those who expect to be spoon-fed.
Now, of course, I come to the question which I have raised in this connection, and that is, that prospective immigrants should know the conditions they are to face when they come here. One of the great failures of immigration to Canada, especially in recent years, has been the fact that (immigrants have not been aware of the conditions which they were to expect. And worse than that-this is where I address myself to my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration-the truth has been only partly revealed to them. We have all had to face difficulties; I have had to face difficulties. I am not ashamed to say that there have been times when I was not able to buy a pair of rubbers to go to the woods; I had to put on a pair of gunny sacks and go out with a sleigh when I wanted to get logs with which to build my house. I am not ashamed to admit it. But my complaint is that immigrants are not given the facts by the Department of Immigration. I have evidence in my hand to support that charge. If I were a real estate agent, anxious to sell land in Canada, eager to dispose of town lots, this literature which I have in, my hand- Canada's descriptive atlas, published by the Department of Immigration and sent to all parts of the empire-is the very thing I would use. Now I say that this is wrong because it is only partly true.


Robert Forke: Will the hon. member read
a paragraph that is not true?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not say that there was nothing true in it; I merely said that it was only partly true, and that is the worst form of deception-putting the bright side of the situation before people and leaving the other side for them to find put when they get here. I will demonstrate to the minister from this atlas and from letters I have in my hand that intending immigrants from Great Britain and other parts of the world are told only half the truth. They are induced to come here by the stories they hear about the place and when they arrive in Canada and see things 78594-1754
with their own eyes they say, "We did not know that these were the conditions"; and they become discontented, with the result that we have very often to deport them.
I have here, for example, the description of a scene in Alberta. It is fine; it is perfectly true as far as it goes. Here is the homestead to begin with, and turning over a few pages jou come at length to a different picture-a transformed homestead, a beautiful house like a modern city residence, with splendid bams and so forth. These are the pictures presented to immigrants before they come out. But the conditions which they will have to face in the interval, before this rosy picture is realized, are not made known to them. They are not told that they may have to live in a little shack

and I have lived in a sod-roofed shack when it rained harder inside than it did outside. I have seen this happen in a farm in Alberta-and my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer), my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and1 many others can testify to the same thing:	A man goes
into the field, looks the wheat over, and congratulates himself on the fine crop which he will harvest He says, "In a few days I shall cut that wheat and shall have food and sustenance for my family during the winter; I Shall be able to pay my debts". But within twenty-four hours-in less time than that- the sky clouds over, and before very long there is not one kernel of wheat left in that field; the whole crop is gone for the year. But these things are not told the people; they are told only half the truth.
Let me mention something else

and I invite the attention of my hon. friend for Yale (Mr. Stirling) to this. Here is depicted a beautiful scene in the Okanagan; there are beautiful trees, with lovely sweet-smelling blossoms; the apples are quite tempting. This is all perfectly true. But what is there that is not true about this picture? Well, I have a letter from a friend in Kelowna in which he tells me about his crop of McIntosh Reds, from which he expected a handsome return. But what happens? He tells me that he has received a red ink invoice, the significance of which my hon. friends from British Columbia will realize. What does it mean? It means that he is. out of pocket to the extent of 7 cents a box; in other words, for the privilege of growing those apples he incurs a deficit of 7 cents a box, so that he would have been better off had he left the apples on the trees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Swamped by the Amor cans.
2754	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Adshead


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I wish to impress upon
the Minister of Immigration the importance, in pamphlets issued by the department, of telling the people the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that is not done.


Robert Forke: I may tell my hon. friend
that I have received from Mr. Woods, the proprietor of a Calgary newspaper-I do not know which newspaper it is- a letter in which he informs me about an essay competition which he has been holding among the settlers in western Canada. He has received eighty essays in reply.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is a wonder he did not receive eight hundred.


Robert Forke: Perhaps the hon. member will wait until I am through. He writes telling me that he is delighted with the replies he has received, and the one fact that stands out prominently in every one of these replies is that these settlers were told the truth in England; they formed a fair conception of what they had to face when coming here. This fact appears in eighty different letters forwarded by people in the three thousand family scheme. When the soldier settlement estimates are under consideration I will read some extracts from these letters and my hon. friend will see that things are not being misrepresented all the time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not accuse the department of misrepresenting things all the time; but what I have stated I know to be true; I have given the facts. As it happened, I was in Kelowna this year when the delegation appeared in the western prairie provinces trying to obtain an increased tariff, and Mr. Woods was one of those who met them in Calgary. They were not all fruit growers who came there; there was a newspaper man, there was a real estate man, there was the proprietor or manager of a packing plant. These were the men who represented the farmers, and when they wanted an increased duty on their fruit they met the Calgary board of trade in the board of trade rooms. The farmers' convention was held in Calgary about the same time-two days afterwards. We said. "We want you to meet the farmers whom you want to induce to have a little extra tariff on their fruit." We asked them to stay only two days, but they would not do so; instead they published a statement that the whole of the west was in favour of an increased tariff on fruit.
Now let me proceed further, and I do not make these statements because I do not like the Minister of Immigration; I have a very great regard for him. He may bow sarcasti-
[Mr. Bennett.!
cally; I cannot help that. I believe him to be an honourable gentleman who is doing his best, but while I like and respect the Minister of Immigration I like Canada better, and I must deal with things as I find them. I want to say that it is not merely immigrants we want; it is people of the right character.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Conservatives.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: All Conservatives are not of the right character, any more than members of other parties. I am not concerned about this party fight but I am very much concerned about some of the people we are getting in Canada. Last fall, before I came to this house, Colonel Saunders, the police magistrate of Calgary, called me to his office and said: "Here is a very serious situation and I wish you would try to do something about it." I asked what he meant, and he said. "To-day three men were convicted of a certain crime, and these men are all recent immigrants who came to Calgary. These men were convicted of the very same crime in the country from which they came." The point I want to bring out is that we want not only men with brawn, muscle and money; we want men of character, not escaped convicts. I would not say that this condition is general, but I hold in my hand the report of the proceedings of the convention of the Chief Constables' Association of Canada, held in Toronto last August, and I desire to read a few statements contained therein. One of the papers read at that convention contained the following statements :
My attention has been drawn repeatedly of recent years to the number of ex-convicts who are coming to Canada from. . . whose names figure on our dockets and who help to fill our gaols.
I will not read the names of the countries, but hon. members may read this report at any time. The paper continues:
It will be a surprise to many people that criminals should come to Canada from these countries, because of all the nations that contribute to the immigration totals of Canada there is none more suitable by blood and training to assimilate with Canadian stock than the hardy people who hail from. . . Despite this, it is a fact that quite a large number of criminals are yearly arriving in Canada from there, and a remedy must be obtained for it.
Towards the end of the paper I find the following statement:
During the war years and for a few years following, the criminals from northern Europe did not cause the police departments much worry, there being no new arrivals to speak of.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Adshead
But with the influx commencing in 1925 they have been coming to the fore, and unless that influx is checked, Canada will continue to be a haven for the liberated criminal or the wanted one.
I might quote a number of paragraphs from this paper, but there is one statement in particular wihch seems to apply to the present situation:
As was said at the beginning, there is no attack on patriotic citizens and we can do with more of them, provided they do not send any more of their bad eggs as well. The Canadian Chief Constables' Association may be able, in a diplomatic way, to draw the attention of the Department of Immigration to a better way of selection than at present employed. The problem is a tremendous one and it would be quite unfair to attack the Department of Immigration for the oversight or cupidity of some shipping agents abroad.
I do not desire to read the whole paper, but it is worth reading and I draw it to the attention of hon. members of this house and of the Department of Immigration. A better supervision should be maintained of those who come to Canada; we should require something more than merely brawn, muscle or money.


Robert Forke: I do not think the hon.
member wants to be unfair, but perhaps he does not know that any immigrant convicted of a crime within one year or perhaps within five years of his arrival in Canada is immediately deported.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That may be so, but
the point is that they are deported after they have come here, and they should never be permitted to enter the country. If we knew the records of these immigrants and were able to find out their criminal records we would be able to stop them from entering the country.


Robert Forke: I am afraid I am delaying
my own estimates, but every hon. member knows the complaints which are made continually with regard to asking too many questions of intending immigrants in Great Britain That whole scheme is intended to prevent just this sort of thing.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There you have the statement made at that convention, and I would suggest that the minister read the entire proceedings.


Robert Forke: I believe this association
recommended that every man entering Canada should be finger-printed, and I want the house to imagine the feelings of any decent Englishman who may be required to have his finger-prints taken before he is allowed to enter the country.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There are other ways
of finding out these things, but in the short time at my disposal I am not going to discuss them. Surely the minister will not say that the entry of these men cannot be prevented; I do not want him to leave that impression upon the house, because there are other methods.


Robert Forke: Was not that the recommendation of the Chief Constables' Association?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not say that. The minister wants me to read the entire report, but I think I have put enough on Hansard now.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is this:	As
far as I am concerned and as far as those whom I represent are concerned, I do not believe the railway companies should have carte blanche to bring immigrants to Canada. Time and again in this house I have asked the minister with regard to immigrants from southeastern Europe, and he has told me in all sincerity and good faith that these men are coming to Canada to work on farms. The first year I was here I asked such a question; I did the same thing in my second year, and what happened? As soon as I reached home I found that the Czechoslovakians and others who had arrived in the city of Calgary were taking jobs at lower wages than were being paid other men, thus depriving Canadians of employment and lowering the standard of living. That sort of thing must stop. I do not know whether or not there will be any such trouble this year, but I would cancel the agreements with the railway companies under which they bring to Canada whatever people they desire.
Finally, I bc-lieve the provinces should be consulted with regard to the bringing of immigrants to Canada; indeed, I believe their consent should be obtained as well. At present no one is responsible for the immigrants enter ing this country; I have questioned immigrants who arrived in Calgary broke. WheB they were asked who brought them there they said, "the Department of Immigration." As far as I could find out, however, the province had nothing to say about it, yet we have to keep them or let them starve. I have on file a hospital bill for over SI,000 for the care of Czechoslovakians who have come to Calgary broke and ill, requiring hospital attention. We have had to pay for this care, but the province did not bring those immigrants there, and the Department of Immigration said there was no column in their ledger for that sort of thing. So we have had to pay the

Immigration Policy-Mr. Glen
bill; no one accepted any responsibility and we had to look after these people or let them die in the street. I say that responsibility for immigration to anj^ province should rest somewhere and the provinces should be consulted and assume at least a partial responsibility.
My hon. friend from North Vancouver has proposed an immigration scheme under which ready-made farms will be provided for these people. Why does he not go to the province of Ontario and find out whether the Ferguson government will settle the farms in northern Ontario under his scheme?
I have represented things as I have seen them and I do not do it from any motive of factious criticism. As I said before, I have done this because I wanted to discuss some of the abuses I see in the system. I do it not because I dislike the Minister of Immigration but because I like Canada much beter. I hope that what I have said will produce some good results and bring forth an immigration policy which will be satisfactory to Canada and to all concerned.
Mr. JAMES A. GLEN (Marquette): Mr. Speaker, last year I had occasion to take an active part in the discussion which took place in the immigration committee, and as I remember that discussion it dealt more or less largely with the kind of immigration we were receiving rather than the numbers. The question of British immigration was taken up, and I certainly expected that when this amendment came before the house we should find in it some reference to the question of British immigration. But far from that, we find no reference other than these words:
-that men and women have, during recent months, been setled on western crown lands at great distances from transportation, educational hospital and other necessary facilities, thereby making it almost impossible for them to achieve success and happiness in their new surroundings, and is of the opinion that such conditions can only be remedied by an immediate reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
Not a word about what happened during the last session of the house; nothing with regard to the fiscal policy which was then stated as a means whereby immigration could be increased; nothing as to means of holding immigrants once they come here. The hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) discussed only the conditions pertaining in a certain portion of Canada, and he applied that principle to the whole of Canada. These gentlemen who are presumed to be connected with the big business interests are in the habit of dealing with mass production, and I think the hon. member for North Vancouver has been

considering this question from the that viewpoint and has not given any consideration to the human element. Let me point out to the hon. member, and also to the house, that, any scheme in connection with immigration to be successful must be considered from the human standpoint. Ail the hon. member seemed to want was that millions of men should be placed upon farms, farms improved at the expense of the whole Dominion. I would certainly not be in accord with that proposition in its entirety without considerably more information than the hon. member gives. He did not take into consideration the tremendous cost which would have to be incurred by this government and by the country in providing railways, roads and the social relations which must be maintained in the gathering in of these immigrants. And above and beyond all he did not take into consideration, .as did the hon. member who has just taken bis seat, the question of the provincial relationship. I agree entirely with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) who states that no immigration policy can have any possible hope of success unless it is carried out with the consent and cooperation of the provincial governments. I do not think it is fair that the provincial governments should be saddled with a scheme without their being active oooperators in it.
I do not intend to deal at any great length with the amendment as introduced by the hon. member for North Vancouver, but I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). He gave us one of his characteristic, genial speeches which always seem to me to have somewhat of an edge in them. He referred, as I assume other speakers from the other side of the house will refer, to the question of protection as an aid to immigration. Members of the house will remember that that was the principal subject of the amendment moved last year by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban), namely, that unless we had the protection of industries in this country we could not hope to have any large immigration and the immigration could not be held here when it did come. The hon. member came to that policy towards the end of his speech and he said that we must have a proper policy, and then he mentioned the fiscal policy. If one considers the other statements made by the same honl. gentleman, one must realize that he means a fiscal policy of higher protection more in conformity with thait which is followed in the country to the south.
I should like to read a despatch taken from a paper which published an article with reference to a country somewhat similar to cur own in that it is a new British colony,

Immigration Policy-Mr. Glen
and therefore its problems are in some degree similar to ours-namely, Australia. Australia has adopted a definite policy with regard to immigration, a white policy, as we all know. They have had many inquiries with regard to immigrants coming into their country, and it would appear that they cannot get enough of them. In the Morning Post, published in London, England, the issue of April 20, 1929, there is an article to this effect:
Retarded Migration Industrial Conditions in Australia The report of the British economic mission to Australia, of which some details have already been published, was officially issued yesterday. The members were Sir Arthur Duckham, leader of the mission, Sir Hugo Hirst, Sir Ernest Clark, and Mr. Dougal Malcolm, none of whom bad previously visited Australia.
It is stated in the report that the problem of migration from Great Britain to Australia requires special attention. "We are faced with the fact''' the mission observed, "that while Australia's door remains wide open to any British subject -who cares to pass through it, the total numbers of assisted migrants have in recent years shown a sensible decline."
Figures are given showing that, whereas in 1923 the total number of requisitioned and nominated migrants was 26.511, the number had dropped in 1928 to 22,299.
This diminution is accounted for by the fiscal and financial system and the industrial conditions of Australia and the high level of prices resulting from them, which it is stated "may not be conducive to migration."
"We have felt much force in the oft-repeated complaint," the report adds, "that successive increases in the tariff, which affect prices and the cost of living, following upon or being followed by successive advances in the cost of labour as the result of decisions under the Arbitration Acts, have involved Australia in a vicious circle of ever-ascending costs and prices, and that this condition of affairs is crippling Australia's progress and her power of supporting increased population."
The mission points out that there lies no task before the Australian people more urgent than that of in some way breaking the vicious circle, and of bringing down costs of production as is being done in other industrial countries of the world, without lowering the standard of living of the workers as measured not by money but by real wages, which are the reward of labour in the form of goods and services.
I know that hon. members would expect me to miake that statemewt with regard to fiscal policy but I do not think they thought they would find in the Morning Post of London, England, that famous old family journal, a report which so strongly bears out the contention which I make, namely, that anything which increases the cost of production in a given country must necessarily mean a diminution in the number who come in to that country.
I do not believe that the hon. member for Fort William intended to convey a wrong
impression with regard to the circular which he had received from the Saskatchewan section of the United Farmers of Canada. I have a copy of that resolution; it reads as follows:
Whereas this convention is opposed to the present method of securing immigrants;
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to appoint a national commission of inquiry with just representation thereon from organized labour and organized agriculture, that shall study the problem of immigration and assimilation from every possible angle, such commission to conduct public hearings to make provision for the attendance of representative witnesses whose testimony shall be taken under oath, and to report to parliament the conclusion reached by it and make such recommendations as in its judgment it may deem proper,-.
This is the vital clause.
-and that pending the findings of such a commission, no further agreement shall be entered into by the federal government with the railroads after the present agreement has expired.
The meaning of that is that there was a considerable debate last year in the house and also in the committee with regard to the operations of the railway companies under that agreement. Everybody was satisfied that they had abused the provisions of that agreement, and the committee was unanimous that the agreement should be abolished or, at all events, modified. The last clause means that nothing should be done in order to bring in immigration without further inquiries being made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No further agreement
with the railways.


Mr. GLEN:: They say:
No further agreement shall be entered into by the federal government with the railroads after the present agreement has expired.
I wish to deal with some of the phases of immigration as the department is faced with it. I have been reading recently an article taken from the Queen's Quarterly, a very authoritative journal, and the figures given in it are somewhat startling and will probably be of interest to the house. In connection with the question of British immigration, as to which we have heard no word to-night, I wish to refer to some of the facts given in that article in order to show why we do not have from Great Britain the immigration that we expect and hope for.
Mr. ROSS- (Kingston):	Who is the
writer?


James Allison Glen: The writer is not mentioned


Robert Forke: Professor McArthur.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Glen


James Allison Glen: 
Herbert Bealey Adshead: No character test?


James Allison Glen: No. The British immigrant
requires to be medically examined before he leaves his country, but this is a convenience rather than a restriction.


Robert Forke: One of the questions is: Have you ever been convicted?


James Allison Glen: 
Mr. KELLNER:: By "regular fare" does
my hon. friend mean that anyone who was not coming heTe as a land settler would pay the regular fare or the special fare for settlers?


James Allison Glen: By regular fare I mean the
regular fare paid by anyone coming to this country.


Mr. JACOBS:: The special rate applies only to British people. None but the brave deserve the fare.


James Allison Glen: I do not wish to be understood that I am in favour of assisted passages because I agree with the hon. member for East Calgary that Canada is big enough and

Immigration Policy-Mr. Glen
good enough for people to come to without
being assisted at all.
I wish to state a few facts which seem to be necessary with regard to continental immigrants.
The immigrant from non-preferred countries is subject to a passport regulation and an occupational or a relationship test. He too must be medically examined before sailing. It has been stated or, at all events, there is an impression, that the medical examination and the facilities are much poorer in the British isles than they are on the continent. The reverse of this is true. In the British isles the intending immigrant has never to go more than a few miles to find a doctor by whom be can be examined. We have Canadian doctors at all the ports of sailing, and we have several hundreds of British doctors called roster doctors scattered all through the British isles who also examine. The Britisher may go at any time within four months of sailing to be examined. He does not need to break up his home or make any arrangements for sailing before being examined. If he passes the examination he is given a medical card which is valid for four months. He does not pay a cent for the medical examination whether it is done by Canadian doctors or by roster doctors. All this expense is borne by the government.
On the continent we have medical officers at Paris, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Danzig and Riga. Medical examination of continental immigrants is conducted only at these ports. The continental immigrant cannot go to a doctor in his own country before sailing and obtain the Canadian medical examination. He can get it only at the port of sailing. He must go to the port some days before sailing takes place in order to give plenty of time for the examination. The difference in the medical examination itself certainly does not favour the continental. If British migrants had to go through the same form of medical examination as central Europeans go through at the ports of sailing, I can assure you that we would have very little British
immigration. If the continental immigrants are not fit they are returned, so that if the immigrant has sold his place and has paid his fare for himself and his family to these ports, and then is found medically unfit, he can be turned right back at these ports.
In comparing non-preferred country immigration with British immigration it is necessary to call attention to the fact that the only immigrants admissible to Canada from nonpreferred countries are:-
1.	Agricultural families coming for land settlement.
2.	Farm labourers.
3.	Domestic servants, and the following
relatives who are admitted on the ground of relationship apart altogether from the question of occupation:	wives and unmarried
children, and parents and1 unmarried brothers and sisters, of immigrants legally domiciled in Canada who are in a position to receive and care for their relatives.
In conformity with the requirements of the committee on immigration last year it was thought that some reduction should be made in the non-preferred immigration coming to this country, and there has accordingly been a limitation made by the department, under the railway agreement, restricting the nonpreferred immigration to thirty per cent of the total movement of that class brought to _ Canada last year, which I am told amounts to about 11,000. This surely does not look like a preference in favour of the continental immigrant.
The total immigration figure for the fiscal year which ended the 31st March last was 167,722, made up of immigrants of the following origins:-
British	 58,880
United States	 30,560
Preferred countries	 29,579
All others	 48,703
I have a table showing the racial origins of all these immigrants, which has I think much interest for the house and the country, and if the house permits, I will place it on Hansard:

Immigration Policy-Mi. Glen
Statement showing how the Policy has worked out lor the past three Years as shown in the Racial Origin of Immigrants Statement of Immigration to Canada, by Origins, for the last Three Fiscal Years
-	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	Via Ocean Ports	From U.S.A.	Totals	Via Ocean Ports	From U.S.A.	Totals	Via Ocean Ports	From U.S.A.	TotalsBritish-	English	24,890	6,045	30,935	25,991	7,291	33,282	30,355	9,181	39,536Irish	9,187	2,366	11,553	8,756	2,966	11,722	9,199	3,767	12,966Scotch 	14,296	2,432	16,728	14,341	2,856	17,197	16,137	3,453	19,590Welsh	1,411	226	1,637	1,784	289	2,073	3,189	300	3,489Totals	49,784	11,069	60,853	50,872	13,402	64,274	58,880	16,701	75,581Northern European races-	Belgian	2,080	69	2,149	2,171	78	2,249	1,222	79	1,301Danish	2,030	225	2,255	3,835	284	4,119	3,311	351	3,662Dutch	1,674	568	2,242	1,928	537	2,465	1,599	741	2,340Finnish	5,180	88	5,268	4,765	112	4,877	3,651	100	3,751French	548	2,499	3,047	868	3,138	4,006	745	3,934	4,679German	12,540	2.681	15,221	12,032	3,190	15,222	12,806	3,803	16,609Icelandic	30	32	62	28	18	46	24	23	47Norwegian	3,384	1,255	4,639	4,327	1,330	5.657	2,434	1,419	3,853Swedish	2,628	693	3,321	3,134	757	3,891	3,297	874	4,171Swiss	568	101	669	614	134	748	490	156	646Totals	30,662	8,211	38,873	33,702	9,578	43,280	29,579	11,480	41,059Other races-	17	17	30	3	33	28	7	354	4	1	7	2Armenian	65	13	78	44	9	53	17	10	27Austrian	401	129	530	606	153	759	409	100	509Bohemian	22	85	107	7	67	74	8	86	94Bulgarian	126	2	128	249	2	251	282	2	2842	2	Croatian	1,085	2	1,087	902	5	907	990	24	1,014Czech	721	7	728	714	13	727	846	5	8511	160	2	62	56	5392	92	110	2	112	92Greek	340	45	385	583	72	655	736	70	806Hebrew	4,471	392	4,863	4,296	470	4,766	3,301	547	3,8483	3	4	4	3,301	165	3,466	3,593	190	3,783	1 064475	475	478	478	446Jugo-Slav	2,084	18	2,102	1,450	19	1,469	2,824	32	2,856Korean	1	1	Lettish	60	4	64	77	8	85	74	3	77Lithuanian	842	6	848	1,037	15	1,052	1,608	18	1,626Magyar	4,863	77	4,940	5,318	103	5,421	6,242	106	6,348Maltese	33	1	34	39	1	40	18	1	19Mexican	1	2	3	1	1	5	5	36	36	5Negro	51	241	292	88	237	325	96	280	37613	13	28	28	23	236	6	4	4	1	1Polish	6.505	199	6,704	6,733	254	6,987	8,269	246	8,515Portuguese	14	4	18	7	4	11	12	10	22Roumanian	292	38	330	237	38	275	284	48	332Russian	1,127	169	1,296	948	184	1.132	908	285	1,193Ruthenian	9,995	66	10,061	10,128	61	10,189	15,571	39	15,610Serbian	885	8	893	411	15	426	390	20	410Slovak	4,274	10	4,284	3,714	20	3,734	4,303	40	4,343Spanish	29	20	49	28	17	45	18	49	676	2	8	7Syrian	218	23	241	82	31	113	75	44	119Turkish	8	2	10	4	2	6	3	4	7Totals	42,520	1,745	44,265	42,016	2,027	44,043	48,703	2,379	51,082Grand totals	122,966	21,025	143,991	126,590	25,007	151,597	137,162	30,560	167,722
Immigration Policy-Mr. Glen
There are certain things that should be asked of those who are dealing with the immigration question. In view of the agitation that took place in this country during the last j'ear since the immigration committee sat, I think a statement should be made in this house as to what is being done and as to what we actually want in the matter of immigration.
I would ask what interests are most concerned with and clamouring for an open door policy in immigration? The answer is that most of the criticisms of any policy of restriction in any direction come directly or indirectly from interests which profit by the transport of immigrants.
What provinces are urging more immigration? The answer is, not one of the provinces is asking for more general immigration. I differ entirely from the hon. member for Fort WTilliam when he says that this whole country is asking for immigration; for I am satisfied that I speak for the three western provinces when I say that not a single organization there, except those who profit by the transportation of the immigrants, is asking for more immigrants. I know that some other hon. members will be able to corroborate what I say. It is an absolute fact that in the three prairie provinces there is no demand for immigrants except those who can come into this country with capital and, after landing, can maintain themselves.
Now, thirdly, if the labour situation in Canada is not being fairly met there will be an evident shortage of: (a) farm labour; (b) skilled and other industrial labour; (c) general unskilled labour. Is it true that an unhealthy shortage actually exists?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Allison Glen: The answer is that it is not
true. At the beginning of the present month. May, 1929, reports from western Canadla showed a surplus of labour in almost every centre of the west. At Prince Albert continental immigrants were offering to work as general labourers at $1 per day and board themselves.
It is not reasonable to expect that immigration should provide ample labour for the peak of the seasonal demand such as occurs annually in August and September, nor is it fair to hold that immigration should be reduced so as to prevent any unemployment at the other end of the scale during midwinter when seasonal labour is not in demand. It is necessary to avoid either of these extremes.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we recognize that Canada requires increased

population. But no one will deny that in this stage of our development the governing factor shall be quality and not quantity. I think our department recognizes this factor in insisting upon the examinations, mental and physical, and, if you will, moral, which have been in practice for some time.
The efforts of the department to stimulate and primarily encourage British immigration into this British dominion, the house and the country will support. But with immigration there must of necessity fee given instruction, care and assistance in the period of colonization, and, as I said at the outset, this work cannot be better performed than by the provinces and their units, the municipalities.
These are general principles, but I am satisfied of this, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has been said so far in the debate in condemnation of the policy of the Minister of Immigration during the past year. He has followed up entirely the recommendations made by the committee on immigration which sat last session, with one exception, the granting of homeseekers' fares from eastern to western Canada. I understand from the Passengers' Association that they did not think it was proper to make this concession. I think he has administered his department admirably, and he and his officials are entitled to a considerable amount of credit. I believe that but for the cry for purely British as against any other immigration we would have no amendment offered at the present time. Therefore I wish to give to the minister that meed of praise to which I think he is entitled for carrying out the recommendations of the immigration committee. I believe that the sound, sane policy pursued by the department to-day will be found to be the best for Canada in the long run.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: There is, Mr. Speaker, probably no question of a political nature that requires greater thought than this question of immigration. If we are going to carry on a policy of immigration, some valid reason should be given to the country. Yet I think there is no question so badly neglected by social workers, by statesmen and by the public generally than this great question.
To-day seemingly the government follows a policy which has been outlined by the directors of industries in our cities whose chief aim seems to be to direct great waves of human beings to this country for the sake of cheap labour, with the idea of exploiting their capabilities for labour and low living standards so that urban industry may be the better carried on.

Immigration Policy-Mr. Evans
Now, the material or monetary value of a multitude of human beings is perhaps the lowest conception we can have of the value of our immigrants. It is the very lowest conception of a movement on which we are spending millions of dollars each year to bring in people from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. Immigration is a failure as far as the increase in the values of land go, if that is the policy we have in mind. It might be a factor in increasing mass production in our cities, that is if mass production depends on the export of goods and the exploitation of the immigrants' ability to live on low wages, coupled with the fact that to-day all our export trade is carried on because the home consumer is paying prices for all manufactured goods that insures a profit over the whole output.
Agriculture can no longer carry the burden of urban industry, but that seems to be the reason to-day for the advocacy of a vigorous immigration policy. If that is what we are doing, then I say we are piling up wrath against the day of wrath, because artificiality in trade sooner or later must be reckoned with. To-day the United States government is face to face with the result of its own policy. The concentration of wealth has gone forward in that country with such acceleration as to render necessary direct aid to their millions of farmers. I want to warn our government that through a false, fiscal policy we have brought about an unstable condition in the industry of agriculture in Canada. That is, urban industry is fast destroying agricultural industries, and also it is destroying community life in our rural areas.
But to return again to land values. If that was the idea of immigration, I want to say it is the development of a community life which increases the value of land. I do not think we can afford lightly to pass over the facts as they face us to-day. First, let us be sure what is the purpose of this nation in spending many millions of dollars to bring in millions of human beings, whom, I am sure, under present conditions it will be impossible for us to absorb in our social and economic life, under our present fiscal system. It is a thorough insight into actual facts and forces with recognition of their bearing upon what makes life worth living that constitutes the true foundation of national life. Woodrow Wilson, not long before he died, said:
All this country needs,-
Speaking of the United States.
-is a new and sincere thought in politics coherently and distinctly uttered by men who are sure of their ground.
President Wilson was conscious that something was wrong, that something was needed in the national life of the United States to offset the selfish attitude of those who at that time not only completely controlled industry and credit-and credit particularly to the agriculturist-but controlled the government of the United States as well. Let me say that practically speaking Canadian urban industry has been built up on the same sort of selfishness, which is ruining the agricultural life of the country to-day and making necessary a policy of immigration. It is destructive of rural life because it drives the virile and what should be the contented farmer, or the farmer's sons and daughters, into the city. If we are going to carry on an active immigration policy for the one purpose of filling our vacant lands, then let us do first things first; and the first thing to do is to find out that farming can be carried on in such a way as to justify our placing on the land an immigrant with the average capital and ability which immigrants have. Those of us in this house who know most about farming can come to only one conclusion on this whole matter:	You cannot make farming pay to-day, either in eastern or in western Canada, unless it is carried on on a large scale. The farmer who is going to be successful in Canada must now be a real capitalist himself. This is why I say that to bring in working people to make homes on the land is a useless policy for the government to pursue; all it can do is to provide cheap labour for urban industry. These industries are controlled by a class of people who admit that they cannot live except by class privilege. They must therefore live by exploiting their workers and the rest of the population. Through high prices this policy has made it impossible to carry on and to compete in world's markets. But the farmer has to compete against the cheap labour of the whole world, and were agriculture to-day to be treated as other industries are treated, if it were possible to do so, you could not keep people off the land wherever there was a farm to be got. It is because of our false economic and fiscal policy that immigration proves to be so futile.
I come now to another point which is bound to create some concern and which the government is bound to take note of sooner or later if our immigrants are to be settled on the land to any great extent by educational and financial aid. I want to ask:	What
is to be done with the product? Will the government of this country have to undertake to guarantee a price in the market for agricultural produce if raised in much greater quantities than it is to-day? That has already
2764	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Evans
become necessary, seemingly, in the United States; direct aid there has become essential to the agriculturist. But why do we blindly follow the same policy, as we are doing, without considering the consequences that are bound to ensue? For many years past we have listened to the fatuous argument of the protected interests about creating a home market for agricultural products. This is perhaps the most stupid argument ever put forth to get the agriculturist population to vote for class privilege. Now before you put forth a plea for immigration, I repeat that farming cannot be carried on to-day without large capital. Let me ask this question of those who are urging a policy of immigration: Will they undertake to provide work for all who come? Will each undertake to provide employment for a given number? Since the country is guaranteeing profits to urban industries, will they take care of the labour which they advocate we should bring in from other countries? I should like, too, to hear what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has to say on this question. Will he say now how many workers are needed-workers whom Canada cannot supply at the present time? So far as I can find out, there was a surplus of labour in every city this spring throughout Canada. The argument put forth to-day is this: we need immigration to make Canada prosperous. The policy evidently is to fill up the vacant lands much further north than we have already done. Will the government, let. me ask, take the produce then from the farmer's hands at a profit and treat the agriculturist as we are now treating the capitalist, ensuring a dividend to all expended capital each year? And, indeed, not only invested capital but watered stock, on which the public is expected to pay dividends but which drives prices away out of line with world's markets. All our urban industries are waterlogged, and we give to the capitalist and the industrialist the privilege of fleecing the consumer to pay dividends on this watered stock.
There would be no need of an immigration policy to-day if the agriculturist were treated as he ought to be and the burden of urban industry .taken off hie back. Now last August -on August 14, 1928-there was a conference in Saskatoon among the United Farmers of Canada and the women's section of that institution, the Canadian Legion, the Saskatoon Trades and Labour Council and the rural municipalities of Saskatchewan, and they were alii unanimous in opposing the present immigrationi policy of this government. They urged in a resolution, passed unanimously there, that the government appoint a commission to inquire into the need or other-

wise of immigration, and that 'the commission report here before any policy of the kind be followed.
I want to deal with one or two things in connection with what the hon. member for Fart William (Mir. Manion) has said. He says that the question is of great importance and, further, that matters are not very satisfactorily carried on; in fact, he says that the government's policy has been a failure. He says that we have in Canada three and a half millions of square miles filled with natural resources which need to be developed. Yet he himself has repeatedly, even this session, advocated a policy that fleeces every inhabitant in that great area to provide a living for those who choose to live in a very small area in Quebec and Ontario and who admittedly must have special privilege before they can exist, not having the initiative to go into these great areas where these natural resources are to be found and to develop them and this -country, as the hon. member advocates.
Then the hon. member said we could take many more people of all kinds, and I was glad to hear him make that statement. In answer I want to say that what Canada needs most is a group of business men who will invest capital in industry without first linking up with the politicians as the one essential to going into business in Canada. We want a group of business men who can carry on by their own industry and ability without coming here to seek a special privilege which places an unjust burden upon the whole population. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Fort William put forth that argument.
The hon. member doubted the statement of the Minister of Immigration with regard to prosperity. I want to say that if the wealth in Canada to-day were properly distributed we all would be able to feel something of the prosperity which is said to be prevalent throughout the country. However, the class for which the hon. member speaks does not care to develop the natural resources of this country with their own earnings; they prefer to invest their money in foreign countries. Today we have invested in foreign countries over $1,700,000,000 of Canadian money, the earnings of our agriculturists and others, taken out of their pockets by high prices and high rates of interest, yet those who are concentrating our wealth in the hands of the few do not see fit to put their money back into the development of their own country. That is why we need a policy of immigration; that is why our people are leaving the land, and for one I wish to protest to-night against an immigra-

Immigration Policy-Mr. Maloney
tion policy under which the government brings in peasants from central Europe to take our places when, under present conditions, we cannot live on the land. These are facts we must face, and I want this house to face them squarely.
The hon. member spoke about sheep raising; he said there were twenty-six million sheep in Great Britain, and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) interjected that those sheep were raised in that small area without protection. The hon. member for Fort William replied that this was the case because England is the greatest cloth-producing country in the world. Why is that so? Why cannot Canada be, in proportion, an equally great cloth-producing country? The reason is that our false fiscal policy has driven the cost of manufacturing cloth entirely out of line with world prices and we are unable to compete in the markets of the world except by placing the burden upon the agriculturists and workers of this country. Our policy of trade penalties has so driven the cost of production out of line with world prices that we cannot compete in world markets. The labourer and the mechanic, through proper organization, to some extent have raised their wages to meet the high cost of living, but that is something the agriculturist cannot do; he must accept world prices. We have an object lesson today in the United States, where the farmers are calling for direct aid; and what about our own maritime provinces? Even they need direct aid to-day; they cannot live without such aid. Why is that necessary? It is necessary because the cost of manufacture and distribution is such that those who are now producing the greatest part of the national income, the agriculturists, fail to stay on the land and make their permanent homes there.
Again, the hon. member said he wants to keep our young people in our own country, but in my opinion before we can do that we must keep our own money here to develop our natural resources. You cannot take the money out of the pockets of the agriculturists through high prices and high rates of interest and invest it in foreign countries, and at the same time expect our young men to remain in Canada. Of those who have claimed for many years to have a monopoly of patriotism I would ask if they consider it a patriotic act to invest over $1,700,000,000 of Canadian money in foreign countries and then bring in from southern Europe immigrants who are accustomed to a lower standard of living and who work for lower wages. Is that reasonable? We must face first things first; let
those who advocate a policy of immigration be consistent in what they say and do.
The hon. member for Fort William also said that cheap countries are poor countries. Canada is not a cheap country, but I venture to say that the average worker in Canada to-day is no better off than the average worker in any other country, particularly countries such as Denmark and Holland. The United States is not a cheap country; it is not a country of low prices. We have been advised by every advocate of protection in this house to follow the policy of the United States, but to-day the farmers of that country are at their wits' end; they are at the end of their tether and thej can go no further until aid is given. Presi dent Hoover was elected on his promise a agricultural aid.
I merely desired to place some of these ideas before the house, particularly since the hon. member for Fort William did the same thing in a very passionate speech. I want to warn this house that a vigorous immigration policy is not suited to Canada at present. We have plenty of farmers and we appear to have plenty of workers, and unless the government will face this question of finding markets and finding work for all immigrants I think we should be very careful of the class and quantity of people we bring to this country.


Martin James Maloney: I should like to say a few words in connection with this very important matter, but before doing so I might mention that I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). In that connection I might report a rumour which I am sure will bring joy to the heart of the Minister of Immigration and at the same time consternation to the hearts of many hon. gentlemen from the western provinces who for some years have stood solidly behind the government. The rumour is that my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is about to be raised to the dignity of a senatorship and that his successor in the cabinet as Minister of Immigration will be the hon. member for Marquette.


An hon. MEMBER:: Either of them would be good.


Martin James Maloney: If that is the intention of the government, I do not think the selection will secure for this country an adequate supply of immigrants, and that is very unfortunate indeed. After hearing the hon. member for Marquette I was struck bv the fact that you

Immigration Policy-Mr. Maloney
could not tell whether he favoured bringing immigrants into the country or keeping them out. There is one thing I will say for him, he was honest in many of his declarations. He stated that in various sections of western Canada there were men who were willing and ready to work for a dollar a day and board themselves. If that is the fact, can that be considered as a strong advertisement to induce the outsider to come here and seek a home in Canada? What a sad commentary on the efficiency of the present government!
The question of immigration has been dormant throughout this present session; nothing has been heard of it until to-day. This seems all the more significant in view of the fact that last session it was perhaps the most important of all topics discussed by the house. It was a topic which engaged the attention of a very important committee of members of the House of Commons, men who sat day after day, week after week, taking evidence from every part of the country. They had before them men of science, men of everyday walks of life, men who are at the head of our great industrial organizations and transportation systems. They all told their story and it was all taken down. Their evidence was aimed at the one point, that increased immigration would be the salvation of this country. What has become of the labours of that committee? All this evidence has been pigeon-holed and carefully hidden away in some obscure government office, resting side by side with many other abortions which may be laid at the door of the present government. What a sad disappointment it is to those people of Canada who had the high hope, after hearing of the extensive investigations of that committee, that this question of immigration was about to be definitely settled for all time to come. What a disappointment there must be in the hearts of the people of Canada when they consider the attitude of the government in connection with that matter.
How different is the attitude of the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae). He brings forth a bold, advanced scheme, remembering as he does that we in this country have stupendous resources as well as staggering liabilities. The hon. member realizes that we require men and women of the right type to assist us in developing and exploiting those resources but who will be willing to share the liabilities with us. Realizing that fact, the hon. member presented a bold and advanced plan for the colonizing of this country. Right at this point I beg to extend to him my very sincere congratulations on the

magnificent- effort which he put forth this afternoon. He spoke because of personal contacts; he depicted the possibilities of that section as perhaps few members of this house would be able to do. He had confidence in his argument, and I for one see much of merit in what he had to say because I believe his project would solve many of the difficulties now confronting the people of Canada in the matter not only of provision for future immigrants but also of providing occupations for those who are now here.
I believe that people of the right type, no matter where they come from, are the most desirable for Canada at the present time. There is one phase which strikes me more forcibly than any other in connection with the problem of immigration, and that is the bringing back to this country of those of our sons and daughters who are to-day living outside of Canada and earning a living away from home. The most important aspect of the whole immigration question is that which has to do with the repatriation of our fellow Canadians who are now living in the United States. Our population to-day is estimated at about 9,500,000. Consider the fact that at least half as many more are residing outside of Canada; almost 5,000,000 Canadian people are to-day living in the United States. That is a very pathetic condition. Our every effort should be bent in endeavouring to recover those who have gone from our shores, but up to the present we see no evidence of any improvement so far as that phase of the question is concerned. It is true that the Minister of Immigration quoted figures; it is true that he haggled for two or three minutes on the figures of some 25,000 Americans who had come here and some 30,000 Canadians who had returned. They came back, but for a visit only. More than half of those he mentioned stayed here for two or three weeks with the old people at home and then returned to the United States with a brother or sister for whom they had procured employment. During the last seven years we have lost 240,000 more than our total immigration for the same period. During that period 962,000 immigrants entered Canada; in other words, we lost 1,200,000 people in the last seven years. Where did they go to? In looking over a monograph issued by the Department of Commerce of the United States I find that French-Cana-dians comprise 33.1 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of Maine; they comprise 42 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of New Hampshire; and they comprise 31.8 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state

Immigration Policy-Mr. Maloney
of Vermont. The French-Canadians are our greatest colonizers, and we have allowed them to escape from Canada, their native home, to settle in a foreign land. Why should that be? These men and women should be back here in Canada and to that end our every effort should be bent. The same thing applies to Canadians who are not of French extraction. That class of Canadians comprise 35.9 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of Maine, 15.3 per cent of the foreign-bom white population of the state of New Hampshire, and 24 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of Vermont. Take the totals: Canadians as a whole comprise 69 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of Maine, 57.3 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of New Hampshire, and 55.8 per cent of the foreign-born white population of the state of Vermont.
If we go farther west we find that the border states from New York right through to the Pacific coast are filled with our sons and daughters. That is a pathetic situation. Why should it exist? It has been said here to-day, and it has been said before, that the attraction of the larger for the smaller body may have something to do with the situation. In other words, the force of gravity comes into operation, but for the benefit of those who reason in that way I would say that there is another physical law, another physical force greater even in its application, its might, than is the great force of gravity. I refer to the force of cohesion, that force which binds and holds together the various units of any body. The Canadians who are now in the United States are bound, to us by that power of cohesion. They cherish the land of their birth; the years of their childhood days are ever before them. They are our own flesh, blood and bone; why should we not make every effort to have them return?
It is said that population depends greatly on subsistence; that wherever we have the most food suitable for sustaining the human race, there we find the greatest congregations of people. It is said that the people in those sections are happy in proportion to the quantity of food which a day's labour will procure. If that be a correct statement, why should Canada not be filled from end to end with the very best type of citizens selected from all over the world? Here we have a country independent economically of the rest of the whole, wide world; no other country on the face of the earth is more independent economically than is the great Dominion of Canada. We can, if we so desire, live within 78394-176
ourselves for all time; we do not have to depend for our existence on any other nation, and yet when the Hawley-Smoot proposals were laid before the congress of the United States a short time ago, the comments made thereon by some of our citizens were somewhat perturbing. We had for example our good Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), when he heard the news of what the proposals meant to the people of Canada, reported by the newspapers as shouting: "Good cheer, we shall survive." Of course we shall survive. We shall survive in spite of the Hawley-Smoot proposals. We shall survive in spite of the inaction of the government in the matter. Let me say that the worm will turn some day; the farmer of Canada who is to-day the under-dog will, just as soon as there is a change of government in this country, come into the position which is his, namely, a position of prosperity. The minister must feel that, -had our friends to the south gone further and imposed a little extra tariff in addition to that which they have proposed, the}r would have crushed us out of existence; that we are dependent on them almost completely. Has it come to this, that a country situated and endowed as ours is to feel that it is dependent on any foreign power? Has it come to this, that we, free men of Canada, are compelled to turn the other cheek and say to those of our competitors who see fit to impose trade barriers against us: If you do not increase the tariff too greatly, we shall survive. Such an attitude of mind on the part of our statesmen is sufficient to make any Canadian's red blood boil. I submit that is a condition which should be remedied by the government of this country.
The United States of America had their immigration problem just as we have ours. In 1810 the population of the United States was 8,000,000. In 1812 a war which broke out forced that nation to fall back on their own resources and to manufacture that which they needed for themselves. The result was a tremendous advance in industry in that country, and with that advance and growth of industry there occurred an accompanying development and opening up of new lands. It is a positive fact that during almost three-quarters of the last century the United States of America absorbed more than 30,000,000 unassisted immigrants, men, women and children. Why? Because the immigrants followed prosperity; with the industrial and agricultural development which took place after the war of 1812, the trend of immigration could not be stopped. The resuit was that in a comparatively brief period more than 30,000,000 people came into that country

2768	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Maloney
unassisted. There is in this a very striking lesson for our own country. The population of Canada to-day compares wiith that of the United States of a century ago. We have in our possession to-day resources which perhaps they did not have in those days, resources which are superior in many respects to those possessed by the United States. We must do what the United States did after the war of 1812, namely, manufacture our own raw products in our own country and import raw materials to manufacture for our own use as required instead of exporting to the United States and other foreign countries hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of raw or semi-raw products to be manufactured abroad, bringing work, comfort and happiness to men and women of a foreign nation rather than our own. Let us manufacture these products at home: let us give that work to the boys and girls of this country; let us increase our population as the United States did theirs after 1812, and then Canada will not require any government assistance in regard to immigration. If conditions such as these were brought about, among the first to return to Canada would be many of the 5,000,000 Canadians who are to-day south of the line, men and women who can never forget the old home ties, who are looking longingly to Canada, their home, awaiting an opportunity to come back and better themselves.
This government has never made an honest effort to aid immigration; in fact, on the other hand, it has apparently done what it could, without too much publicity about it, to impede immigration. The Minister of Immigration and his prospective successor spoke in the house this afternoon and evening, and yet we cannot honestly say whether they are prepared to receive immigration or whether they are anxious to keep it out. They are marking time. That is not what we desire in Canada. As a matter of fact, the whole history of this government has been against bringing immigrants to Canada. I notice in the Hansard of March 20, 1923, a statement quoted that was made by the Minister of the Interior. He said:
What is the use of bringing people to this country if they cannot exist?
That was a fine advertisement for this great Dominion of Canada, coming from the lips of an important member of the government. If he held those views in 1923, they must of necessity be greatly accentuated at the present time because conditions in Canada to-day are less favourable for the ordinary individual than they were in 1923. Take agriculture, for instance. The position of the farmer in this country is not an enviable one.

Let me read a short extract from a speech delivered by Captain John D. Cameron, of the Canadian Pacific Railway colonization department. Speaking a few weeks ago in this city he said:
He had recently surveyed old Ontario and he was amazed to find rural figures in many places now stood lower than they did before confederation. The rural population of Oxford county was 40.969 before confederation, and now was only 23,342.
That is in Oxford county, the garden of the great province of Ontario. If the farming population of the ooutnity of Oxford has become depleted to that extent, surely the government should take heed and do something to remedy the conditions. What has the government done to encourage the farmer? What has it done to encourage the young men and the young women to stay on the farm? What has it done to make farming more profitable and more pleasant? Has it done a solitary thing to aid the farmers? It did do one thing. By order in council, passed without the sanction of parliament and without the consent of the people, the government entered into an agreement with New Zealand under which thirty million pounds of New Zealand butter were brought in last year, thousands of tons of beef and lamb, and at the same time millions and millions of dozens of eggs were allowed to come in from the United States and China, all of which were thrown on the open markets of this country to come into competition with the produce of the Canadian farmer. Is it any wonder that the rural population of the great county of Oxford has become rapidly depleted, as shown by the statement of Captain Cameron? The farmer who works from early [DOT]morning till late at night will, I am sure, appreciate the fact that the government has allowed one of his competitors seven thousand miles away from here to ship in his produce almost free of duty-the very products that the Canadian farmer is endeavouring to supply.
If the scheme proposed by my hon. friend for North Vancouver should go into effect it would relieve the situation to a considerable extent. It would, in the first place, apply to our Canadians, something which no scheme brought forward by this government up to the present time has done. It would give the farmer and the farmer's sons in eastern Canada and in western Canada the right to take advantage of the privileges which this scheme offers. It would give to our Canadian boys in the United States who are to-day anxious to get home an opportunity to return and start life on the farm in this great western

Immigration Policy-Mr. Rowe
country. It would relieve the unemployment situation to a great extent. It would repatriate many of our citizens. It would bring happiness to a great many of the citizens of this country.
If we want immigration we must improve conditions. We must make Canada a country fit to live in, a country which will attract the better elements from all over the world. To do that we must have a complete change of front on the part of our government.
In the first place, to be prosperous and happy and to attract immigrants to our shores, we must manufacture our raw materials at home. We must bring in raw materials to manufacture for our own purposes where required. We must preserve the home market for our farmers; we must preserve the home market for our industrialists. We must make Canada the greatest producing nation on earth, and when we have accomplished that let us see to it that markets are found throughout the length and breadth of the world. When these conditions are brought about Canada will have no need of a minister of immigration and no need of an immigration policy, for immigration will flow to us, unsolicited, from all sides.


Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the constructive suggestions that have been offered from this side of the house and the criticism that has been made of the Department of Immigration, I feel that I must confine my observations to a very limited time.
Probably one of the most fundamental problems affecting the growth of a young country is that which relates to immigration. The keen interest that the Canadian people have taken in this great problem is indicated by the comment and continued criticism 'of the public press, the churches, societies of various kinds, organized business interests- not the least among which have been the two great transportation systems in Canada-as well as criticism by the opposition party which sits to your left, Mr. Speaker, in this house. We have indeed a real problem on our hands. Lack of interest in it has been shown by the inactivity, dire neglect, and stagnant attitude of the present administration. Since they came into power they have talked of unbounded prosperity. They have received proposals of assistance from the British government, which has set aside $225,000,000 to assist the emigration of the unemployed in Great Britain to the British dominions. During all these years the government of Canada has been jostling about this Department of Immigration, letting 78594-1761
it grow daily weaker and weaker like an illegitimate child crying for adoption. In 1922, when this government came into power, immigration and colonization was thrown into the Department of the Interior, under the careful management of the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). In 1924-25, the department for a while was taken care of by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Afterwards it was taken care of for a time by the Hon. Mr. Low, and later, in 1925, just prior to the election, it was loaned for a time to the Hon. Mr. Gordon, the then member for West Peterborough, afterwards sadly defeated in that riding. In 1926 it was again thrown into a corner of the Department of the Interior, under the tender care of the present Minister of the Interior. In 1926, when this great ship of state set out to sea, the department was used as a political lifebuoy to pick up the then drifting captain of the Progressive boat. We find that he had with him in these stormy waters the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) as first mate.


Robert Forke: The hon. gentleman has
missed one minister of immigration.


Ernest Lapointe: A minister for two
months.


William Earl Rowe: He was in just as long as
the Hon. Mr. Gordon, in fact a little longer. I thought probably the Minister of Immigration was going to deny that the member for Lisgar was his first mate in the old Progressive boat. He has drawn my attention to another feature. I have been looking through this little red book which gives a record of the members of this house. I find that the Hon. Mr. Forke is listed here as a Progressive. Then I recall those days when the right hon. Prime Minister, in answer to a question by the then leader of the opposition as to what kind of cabinet he was going to form, stated emphatically across the floor: No member will join my cabinet unless he is a straight out-and-out Liberal. This book was printed in 1929-this year. I pause for a moment to ask the Minister of Immigration whether he sits in this house as a Liberal-Progressive or as a Liberal.


Robert Forke: I was nominated in the city of Brandon by a Liberal convention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Following the Progressive convention.


Ernest Lapointe: A good combination.


William Earl Rowe: Then I will pass this book
across to the Minister of Immigration for revision. I well remember the occasion when

Immigration Policy-Mr. Rowe
in the city of Toronto he declared himself in these words: I am not only a Progressive, I am an advanced Liberal. So I could scarcely understand how he was elected as a Liberal-Progressive in the last election. However, this red book shows that he was elected a Progressive in September 1926, and on November 2, 19216, he was nominated as a Lilberal-Progres^ give candidate and reelected. Apparently there are grave errors in this red book. I have no doubt that his friends on this side of the house who followed him so loyally through those years will be satisfied with his declaration that he no longer wishes to bear their name.
While, Mr. Speaker, we have had no lack of schemes proposed in the immigration department, those schemes have never been put into execution. Since this government came into power we have had eight speeches from the throne enunciating six different policies on immigration; in two years there was no policy set forth. In 1922 the speech from the throne contained this pronouncement: We must have a renewal of effort on the part of the Immigration department in order to bring in an increased number of immigrants. In 1923 the speech from the throne contained this statement: We must have a wide expansion, a new publicity program, a program to reach throughout the empire and also into the United States and other foreign countries. In 1924 there were two or three changes of ministers and no policy. In 1925 the speech from the throne contained another pronouncement on immigration. In that year we on this side of the house recall the manufacture of that famous phrase "The high cost cf living". It *was discovered that the only relief for this condition was greater production, and that the only way to bring this about was to increase the flow of immigration. Therefore the government decided that efforts must be made to increase immigration to bring about that greater production', and incidentally to extend the settlement of crown lands, with special consideration of the Peace River district. In 1926 the speech from the throne stated that in view of the favourable conditions prevailing in the Dominion the government had formed a new and comprehensive immigration, policy, and as a eorolliary the government proposed a broad repatriation scheme by way of rural credits 'and other benefits to the country districts'. In 1927, although six new ministers had been appointed since 1921, the then holder of the portfolio started the year without any policy at all. But in 1928 another new policy was announced. The speech from the throne stated: We must have cooperation 
with the different provinces, we must pass the responsibility on to the provincial authorities, and we are now going to make a definite attempt to bring in British youths under a special settlement scheme. In the speech from the throne this session, in pursuance of the recommendations of the committee on immigration and colonization, we were to enter into an arrangement with the different provinces to bring to Canada juvenile immigrants who were to be strictly selected for their adaptability as settlers with a view to promoting general prosperity throughout the Dominion.
Now, after all this publicity, after six years with programs announced and two years without any at all, we find the Minister of Immigration still drifting peacefully on the quiet waters of government inactivity. Today we realize that the government of Canada has practically no immigration policy. It is not much wonder that through all this confusion we have the present stagnation in immigration. Illuminating figures have been placed on Hansard to-night. Everyone throughout the Dominion realizes that the flow of immigration has been changed almost to a flow of emigration; tens of thousands of our best sons and daughters have left their native land for the United States. I venture to say that in the New England states to-day there are almost as many French Canadians as there are, Mr. Speaker, in your native province. We have heard supporters of the government state to-night that they do not want any more immigration. They are prepared to concede that Canada needs a few more of the right class, a few "hand-picked" immigrants. I submit that while they are handpicking those immigrants the department will have no time for any other activities. In fact the real work of the department will stagnate as usual.
On motion of Mr. Rowe the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 23, 1929