[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1933, was presented iby Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table of the house orders in council P.C. 905 and 906, passed under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: On the orders of the day I would ask permission to reply to an inquiry made last evening by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). There remain under the Canada Temperance Act the following districts: the city of Thetford Mines, Quebec, the district of Manitoulin, Ontario, and Lisgar and Marquette in Manitoba.



CANADA POWER AND PAPER CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In relation to certain matters mentioned last evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), with regard to the Canada Power and Paper Corporation, the fact is-I was quite confident of it last night, but did not wish to rely entirely upon my memory-that this company was incorporated under the laws of the

Supply-Immigra tion
province of Quebec. It is true that applications were made to the Secretary of State for an inquiry with respect to that company, and one of the applications contained copies of the Winnipeg Free Press from which extracts were read last evening. Representations were made direct to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State through the Department of Justice by the firm of Hunt, Auld & Wafburton, of Winnipeg. Mr. Thomas A. Hunt subscribed the letter, to which I replied as follows:
It is impossible for me to order an investigation of the Canada Power and Paper Corporation, because it is a Quebec incorporation and does not come within the terms of section 120 of the Companies Act, Canada.
Subsequently representations were made to the Prime Minister to the same effect, and these were referred to me for action. I find that on September 26, 1931, I wrote the Prime Minister as follows:
My Dear Prime Minister:
I have received applications for an investigation, under section 120 of the Companies Act of Canada, into the business and affairs of Canada Power and Paper Corporation, which was one of the companies recently merged under the auspices of the Dunning committee into Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited.
I have declined the request for an investigation into Canada Power and Paper Corporation because I have ascertained that this company was not incorporated under the Dominion Companies Act, but was incorporated on January 16, 1928, under the laws of the province of Quebec.
As you spoke to me recently about a prospective investigation of the above mentioned company, I thought you would be interested in knowing the grounds of my decision.



PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) or some other member of the government whether a resolution has been received from the provincial government of Prince Edward Island asking for assistance in the purchase of fertilizer.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I believe a resolution to that effect has been received but I was unable to look up the details last night. I will be glad to look into the matter and give my hon. friend the information at the next sitting.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Short in the chair.
Salaries and contingencies, $290,766.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would like to ask the minister one question. Could my hon. friend tell us whether the subject of migration and settlement within the British Empire will be one of the matters taken up at the forthcoming Imperial conference?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That hardly comes within the scope of this item, but I imagine matters of that character will be discussed, though to what extent or from what angle I am not prepared to indicate at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand it, then, the minister's reply is to the effect that he imagines this may come up but at the present time he cannot say.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Last night the
minister was giving us some information about the back to the land movement, although I am not sure that most of us got a very clear idea of the extent of that movement or of just where the people were being placed. Another aspect to the question arises in connection with the proposal made by some of the western provinces to establish people on the land in connection with unemployment relief. To-day I received a wire from Winnipeg, signed by W. L. Parrish, chairman of the commission, reading as follows:
We urgently request immediate action on back to the land scheme approved by city council and provincial government and set out in Mr. Glubb's letter to Mr. Gordon dated March 16th and referred to in Clubb's letter-of April 16th. Opportune time to start scheme rapidly passing away. Please do your utmost with Prime Minister and Minister of Immigration. Applicants and public very restless at delay. Please wire reply.
This back to the land scheme as proposed in M innipeg and endorsed by the province and the city council has been a matter of negotiation for some time, and if these people are to go out on the land they should be there at once; otherwise it will be impossible for them to do any seeding this year. I have not been personally in close touch with the details of the movement, but I know that the minister has recently had an interview with Mr. Clubb, and we should like to have some very definite information as to whether the government is going to fall in line.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The subject referred to by the hon. member scarcely comes under the vote of civil government, but since it has been brought up I might as well discuss it now. Many schemes, all founded on the assump-
226S
Supply-Immigration

tion that they will be state-aided with money have been put forward by municipalities and provinces and societies, but the government has not, up to the present time, given any encouragement to state-aided land settlement -that is, any new state-aided land settlement. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec and probably some other provinces have taken steps towards provineially-aided land settlement, but so far as this government is concerned it has not indicated to anyone that it is prepared to embark upon state-aided colonization.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then it is quite
definite that no help may be expected in the immediate future from this government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When the hon. member
says no help-


James Shaver Woodsworth: No financial help,
I mean.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Exactly. Possibly the
future may disclose where state-aided colonization might be advisable and necessary, but at the moment the government is not prepared to embark upon a scheme of that character.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just to be very
definite, " at the moment " implies that there will be nothing forthcoming in time for this spring's operations.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The minister last night, I do not think wilfully, misrepresented what I said on the subject now under discussion. I said I was absolutely in favour of any movement that would help the back to the land scheme. I repeat, I am absolutely in favour of such a movement and, going further, I am in favour of any movement that will keep the rural population on the land at the present time. I believe that the minister last year said that a provincial conference was going to be held in Winnipeg. At any rate, whether that statement was made by the minister himself or whether it appeared in some of the newspapers, I gathered the impression that it was the intention of the department to hold a conference in the city of Winnipeg where all the provincial governments would be represented and in which a thorough discussion of the back to the land movement would take place. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no such conference has yet been held. I want to make myself quite clear on this question. It seems to me that the movement, or the slogan, or the policy of the department, whatever you choose to call it,

does not go far enough. As I said last evening, unless the people you place on the land receive a certain amount of help from the government, it will be impossible for them to remain there. On the contrary, it will simply aggravate a situation which is bad enough at the present time. This applies more particularly to the northern section of Ontario. When we speak of putting people back on the land, we have not in mind the prairie lands, because even in the three prairie provinces there is very little prairie land left for settlement, most of the land available being timbered land. The minister knows that to-day there is no market to be had for the lumber, timber, and pulpwood which would be the first crop from such land. This is particularly true of Ontario, for the people cannot even give away the pulpwood they have been cutting during the last two or three years. So that unless the people who are placed on the land at the present time, especially in the wooded areas, receive a degree of help for the first year, at any rate, the situation will be very serious indeed. In northern Ontario there is plenty of land that could be taken up even in the settled parts around New Liskeard, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing, Matheson and the Porcupine district, that are to-day partly unoccupied. I am not going to criticize the past policies of any provincial government, but the fact is that the settlers in those districts, not having been able to get any assistance at the initial stage of settlement, could not graduate from the settler to the farmer class. The same principle applies at the present time. If you take people from the city, even people with some money, they will not be able to carry on unless they get help either from the federal or from the provincial government. Some people may be under the impression that if you place more settlers on the land they will not have a market for their produce. So far as northern Ontario is concerned, this argument does not hold, for the very good reason that the people are not now able, nor for a good many years to come will they be able, to produce enough for the requirements of the domestic market around Cobalt, Kapuskasing, Iroquois Falls, Kirkland Lake and the Porcupine district. .And the same is true of Sudbury and other districts in the southern section of northern Ontario. So that on that score there is no cause for concern; we could have thousands of additional settlers in northern Ontario and there would be no danger from the point of view of disposing of farm products.
I wish to read here a brief statement issued by Mr. W. J. Price in January, 1932, a report

Supply-Immigration
on marketing conditions in northern Ontario, submitted to the Ontario marketing board:
An examination of these tables, especially the summary, reveals that a policy of land settlement may be followed with vigour, without fear of bringing about overproduction in such essential food products as beef, pork, lamb, butter, eggs, poultry or vegetables. Also it reveals a market sufficiently extensive that for many years to come will be well worth studying and cultivating both by the growers of northern Ontario and of old Ontario as well, the latter particularly as regards those lines which nature has orda'ined never to be produced commercially in the territory.
I have suggested that such a scheme as the back to the land movement would be physically impossible unless the settlers were bonused in the clearing of the land, and I believe that the provincial government is to-day fully aware of the situation; so that this would be the time for the federal government, through the Department of Colonization, to initiate such a movement.
I wish now to read from a short article which appeared in the Porcupine Advance of March 31, 1932:
Recommends bonus for settlers here.
Plans submitted to Ontario legislature would give settlers a bonus for acreage cleared.
A despatch from Toronto last week says that the "back to the land movement" in Ontario would receive added impetus if a series of recommendations formulated last week by a sub-committee are adopted by the agriculture and colonization committee of the Ontario legislature and approved by the house.
The report presented to the main committee recommended:
1.	Bonusing of settlers for acreage cleared and seeded.
2.	Immediate survey of vacant farms in Ontario.
3.	Publication of the results of the survey in Canada and Great Britain.
4.	Eventual establishment of a distinct department of colonization under a deputy minister.
5.	Establishment of "shacks" in farming districts where prospective settlers would live while preparing the land.
6.	The doubling of Ontario's cultivated acreage by a concentrated back to the land movement.
Has Held Inquiry
Under the chairmanship of Dr. Paul Poisson, Conservative, North Essex, the sub-committee has held meetings throughout the present session of the legislature. During that time it has listened to various officials of the agricultural board and settlers loan commission.
Various speakers have testified as to the seriousness of intention of prospective settlers and the question of vacant farms has been prominent. Many farms along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway had been abandoned by settlers, who had gone to cities, and were now trying to return. Without some form of government aid, it was felt they would be unable to do so. Even in old Ontario there were hundreds of improved or partly improved farms which could be obtained cheaply, the sub-committee's report pointed out.
This brings me again to the comment I made a few moments ago. A provincial conference should be held for the discussion of this back to the land movement. The western provinces have been given their natural resources and any settlement schemes which they inaugurate are under their own jurisdiction, but I believe this government should hold a conference on this matter as soon as possible to avoid conflict with provincial regulations. This matter may come under provincial jurisdiction but we cannot get away from the fact that assistance will have to be given by this government to certain sections of the country. I am sure that the suggestion to maintain our present rural population and keep the people on the land will receive the support of every section of this committee.
The minister represents to a large extent a settlers' riding and should appreciate the necessity for some bonusing system for land cleared. As I said last evening, this matter should be out of the realm of politics but statements by the minister and his department have appeared in different Conservative papers in Montreal, which interpreted these statements in a political way. It has been said that the premier of the province of Quebec is not playing the game with the farmers and settlers. I hold no brief for that province, but I contend that the Quebec scheme is the best there is in Canada. If a similar scheme was in effect for northern Ontario there would be no unemployment and distress among the settlers. The best thing which could happen this year would be for the province of Ontario to inaugurate the bonus scheme put in effect by the province of Quebec. I make this statement in order to correct the impression given by a certain section of the press-particularly Conservative papers-which has been making political capital out of the statements issued by the department. This question has become political because of the interpretations of the statements issued by the department to the effect that a wonderful way has been found to solve unemployment in the cities. I maintain that the present scheme does not go far enough, and the statement of the minister that it is being put into effect without any expenditure by the federal government cannot be accepted in its entirety. I repeat the statement I made last evening: unless this government is willing to initiate a bonus system for the clearing of land, unless it is willing to assist settlers at the primary stages of settlement, although the scheme may not be doomed entirely to failure, it will not attain the ends for which it was inaugurated. I have before me a letter written by Mr. R. Wallace, of Kingston, dealing with that matter which reads in part as follows:
Supply-Immigration

Some time ago I read an account of an experiment in North Carolina, perhaps Greensboro, where forty families were taken out of the bread lines last spring and put on small holdings of vacant land. Houses were fixed up for them by repairs and otherwise, seeds and small tools were supplied, and last fall every one of them had made good, having more than enough produce to carry them through the winter, and all were happy in their independence.
The same success could be obtained in Canada if the minister would give assistance to the settlers at the initial stage of settlement. Northern Ontario does not begrudge the millions of dollars given to the west for wheat bonuses; northern Ontario does not begrudge the bonuses given to the maritime provinces in connection with freight rates, but it does feel that some assistance should be given this spring to its settlers. These men have courage and determination, they want to retain their holdings, but unless assistance is provided it will be physically impossible for them to sow their land this spring. I do not blame the government particularly for this, it is due to certain conditions which have arisen, but these men want to be able to cultivate the land they have cleared during the last two years, they want to be able to put seed in the land they cleared and ploughed last fall, and this will be impossible unless assistance is given.
Only a few days ago I had an interview with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), and he told me that the government could not interfere in this matter. However, the government will have to interfere in northern Ontario. The elevators of the west are overflowing with grain while only a few hundred miles distant settlers find it impossible to obtain seed. The expenditure of half a million dollars would be sufficient to supply seed to the settlers of northern Ontario. It is true that in the past the provincial government has been supplying seed grain at cost, but that government has a regulation to the effect that unless the grain supplied during the previous year is paid for, a settler cannot obtain a new supply. I contend it is within the jurisdiction of this government to provide the remedy for this situation. I have faith in the minister, knowing the situation as well as I do myself, and I feel confident that he will find a way to make it possible for the settlers of northern Ontario to obtain seed in order to make their holdings productive.
I thank the committee for the attention it has given to me, especially as I know it is not a popular thing for an hon. member to get up and make a speech at this period in the session. But there are occasions when

an hon. member must speak, and that is the reason why I have made my statement. I want the back to the land movement to be successful, and I hope this government, in cooperation with the provincial government, will find it possible to remedy the situation. If the rural districts are made prosperous, then every other section will be prosperous; if a way is found to make it possible to keep these people on the farms, I believe the cities immediately will feel the beneficial effects. All the settlers want is a fair proportion of the good things of life, and it is within the power of this government to inaugurate a movement to satisfy their wants. We are willing to help all other activities, but we must be willing at all times also to help the primaiy industry of this country. For a long time to come Canada will be primarily an agricultural country. I repeat, at the present time expenditures wisely applied will go a long way towards alleviating the serious situation in which these settlers in northern Ontario now find themselves, and will thus assist our great primary industry.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I understood from the minister that he had cut the immigration staff to the bone. What is the necessity for the continuation of a director of publicity at $4,140 and an assistant director of publicity at $3,000; what publicity are they carrying on?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Prior to the change in the immigration regulations there was a large staff in the office of the director of publicity, and publicity work was carried on in the United States, Great Britain and the other countries of Europe. Since those restrictions were put into effect the staff has been very largely reduced. The present incumbents of those two offices have carried on such publicity as is necessary in connection with the colonization policy at home. Their efforts have not been as extensive as in the past because their work has been confined to Canada. The present staff consists of only five people, three stenographers and the two officials. Perhaps in the future this staff could be further reduced, but from my observations of the work they have carried on I think both these officers should be continued.


Edward Joseph Garland: Their
work at the present time is purely devoted to the colonization activities of this department within Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the nature of the publicity in connection with that work?

Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The preparation of articles for the press and keeping records of the meetings of the various organizations that I have called together from time to time to forward the policy of colonization at home. They have also carried on some work in connection with the British overseas offices as well as replying to inquiries from the United States not in the nature of publicity inviting people to come here, but keeping the British offices and American inquirers in touch with the situation in Canada. I would not say restricting-


Mr. NEILL:: Advising them not to come.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not exactly; but pointing out to the British and American people just what the conditions are with respect to an immigrant's chances of success in this country. That generally is the class of work they are carrying on.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the work is only such as the minister has just described, it can certainly be carried on by any ordinary clerk in his department; it is not necessary to have a director and an assistant director of publicity for the purpose. I am not anxious that the present employees should be dismissed, far from it; but if this government is bound to carry out what to me is its absolutely stupid policy of economy, then they should carry it out in a logical and intelligent fashion, and not retain in office these departmental or branch heads who are merely decorative at the present time and performing no useful functions. If the government are going to cut out the little fellows, they should cut out the big ones too.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall be very glad to
take the matter under further consideration. I am persuaded, though, that these men are doing useful work at the present time.


Mr. VENIOT:: Last night when we were
discussing this item the minister was kind enough to give the committee the following information as to persons placed on farms: single men-by the Canadian National Railways, 2,983; Canadian Pacific, 4,331; the department, 6,155-or a total of 13,469. Were those 13,469 placements permanent, or merely single men hired temporarily to work on farms?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Those placements were
farm labourers. Whether they are permanent or not will depend upon their temperament, their environment and how much they are getting in wages. If things improve in some other locality they will probably quit the farm and go there.


Peter John Veniot: As to the families placed,
I see the figures are: 2,894 by the Canadian National; 2,471 by the Canadian Pacific and 987 by the department-a total of 6,352. The minister said the average was five to a family. Is that average arrived at from detailed information? If so, why not give the committee the number in each family placed on farms? That is quite a large average.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not in some sections.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister be able
to furnish that information?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I probably could, but that average was arrived at by taking a crosssection, as it were, and estimating the number in each family. We started this movement back in November, 1930, probably some of those families have increased since then, and we may have a great deal of difficulty gathering the information.


Peter John Veniot: If the minister could get
that information, even before the closing of the house, I would be quite satisfied.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Probably I can get the
information for the most part.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Last night I directed a question to the minister and I made a mistake, but it seems to me the answer he has just given the member for Gloucester does not quite bear out his answer to me. He told the member for Gloucester that 14,000 single men were placed on farms. Does that total include the men who last year were placed on farms in Saskatchewan under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, it does not.


Mr. HOWDEN:: While we are talking
about the back to the land movement, I would point out that there are on relief in the city of Winnipeg just mow considerably over two thousand families and some seventeen thousand single men. At the present time the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg are joining hands to place a lot of these men on the land. Personally I do not see any means by which Canada will ever overcome her unemployment problem until a large proportion of these men are got back on. the land, where they can at least feed themselves. Contrary to the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from North Timis-kaming (Mr. Barrette) we have a good deal of land in Manitoba that is suitable for settlement and I have no doubt that a lot of these men could be settled on the land in Manitoba, where they would at all events find a living. We have not heard so much lately about dis-
Supply-Immigration

tress among the farmers of Manitoba as compared with the farmers of the other western provinces. I believe that the farmers of our province are getting at least their bread and butter and have a home over their heads. It stands to reason that at all events cabbages and potatoes can be produced on the land while they cannot be produced on a paved street in a city. This is a proposition which I think should appeal to the minister and to the government, and perhaps the government may see its way clear to giving some assistance to the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg in getting these men back on the land. We have the men and we have the land. Many of these men who are now unemployed are bona fide farmers and they are only anxious to get a little start on the land. The amount I have heard spoken of is six or seven hundred dollars and a piece of land, not an extensive piece. I think in Manitoba at all events we can best overcome unemployment by getting these men back to the land where they can find a living for themselves on the soil.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In connection with this back to the land movement, I would point out to the minister that we have in southern Saskatchewan a large dried-out area in which a great many of the farmers have not had crops for two or three years in succession. Some of them are now destitute and are moving to the northern part of Saskatchewan and trying to hew out homes for themselves there. I have had several communications from them asking if this government would be willing to assist them in any way in moving from the southern part of the province to the wooded area in the north. Is the department in any way assisting these people to move from the southern part of Saskatchewan to the north? Has the minister considered the matter at all, and is he willing to assist these people?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The province of Saskatchewan is I believe taking care pretty well of the situation to which the hon. member refers. We must always remember that such subjects as have been referred to by various hon. gentlemen with respect to colonization are in the main peculiarly matters for the provinces to deal with, and I think each province of Canada in one way or another has set up a board or commission which is more or less taking care of that situation. We certainly have had no communications from the provinces generally with respect to the dominion entering into a state-aided scheme of colonization. The province of Saskatchewan has itself inaugurated a scheme which I believe is work-
[Mr. Howden.l
ing very well. The province of Ontario loans money to settlers, and the province of Quebec bonuses land clearing. I do not know what efforts have been made in the maritime provinces but I am sure that they are taking some steps to colonize there because I have had occasion to talk the matter over with their representatives.
The whole question of state-aided colonization is a very, very intricate one, and our adventures into that field have not been crowned with the success that was hoped for. It is, I am afraid, only too true that- if you start a person out on a farm loaded with any debt at all, in a large number of cases that will spell his ultimate disaster. That therefore confines the effort to pure gratuities, and just how far the Dominion government is justified in going along that line, and taking over a responsibility which is plainly a provincial one, is a matter for very serious consideration. I am glad to have had the views of hon. members on this question, and while I have given the matter a great deal of consideration, I wish to assure the committee that I will consider it again and see if we can work out in conjunction with the provinces some scheme that may help out in this situation. I may say that all the forces of the land settlement branch have been put at the disposal of those interested in colonization. That branch is very efficiently run, and I know from the many hundreds of communications I have received that it is rendering a real service. I, personally, and I think in this I speak for nearly every member of the house, do not want to go into any state-aided colonization scheme unless it becomes abundantly apparent that that is the only solution. We have met with a measure of success, as I pointed out last night, in inducing people who have some money to take up farms, but we have almost exhausted that class of people who have had an agricultural background and who have sufficient money to return to the land. The future with respect to further efforts along the line of colonization will have to be worked out as we come to it.


Mr. MARCIL:: The minister has the advantage-I do not know whether it is really an advantage or otherwise just now,-of filling the dual capacity of Minister of Labour and Acting Minister of Immigration. He has been kind enough to express the wish to hear the views of hon. members with respect to colonization schemes that may be in progress in different parts of Canada. I would like to call attention to the province of Quebec, particularly the eastern part including the counties of Gaspe and Bonaven-

Supply-Immigration
ture. In Bonaventure county the lumber industry has practically disappeared. Our limits have been sold out to the International pulp mills. The mills have been closed down, and last year there were no shanties at all in Gaspe and Bonaventure counties, and only one in Matane county. Thousands of young men have been thrown out of work, and consequently the local farmer has no market for his produce. There is a state of affairs existing in that county which I have not seen for the last thirty years that I have had the honour to represent it here in this house. The present government, under the mandate given it by the people, is seeking to face a condition of affairs which has never before existed in the history of Canada. Many different crises have been discussed in this house from away back to 1878, but within my experience the present one is ten times worse than any we have had before. The only solution that we have in the province of Quebec is to try to induce the thousands of farmers who have flocked into the cities, particularly to Montreal and Quebec, to return to the land. Many of these people are now homeless or will be turned nut on the first of May because they are unable to pay their rent. Applications have already been made for the use of the drill hall in Montreal to house hundreds of these families. I understand that twelve hundred families are to be put out on the street on the first of May in the city of Quebec. A large number of these people are farmers or the sons of farmers who flocked into the city at the time of the war where in munitions work they earned as much as ten or fifteen or sixteen dollars a day. Attracted by those high wages they gave up farming. There is no solution possible in the province of Quebec without a return to the farm, no matter to what extent manufacturing and industrial occupations may be developed. We have in Canada ten millions of people in a country that might be able to support one hundred millions of people, but we cannot support our present population without a great many of them returning to the land. No matter what program the government has in mind, no matter what is agreed to at the forthcoming Imperial conference along the line of developing industry and manufacturing, the problem of unemployment in Canada will not be settled until a large proportion of our people return to the land. These people must 'be sent back to the farms, back to the land. I was glad to hear the minister say that the legislature of the province of Quebec has undertaken some back to the land scheme. In my own constituency His Lordship Bishop Ross, now the bishop 41761-143
of Gaspe, during the last five or six years has headed a movement with a view to opening up new colonization centres in the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure, and has attracted a large number of young married people who have gone into these settlements to make homes for themselves, repeating the history of the formation of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which took place a century and a half or two centuries ago.
So far as I can see there is but one solution for the people to whom I have referred, namely to induce them to go back to the land where at least they may have something to eat. True, at the present time there is no market, but the time will come when there will be. Our lack of market is at the root of our present economic difficulties. Due to a kind Providence we have bountiful products of all kinds in all parts of the country with the exception of one or two isolated parts. I hope the Imperial economic conference will be productive of markets; if it is our troubles will be solved, and also the railways will profit. I hope the minister will not abandon his efforts to help the province of Quebec in its scheme of colonization. I know it is his ambition and that of his colleagues to put an end to the present state of affairs, and this can be effected only by going back to the land.
En passant, may I say the Dominion government granted a sum of money to my constituency to carry on local improvement works. The eastern part of the, province of Quebec has climatic conditions different from those of Ottawa. In that part of the country, so far as weather conditions are concerned, we are three or four weeks behind this city. Therefore a large number of works authorized last fall have not yet been commenced; others have been commenced but not continued. I have had the honour to send the minister a resolution from county councils in my constituency asking for an extension of time. This work cannot possibly be completed by May 1, and although small when compared with other problems the government have to face, it is important that some way should be found to give an extension of time for the completion of the work. The government may see fit to extend the time to June 1 or July 1.
Coming as he does from a new part of Canada, I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of getting people back to the land. We know that northern Ontario has been changed from a wilderness to its present state of development and that it is one of the most promising parts of Canada. The same may be said of the

Supply-Immigration

eastern section of the mother province of Quebec; the conditions down there are about the same as those which obtained in northern Ontario. I hope the aid given to that section of eastern Canada will not be merely transitory but of a lasting character, something which will endure.


Mr. MUNN:: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to say a few words in connection with this back to the land movement. In my view if the provincial and federal governments cooperate much good could be accomplished.
I should like to say only a few words concerning the province of British Columbia. In that province there are thousands of acres of logged-off land, fertile soil, where it is not necessary to have irrigation. Climatic conditions are perhaps the best obtaining anywhere in Canada or, indeed, anywhere in the world. The trouble with logged-off lands is that it costs too much for any individual to clear them, the cost being about S300 or $400 per acre. Once they are cleared however they are really worth while. My opinion is that the federal government in cooperation with the provincial government should formulate some land clearing scheme whereby they may put on the market ready-made farms. Those farms would not necessarily be large, because four or five acres of land will support the ordinary small family which might come from the city of Vancouver, Victoria or one of the other large centres. Although the individual cannot finance the clearing, the government is in a position to borrow funds, and carry on the work.
At this time when there is so much unemployment, rather than build roads here, there, and everywhere, I suggest that those lands be cleared, small houses ibuilt, and an opportunity afforded to men from the city to gain a living. Probably they would not be regular farmers, but chaps who had not made a success of city life. Get them back to the land; they are misfits in the cities. At least they could grow their vegetables and fruit, could keep cows and chickens or whatever would be necessary to maintain a family. The minister said these men would have to have money; I do not think that is so. Those farms could be sold, to purchasers bonded for a period of twenty years. Payments could be made small, thereby enabling the average man to make a success of his venture.
I am absolutely opposed to any assistance being given to immigration. Rather than assist a policy of immigration I should like to see a system such as I have suggested. Help the chaps who are now here. Get taxes
; Mr. Marcil.]
down, and make Canada a country in which people will want to live. When people in other countries see Canada is worth while they will come, without assistance. In the meantime help the people at home.


Mr. RALSTON:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a situation which has arisen in my own constituency and to which I have already directed the attention of the deputy minister who has been kind enough to give me all the information at his disposal.
I refer to the action of the United States immigration authorities in refusing Nova Scotia fishermen and yachtsmen admittance to the United States to undertake seasonal employment in that country. The minister may not know that these men, because of the serious condition in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, go to the New England ports and sail from them either on trawlei'S or schooners to the fishing banks. Some of them ship as members of the crew or as skippers on yachts from the city of New York and elsewhere. All this is seasonal employment, and many of them have gone back and forth in this way for years. This year, for the first time, they have been refused admission to the United States, with the result that many are deprived of their means of livelihood. I understand fully that this is a matter within the control of the United States immigration authorities. The deputy minister was good enough, however, to ask me to submit to him any names I may have, and I am getting them for him.
I wished to bring the matter to the attention of the minister however, and it is for that reason I am now taking the time of the committee with the idea of finding out from him if there is any possibility of making arrangements in cases such as I have described. I have in mind an arrangement which I have seen described in the newspapers whereby Canadians and citizens of the United States cross the border between the cites of Windsor and Detroit to attend their daily vocations, each in the country of the other. That arrangement must be the result of some convention. I was wondering if there was any possibility, or if the minister knew of any method whereby effective representations could be made so that these citizens of Canada might work at their usual avocations in the United States during seasonal periods.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am very glad the hon. member has brought up the question. It is under consideration by the department, attention having been directed to it by other hon. members us well. I will do my utmost

Supply-Immigration
to see that the same sort of arrangement is made with respect to the people to whom the hon. member refers as has been made at Detroit and Windsor.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to say just a word with regard to some of the suggestions which have been made to the minister this afternoon in regard to land colonization. I have listened with great interest and some amusement to some of the proposals which have been made. It is possible that if the speakers had taken time to go into details they might have answered the objections I am going to take, so it would be unfair on my part to denounce their proposals as absurd, although frankly I am tempted to do so.
For the first time in this house I am in the happy position, with regard to this question, of agreeing with the minister. I congratulate him on having taken the ground that to attempt to place men on the farms to-day under a burden of debt would render the possibility of their success almost neglig-able. I agree heartily with him. I wonder how many of the members who have been speaking of paving stones and cabbages realize that you can walk out on a farm to-day but you cannot pluck cabbages, nor can you pick up eggs under every piece of shrubbery. Indeed you cannot domesticate the wild fowl that are still to be found in some parts of our provinces. You cannot catch a buffalo and milk it. These things all cost a good deal of money. To start farming under the scheme suggested by the hon. member from northern Ontario or the hon. member from Manitoba would imply at least a plough, a drill, harness, horses, seed, a wagon, at least a cow, a stable, a house and some fencing. I am leaving out of the picture at the moment the chickens which are almost a necessity. Surely chickens would be needed at the start, unless my hon. friend from Manitoba has the idea that the would-be farmers could go out and rob the nests of the wild ducks. They could do that for a time in the spring, breaking the law by doing so, but that source of supply would be rapidly exhausted.
I' do think members should take into more serious consideration the financial aspect of farming to-day. It is no longer possible, as it was in the days of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), to go out on a farm and1 use the old hand-made implements, weave your own clothes and make nearly everything you require at home. Those days have passed with regard to modern scientific agriculture. So far as the unemployed are
41761-143i
concerned, I doubt if the average person who is out of work to-day is temperamentally fitted for farming, even if he is fitted by education. Some of these people may have drifted in from the farms, but they have lost contact and they do not like the life. If they had liked it they would have tried to stay with it, as many of us have done. The fact is that it is very difficult to take the average unemployed man and turn him into a farmer. Certainly it cannot be done inexpensively, and the proposal seems to be that the state should be saddled with the financial burden of turning unemployed men into farmers. Before they could even begin to pluck a' cabbage they would have several months of seeding and other work. Frankly I regard the proposals as ill made and ill thought out, and I think the minister will be on absolutely safe ground if he takes an exceedingly conservative attitude towards these suggestions.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like the minister to give me a (little information with, regard to general immigration. I should like to have the figures for the last twelve month period of which he has record, giving the total immigration into Canada, as well as the number of those coming from the continent of Europe and elsewhere and those coming from the British Isles.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total immigration for the eleven months of the fiscal year ending February 28, 1931, was 85,810, and the total for the eleven months ending February 29, 1932, was 24,314. In the first mentioned period British immigration amounted to 26,951, and in the last mentioned period to 6,818. Immigration from the United States in the first mentioned period amounted to 22,877, and in the last mentioned period to 13,394,


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to make a few remarks on that subject. I have not taken any of the time of the committee during this debate hitherto, and I would not have taken anv time this afternoon had I not become a little fed up with the reiterated statements that have come across the floor of the house, not only from back benchers but from cabinet ministers as well, to the effect that a great deal of the economic distress and unemployment in this country to-day is due to the immigration policies pursued by the late Liberal government. I think if there is any subject at all on which hon. gentlemen opposite who sat in this house during the last three parliaments should keep quiet, it is this subject of immigration. Talk about people in glass houses not throwing stones; hon. gentlemen opposite would need
Supply-Immigration

to have a house of brass to maintain, the attitude they have taken, knowing as they must know what has been the attitude of their party in the past.
I am not here to defend the Liberal party with regard to the number of immigrants they brought into the country. I thought they brought in too many, but I said so in 1923 and did not wait until 1932. I did not blow hot in 1923 and cold in 1932. It is well known to all of us who have been here since 1921 how bitter and unanimous were the reproaches of the Conservative opposition of that day against the Liberal government because more immigrants were not brought in. A vigorous policy of immigration was talked of on every platform and from almost every seat on this side of the house. There is only one section of this louse that has any reason to say "I told you so" or which can come out of this mess with dean hands, that is the section occupied by the groups in this corner. While I aim not directly a member of those groups, except as a member of the little group which sits at this desk, we are affiliated in as much as we are often united by the bonds of common interest and common ideals in political matters. I hear an hon. member say that we are united also by the bond of common sense, and there is also something in that statement.
As I say, they-and I also-repeatedly opposed the government of the day in the efforts they made to bring in so many people. Our stand was consistent then and is consistent to-day. I will leave the other groups to speak for themselves, but briefly and sketchily 'I want to clear my skirts of any suggestion that I was in any way a party to having a great number of immigrants brought in. I go back now to the year 1923, that is nine years ago,-and I could go back further if I wanted to. I find that I spoke then on March 15 on this subject, pointing out that in my opinion the two main sources of the demand for this excessive immigration were the transportation companies, who sought to make money by the transportation, and the large corporations of employers, who sought to bring in large numbers of labourers so that they might have a bank of idle men from which to draw as occasion required. I also made the point that I thought that was an expensive bank to have, that it was not a profitable thing, that we had to pay for that idle labour in many ways. I said:
We pay for it in the mental and physical deterioration of the workers, for one thing. We pay for it as well in the cost of the doles, amounting up to millions. In the old country those unemployment doles amount to many millions every month. They are forced to do it over there or there would be a revolution.

We will be forced to do it in Canada, and we pay in that way as well as in the other ways I have indicated.
That wras almost prophetic considering that it was said nine years ago. I also commented on the deteriorating effect of unemployment, citing my own experience in that regard. I pointed out that we brought in these men at the danger of increasing the discontent of the unemployed in Canada. Does not that sound true to-day? I said that for these reasons and many others, we should not be allowed to make ourselves the vehicle, not to say the tool, of piling up a large surplus of idle labour for the corporations. I also referred to the fact that the policy of the Minister of Immigration of the day seemed to be, as regards the prairies, to bring in a lot more farmers, in the belief that this would make the farmers in the prairies prosperous.
I pointed out that this was putting the cart before the horse, because the better way was to make farming prosperous, and farmers, hearing from their friends who had succeeded, would then come in. Later on, in 1928, on March 5, I brought up the subject again. I said I did not expect to get any sympathy or support from either of the two major parties because my ideas did not agree with those of either of them, and I noted the fact that we were dealing at the moment with the proposed assisted system of immigration. I said I thought it was the Ultima Thule of audacity to ask unemployed men in this country to pay taxes in order to bring in others to compete with them, and I wondered whether the manufacturers would be willing to do the same as to manufacturers. Working men in this country were being asked to pay taxes to bring in other workers to compete with them in the often congested labour market, and I asked whether that was the idea of protection we had heard so much about. I also pointed out the evils of this assisted system. Men were being brought out to farm on the prairies and were afterwards discovered in the slums of Toronto. Further, I referred to an investigation that had taken place in the United States which demonstrated that after all available free land had been exhausted the bringing-in of more immigrants did not increase our population but only replaced our children and our children's children By the sons of people now living in Bulgaria or Roumania or some other country in Europe.
I come now to May, 1929, when the immigration vote was again under discussion and the assisted system of immigration was being considered. The then member for Pontiac, Mr. Cahill, moved that the vote should be

Supply-Immigration
cut down to one dollar, and this was supported by the present member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Boulanger) and the present member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), both Liberals. It was supported very largely and strongly by members of the Progressive group now to my left. The hon. member for Acadia, (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) were particularly outspoken, and I see that the former gentleman warned the minister that he had better be careful before introducing similar votes in the house or he would be liable to sustain defeat. On that occasion I said that I was in accord with the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite-referring to the member for Acadia and the member for Battle River-and added that while we did not want to embarrass the minister by refusing to vote money which he had already committed himself to spend, I should like him to reply to the request made by the hon. member for Acadia, that he would pledge himself to consider seriously before bringing in at another session any more votes of that kind. I asked him to give an undertaking that he would consult the house and pay a good deal of attention to the sentiments that were then expressed. The debate on that occasion covered several pages of Hansard, but not a single protest was made by the party to my right. Their attitude was at all times the complaint that the government did not bring in enough people. It was the Progressives, the farmers, the Labour members and the Independents that protested.
Vt e come now to the present situation. Very shortly after the present government were returned to power, it was largely heralded in the newspapers-I think in August or very shortly after that-that they had passed an order in council prohibiting or very much restricting immigration. I was very much pleased to see this intimation, but the orders in council were not printed in the papers; all that was published was the general idea, and certainly the impression that the ordinary individual, even the ordinary member of parliament, would gather from those reports was that the restriction of immigration had been almost wholly complete. But that proved to be very far from being the case. As a matter of fact, the government only restricted to a degree those from the continent of Europe, and practically no restrictions at all were placed on those from the British Isles. On June 26, 1931, the Minister of Immigration said:
Immigration from Great Britain has not stopped and has not been restricted.
I ask the house to take note of that.
Any Britisher who wants to come to Canada . . . is as welcome as anyone else. I hope the
time wiU never come when there is any restriction against people coming to this country from Great Britain.
And even last night the hon. gentleman emphasized the same thing again. That is only twice, but he has said it on several occasions in between. He said:
So far as I am concerned, ... I want to say to the committee that there will be no shutting of the door to British immigration.
_ So that it is quite clear what his attitude is. With all due deference and speaking as a man born in the British Isles and with all the sympathy with the British people which that suggests, for my relations are there, and my people's graves are there, so that I sympathize with them in whatever troubles they are called upon to bear, I submit, never-bheless, that in view of present conditions, we are not entitled to let immigration in at the figures mentioned a few minutes ago, even from the British Isles. Two years ago,' possibly only eighteen months ago, what did New Zealand do? If there is a dominion *within the empire which is more exclusively British in its point of view and in its racial origin than any other, that place is New Zealand. The reasons I need not discuss; it is so. 1 ou will find very few Americans or people who have come from the continent of Europe settled in New Zealand. The people of New Zealand are almost exclusively English and Scotch, with an admixture of Irish. You can see that in the place names: Christchurch, Wellington, Nelson, Oxford and so forth; and in the province where the Scotch settled Scotch names predominate. Now what did these people do, with all their inherited association with the British Isles, with all their intense loyalty to their racial origin? What did they do in their legislature, without protest? Either legislation or an order in council was passed stating that because of the present conditions of unemployment they were sorry but they would not be able to permit any immigrants to come from the British Isles. A vote of regret was passed and forwarded to the British government, but they felt that their paramount duty was to those to whom they owed that duty, that is the people of New Zealand, and that immigration should be prohibited for the time being.
That is the attitude we should adopt. The minister has indicated that the immigration lor a period of eleven months amounted to 24,000, which would be about 26,000 or 27,000 for the year. Take 27,000 people and plant them down in Ottawa or any other city, say to them "What are you going to do?" or "What are we going to do with you," and what will happen? I admit that the order in
227S
Supply-Immigration

council contains restrictions to the effect that no man shall be admitted unless he has sufficient funds to maintain himself until he can obtain employment, but who in these days can say how much money will be sufficient for that purpose? There was a time when $5 would have kept a man until he could obtain employment; there was a time when $20 would have been sufficient, or at the most S100, but who to-day would be willing to pledge his word, or, more important, his pocketboolc to guarantee that a certain amount would be sufficient to keep a man until he obtained a job? These immigrants are carpenters, blacksmiths, mechanics and farmers, and who can say what would be a reasonable amount for them to have? Would $2,000 be sufficient? It might be three years before a man could obtain a position, and he and his family would have to exist in the meantime. Twenty-seven thousand times the requisite figure-these people do not bring that amount with them-would be required. Under present conditions it is absolutely impossible to say whether it will take six weeks, six months or two years before a man can find employment. In the meantime these people are a burden on the community or are taking work away from those who are here and who surely have the first claim. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said that we are passing through a desperate crisis, a crisis such as Canada and the world has never known before, and yet these people are permitted to enter. The government is spending millions in order to keep the unemployed from revolt. There are 30,000 idle men in Vancouver and it needs only one man with brains to act as a leader to bring about trouble. These are the conditions under which we inject 27,000 more emigrants.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think the hon. member would make an incorrect statement by design, and I interrupt at this time in order that there may be no misapprehension. The figures disclose that of the 27,000

averaging the figures for the twelve months

21,000 are wives and children coming out to relatives. At the present time when an application is made for the admission of a relative, the officials visit the man who wants to bring out his relatives and inquire as to his ability to care for them. I have insisted that before permission is granted it must be abundantly apparent that the man is able to receive his relatives and continue to take care of them.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the term "relatives" include only wives and children, or does it include other relations?
(Mr. Neill.]


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Wives and children and a few brothers and sisters.


Alan Webster Neill: And cousins?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are a few other relatives.


Alan Webster Neill: I am reminded of the maid who, caught in the kitchen with a policeman, always explains the situation by saying it was her cousin. Why have these people suddenly left their relations in the old country to come out here? Even if the figure is smaller than I have stated, and after all I took the minister's own figure, even though it is only 6,000, that is 6,000 too many. It is folly's crown of follies, to bring out more people at the present time, and the government should restrict all immigration until a brighter day dawns.
We are unable to find out just what means the government intends to adopt to remedy the present situation. We have to go to the columns of the newspapers for information. When we inquire on the floor of the house we 'are snubbed and told that we will receive the information at the government's pleasure. The newspapers state that the government is going to give only direct relief, no work and is looking into the question of unemployment insurance, but when we ask a question in the house we receive no satisfaction or information. We are left to glean our information from the columns of the press in some distant part of the dominion.
Under present conditions I repeat that for the moment we should regretfully reject the entry of any brothers, sisters or cousins from Great Britain, allowing only wives and minor children.


Mr. REID:: Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly interested at this time in the immigration of Anglo Saxon or European people, but I am concerned with the immigration of Asiatics into British Columbia. The minister will remember that last year I brought up the subject and stated I believed that over 40 per cent of the Japanese in British Columbia had entered illegally. The minister told me that he had no knowledge or information concerning that fact. Since that time my statement has been corroborated, because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been carrying on investigations, I assume, in collaboration with the minister.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They were under way at that time.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to hear that, although the information came to me after I had spoken in the house. The following are extracts from newspaper articles dealing with these investigations :

Supply-I mviigra tion
Yoshi, who had been an Immigration department interpreter for sixteen years before his arrest last July, was convicted mainly on the strength of silent witnesses, a mass of documents put in as exhibits during the two-day trial by Hon. R. I,. Maitland, K..C., acting for the Dominion government.
The plot, evidence showed, was almost detection-proof. Faked naturalization papers were forwarded to Yoshi's fellow-racketeers in Yokohama, Jinno, Moehizuki and Maruyama.
This trio rustled up "business" among Japanese seeking entry to Canada, saw that they got passports. provided them with spurious naturalization certificates, coached them as to what they should say when they met immigration authorities at Vancouver.
Then the "tip" was cabled to Yoshi, according to the evidence of the documents. As interpreter for the department he met the boats, translated questions into Japanese for the immigration inspectors, translated the newcomers' answers into English.
_ It was not necessary, the crown claimed, for Yoshi to interpret incorrectly, for the immigrants had already been prepared as to what to tell the inspectors.
Now comes the serious part:
Further testimony showed that the "racket" was so highly organized that a regular scale of prices had been set. In correspondence the aliens were referred to as "pieces of cargo," and the approximate price for one "piece" was $150.
I have four questions to ask in connection with this matter. First, how many cases were investigated? Second, how many deportations took place as a result of the investigation? Third, is the investigation still proceeding? Fourth, what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of this kind of business?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures as
to the number of people who were deported following the investigation. I may say for the information of the hon. member that very shortly after I took over the administration of the department, in making a general review as to how things were going, I concluded there was something wrong in Vancouver. The officers of the department had had the port under observation, and the investigation referred to was then in progress-not by any means an easy investigation to carry to success. I trust the reference to Mr. Maitland as being a member of the British Columbia legislature is not to his disadvantage.


Thomas Reid: Not at all.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I found him to be a very
eminent counsel.


Thomas Reid: I am pleased he conducted the investigation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As a result of the investigation, Yoshi, who had acted as interpreter for
fifteen years, is now in the penitentiary. Investigations are going on constantly. I have enlisted the help of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and we hope to minimize illegal entries. I may say the Japanese are not by any means the only race who enter this and other countries in defiance of immigration laws. With respect to the observations made by the member for Comox-Alberni, I need only repeat that I cannot agree with him that where a man has been legally admitted and is found to be doing well we should prevent his wife and children joining him.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I do not ask that.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the policy at the present time with respect to the immigration to which reference has been made. We are certainly investigating each case to ensure that unemployment or destitution will not occur by reason of a man's wife and family being allowed to join him.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to tell the
minister his own business, but I happened to make an investigation with regard to the Japanese, and I understood that twenty have already been deported in consequence of the investigations made by the department, that further cases are being investigated and possibly fifty or sixty Japanese who came in by this particular form of "racketting," as the member for New Westminster said, through the collusion of this particular Japanese crook, will be deported. It emphasizes what I have said in the past. I believe the department is now going to adopt the principle that I advocated some years ago. I said at that time it was a mistake to have exclusively Japanese interpreters. I always held it was possible to get white men who could speak the oriental languages. I understand the department are now taking steps to this end, which will shut off that avenue of fraud in the future.


Thomas Reid: I am glad the member for
Comox-Alberni has mentioned the matter, because I think it is advisable that a Canadian immigration inspector who can speak the Japanese language should be chosen for the position of interpreter. In view of the fact that the bars are up against Europeans and who might very well become good citizens, has the minister considered the advisability of something being done to prevent the entry of Asiatics? Their standard of living is lower than ours, British Columbia appears almost a paradise to them, and their entry is bound to be detrimental to our people.
Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The only Asiatics who are permitted to enter Canada at the present time are the wives, and children under eighteen years of age, of Canadian citizens presently residing in Canada, who have been legally admitted to Canada, and who on investigation are found to be ready and willing and able to receive and care for their relatives.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the gentleman's
agreement with reference to the Japanese?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I had not that in . mind when making the statement. I think every member is acquainted with the agreement entered into with Japan, which contemplates the entry of 150 Japanese each year.


Alan Webster Neill: I have not the agreement before me, but I am familiar with it as I had a great deal to do with its being brought about. By that gentleman's agreement it was arranged that hereafter-it was not so before-Japanese immigrants would be subject to the immigration laws of Canada, except only that they could bring in seventy-five adults of a certain restricted class and seventy-five women and children each year. It is quite possible that that agreement was framed to carry out a well-known oriental expression, "to save their face". The Japanese said they did not mind so much being excluded if we insisted on it, but they did not want it to be done by force of ' law as though they were an inferior people. But it was distinctly understood, and so expressed if I am not mistaken, that they would take no exception to any restrictions on the immigration of their people, providing those restrictions were common to the world at large. They said: You can restrict us altogether, if you restrict white people too. So if the government in August, 1930, had said: "This order in council will also apply to the oriental people," the Japanese could not have made any objection, because they would have been treated in the same way as white people. I think the government has been remiss in not applying that principle, for now we have this very unsatisfactory condition- certain white men from continental Europe cannot come in, but they see 150 Japanese being allowed to enter every year by means of this agreement. I think the minister might well consider the application of that general restriction. I am sure the Japanese would not find any fault under the circumstances.


John Power Howden: The government seems to have reversed their policy. Not so many months ago a young man came out from England of his own volition, paying his own way. He was held up at Halifax and informed that he could not land. He had very well-to-do

relatives in the city of Winnipeg. They corresponded with the department, but were unavailing in their efforts to have their brother remain in this country. My assistance was sought, and I telegraphed the department that the young man's relatives were prepared to post S500 and guarantee his support for five years at least. The reply I got from the deputy minister was: Would I take the responsibility of advising that this man be allowed to enter Canada and take the bread out of the mouth of another Canadian? That seems to me to be a decided reversal of policy.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Could the hon. gentleman
give me the name?


John Power Howden: Not offhand. I telegraphed the deputy minister and wrote the minister. Let me cite another case. A young lad was brought to this country by his parents when he was about five years of age. His father eventually became naturalized. When the boy was twenty-six years of age he went to visit relatives in the States, stayed there for about eight months, and then had a mighty hard time trying to get back into Canada. He spoke no language but English. He was not familiar with the language of his parents who had come from central or southern Europe. I am not sure whether he did finally get back here or was sent to the old country because the American authorities held him up as being an alien, and when he was not permitted to reenter Canada it looked as if he would be sent back to Poland or some other European country, where he would have been considerably more of an alien than in this land. I mention these two cases because it seems to me rather strange that they were treated in this manner only two months ago and now we hear that thousands of immigrants are being permitted to enter this country. I certainly would be the last man to keep families separated. I think that wives should certainly be permitted to join their husbands and children their parents, but apart from that I do think that none from outside should be permitted to enter Canada at this time.
My former remarks seemed to cause considerable apprehension in the mind of my hon. friend from Bow River. I was suggesting that this government might well assist the movement which is now going on in Winnipeg, to place unemployed families on the land, not to make farmers of them, but to place them on the land where they could make a living for themselves.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: How would they live?

Supply-Immigration


John Power Howden: They would not necessarily have to go extensively into the business of grain farming. I might say to my hon. friend who has interrupted that one of the difficulties we have had in this country in the past is that too many people have gone on the land for no other purpose than to grow grain. Lots of people with no idea of living in their homes on the land go out into the country in the summer, put in a crop and harvest it with machinery, and then move back into town when winter comes along.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: A very small percentage do that.


John Power Howden: But the fact remains that it does occur and has occurred, and that is probably one of the reasons why there have been failures in grain farming on an extensive scale in western Canada and other places.
The problem we are up against now is: what is this country going to do with these unemployed? There is no possible chance that I can see of manufacturing industry being able to absorb the hundreds of thousands of idle people that we have in this country at the present time. Every community throughout Canada is burdened with unemployed men, and those people who have some little resources left are called upon to help feed these hundreds of thousands of people. A very large number of these unemployed have expressed their desire to go back to the land with a little bit of assistance, and get their living from the soil. I would submit to the minister and to the committee that from the earliest days of history human beings have always taken their living from the land. They cannot take it from paved roads or city streets. There is only one place they can take a living from, and that is from the land, and hundreds of people just now are prepared to make the trial. Since the cities and communities of Canada are feeding these unemployed month after month and year after year, it seems to me it would be a saving in the long run if they were given an opportunity to make this trial.
The hon. member who criticized my remarks and those of some others of us said that the proposal was ill made and ill thought out. The Winnipeg city council and the members of the provincial government in Manitoba have decided that it is not ill made and not ill thought out, and they are endeavouring to provide considerable funds to send hundreds of these men to the country where they will probably be able to make a living. There is no suggestion that they be put on quarter-sections and be made fully fledged farmers,
or anything of that kind. The idea is that they will be able to sow enough vegetables and raise enough poultry and what not to enable themselves and their families to live. The objection was offered by the hon. member for Bow River that it would cost an unreasonable amount of money to establish these men. I wrouId point out to the minister and to the committee that there are communities in Manitoba where men have gone back to the land without any funds at all and we do not hear any complaints from them to-day. I grant you that they came originally from southern Europe, and that they did not spend very much money on automobiles or picture shows or other modem sources of entertainment and amusement. But the fact is that it can be done, and that people can go back on a productive piece of land and get a living from it.


Milton Neil Campbell: How can they get the
land?


John Power Howden: That is the problem that presents itself to the several governments. These people will have to be supplied with the land and with a few hundred dollars. There seems to be no prospect of ending this process of feeding hundreds of thousands of people; we cannot kill them off, drown them or shoot them. We have to feed them, and if they are given a chance to feed themselves it is possible that they may make some headway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been trying for some time to get an opportunity to ask a supplementary question of the minister along the line which has just now been spoken of by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I do not intend to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the scheme, but the fact is, as I said earlier, that the Winnipeg city council and the province of Manitoba have endorsed a certain scheme. The minister told me a little while ago that his department was not prepared to give financial aid to this scheme.
There is another point which I think ought to be cleared up, and it would be of very great help to the committee in Winnipeg if it were cleared up at the present time. Supposing that so many hundreds of these unemployed men were actually placed on the land as a mere relief measure, would this government be prepared to give, say, the one-third of what it would otherwise cost them for relief if these people had remained in the city, and thus assist to that degree in the carrying out of the scheme? I think we ought to have a very definite answer, yes or
22s2
Supply-Immigration

no, as it would materially help the Winnipeg committee to know what they can expect from Ottawa.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is obvious that any such action as that would have to be of general application all over Canada. The province of Saskatchewan are doing this very thing themselves in conjunction with their cities. The province of Quebec has adopted another method of encouraging the return to the farm lands of that province. With respect to the other provinces I am not presently acquainted with what they are doing. I am not yet prepared to agree that this is primarily a responsibility of the dominion. As I said in my observations an hour or so ago, many schemes have been started. I have investigated a lot of them, and I must say that while they were started undoubtedly with the best of intentions. they could not hope to go forward with any degree of success because the people who started them were more enthusiastic about the theory than thejr were acquainted, in my view, with the actual facts of how to assist people on to the land. It strikes me that to be a. successful farmer, and I say this subject to correction bj' any of those who have spent their lives on the land, you require a good deal of training to know how to make headway on a farm, and of course everyone will agree with me that you also need an abundance of courage. I think it would be a great mistake just to take people who happen to be unemployed and put them on a farm. I think no useful purpose would be served, and one season would not pass before they would forget even to thank us for our efforts. I believe they must have the desire to go on the land and must have some agricultural background. True, an odd one who has not had experience may succeed, but from my talks with men who should know-and I believe, do know-I learn it is most essential that we do not take people who are utterly inexperienced, and put them out on the land. They would suffer great hardships.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the judgment of the minister, any relief assistance granted by the Dominion government could not be diverted to help any scheme of that kind?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The subject has been given a great deal of consideration. I do not wish to appear to be one who is not prepared to put forth every effort to help as much as possible. I do not think however that time has yet arrived-and I hope it will not arrive-when in Canada we have to begin a system of state-aided colonization. The other phase of the matter has a good deal of merit,
[Mr. Woodsworth.J
namely to capitalize what we know we might have to pay to a certain person for purposes of direct relief, and help to establish him on a farm. If the provinces cannot discharge their legislative responsibilities, and find themselves hopelessly insolvent-I hope none of them do, and I believe they are not in that position- then they may make out a case whereby the federal government would be justified in adopting throughout Canada a plan such as that suggested by the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I said earlier, I am sorry to be so insistent. The committee in Winnipeg knows perfectly well that if the scheme is to go through this year it must be proceeded with within the next few days. We have had warm weather in Winnipeg, and they are urging the government to give the necessary yes or no with regard to their proposition for the present season. * I ask the minister just to say yes or no; with whatever he says I shall be quite satisfied. I should like however to have a direct answer which would enable the committee in Winnipeg to know what it may expect from the government.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Representing one of the Winnipeg constituencies, I was deeply interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) and I heartily support the principle put forward by him. In the matter of unemployment Winnipeg has a burden upon its shoulders which is daily becoming more unbearable. In that city the idea of assisting to relieve the unemployed by putting them on the land has received a good deal of consideration. As I understand it there is no suggestion indiscriminately to place upon the land people without any agricultural background. In the city of Winnipeg, however, as in many other centres throughout Canada, there are people who in more prosperous days, for one reason or another, picked up their belongings and moved from the rural to the urban centres. What caused them to do so is not of importance, but the fact is that many unemployed in the city of Winnipeg-and I know it-are experienced agriculturists and, having found that the bright lights of the city are not as wonderful as they had thought, are now hungry to go back to the land.
I do not think the present is the time to debate whether or not the duty is primarily that of the federal government, the provincial government or the administration in the city of Winnipeg. We are faced with certain given facts, and we know that since the special session of 1930 the federal government has

Supply-Immigration
22S3
seen fit to cooperate not only in principle but with funds to relieve the unemployment situation through public works undertakings and payments of direct relief. If the federal government has funds to assist in the erection of buildings in the city of Winnipeg, if it can expend federal moneys for food, clothing and fuel to effect direct relief, then there is no technical reason why funds could not be provided to place unemployed men on the land, if it is deemed expedient so to do.
I urge upon the serious consideration of the minister the facts brought out so forcibly by the hon. member for St. Boniface, and the suggestion that the- government seriously consider endeavouring to work out a plan along the line suggested iby the hon. member. It is my understanding that before prorogation there will be introduced such further legislation as may be necessary to deal with unemployment. It is not for me to say, nor do I know what the nature of that legislation will be. However the public press carries information, or what purports to be information, to the effect that the relief granted will be confined to what is known as direct relief. In my opinion it would be deplorable if relief were confined to direct relief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I hope such will not be the case, but that whatever legislation is introduced in the house will be sufficiently wide that the measure of aid to be granted will not be confined to direct relief. In that connection it is my hope that in working out the relief scheme this matter of placing those who are well qualified and anxious and hungry to go on the land will be fitted into the program. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) asked: Where would they get the farms? That situation has been canvassed. I know that in the province of Manitoba there are many abandoned farms. There is no suggestion of putting people out into the wilderness or the bush; abandoned farms are available. Many of them are available because of abandonment which took place as a result of the soldiers' settlement scheme. Farms were bought at a price far beyond their intrinsic value, with the result that there have come back to the municipalities farms which were once well cultivated, and with substantial buildings situated thereon. Titles to them have reverted either to the municipalities, for taxes, or to the crown. They are improved; the buildings are going to ruin, and the land-and it is good land- is growing up with weeds. Certainly there is a tremendous economic waste. The suggestion has been made that under the proposed settlement scheme these lands might be carefully selected and be made availaible at a mere nominal value. If they were given by the municipality or by the crown to the individuals placed thereon, to my mind that in itself would be a good investment. They would then become productive, which would mean revenue to the municipalities in which they were located. I have very great pleasure in taking advantage of this opportunity to urge strongly upon the minister the advisability of keeping an open mind on that question and endeavouring to work it out.


Mr. YOUNG:: Would you have the government equip these farms?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Let me answer that in this way. I would suggest that in working it out there be a committee, and without casting any reflection upon members of either the legislature of Manitoba or this house I would suggest that the members of the committee be not politicians, not members of either assembly, but practical business men and agriculturists wdio would choose the locations and judge as to the suitability of the individuals desiring to be so placed. With regard to the capital, that could be provided jointly by the governments and the municipalities, as has been done in the matter of direct relief. This could be done instead of merely supplying a man with food and lodging; it would give him a stake and a real chance. Even though there were many failures, with a fair percentage of successes the scheme would be worth while. When you give direct relief the relief is only temporary. It seems to me the other system has more vision to it; you are really giving a man a stake in the country.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestion just made, and to many others which have been offered. I had intended to ask a few questions and perhaps make a few comments with regard to land settlement when that item came up, so I shall reserve what I have to say until that time, save this: If a man of fair capacity is placed upon an improved farm, with no capital debt and with a small amount of assistance to start with, I believe it is possible for such a man to make his living. Unquestionably it has been proved to be true in respect of all our assisted colonization attempts, under which we have placed men on farms with fairly heavy capital debts, that from the moment those men were placed they became potential problems, and now they are practically all problems.
With regard to the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, if unemployed were placed upon abandoned
Supply-Immigration

farms, without capital charge and with a small sum of money to assist them, at once another tremendous problem would be raised. I refer to the attitude of the soldier settlers, the empire settlers and the civilian settlers who have purchased land from or through the board. You would at once raise the important question as to what was to be done with those who are carrying their debts, and who are now fighting in an endeavour to obtain greater relief. They would point to such a movement as a very real reason why they also should have all their debts cancelled and why they should be treated in the same way. I am not discussing that question at the moment, but this is something which certainly must-be considered in relation to any scheme for placing men on farms without obligation to themselves.


Mr. SANDERSON:: If I understood the
figures correctly, a moment ago the minister said that during last year 14,000 men had been placed on farms. I took the minister's statement to refer to single, hired men. Was that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Could the minister tell me what proportion of those 14,000 men were put on farms in old Ontario?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I could not say, but in the entire province of Ontario-


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the minister the figures by counties?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, but up to April 2,
1932, there were 4.165 men placed in Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: Were those farm hands?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Could the minister
give me some idea of where they were placed in Ontario? At the moment I am interested only in old Ontario.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not that information before me, but I think I can get it and let the hon. member have it by counties.


Frederick George Sanderson: I thank the minister. With regard to farming under present conditions, when the farm industry is perhaps at its lowest ebb in our history, I want to say that in Ontario to-day you could go up and down the county roads, especially in the western part of the province, where there is land equal to any in the world and where the facilities so far as buildings, machinery and so on are concerned are unsurpassed, and in

many instances you could find farmers who would be very glad to move off the land if they could get someone to assume the burden of the mortgage. In my judgment to go ahead and attempt any back to the land movement in old Ontario would be futile and a sheer waste of money. There have been more sheriff's sales of farms in the last year in Ontario than in any previous ten-year period in our history, and I am surprised that the minister and the government should attempt to work out any back to the land policy at the present time. The drift is the other way; sheriffs are driving a lot of farmers from their homes in Ontario. I -will go further and say that the farmers who are hanging on, hoping that conditions will improve and prices pick up, are remaining on the land because they happened to have some small nest egg laid away for a rainy day, and they are fast approaching the end of those resources. What they will do then I do not know, but I would urge on the minister that he should not enter upon, any back to the land scheme. If the government wants any scheme let them work out some policy that will aid those already on the farms so that at least they can make a living.


Mr. POWER:: As I understand it there
were 14,000 farm hands placed by the department, and in addition there were approximately 30,000 others l-ccated on farms.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Men, women and children.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the figure was somewhere about 6.000 families.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There were 6.352 families.


Charles Gavan Power: What form did the assistance given by the government take? Just what did the government do by way of placing them on farms?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the fall of 1930 the Department of Immigration and Colonization got in touch with the colonization departments of the two railways. The idea arose from the desire on the part of the government to revoke what was commonly called the railway agreements with respect to immigration. There was some hesitancy on the part of the railways to agree with the restrictions that were impending and were placed upon immigration, but after several conferences lasting a week or so they were content that these agreements be revoked; and out of that last conference came the idea that rather than see the colonization establishments of the railways and of the department dissolved, we should turn their activities towards an endeavour to

Supply-Immigration
colonize people who were then in Canada, who wanted to go back to the land and who had enough money to enable them to do so. A survey was made, as well as one could be made, of the people with money and agricultural experience then in Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: IVho made that survey?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It. was made partly by the railways and partly by ourselves through the various land settlement agencies in Canada, with a view to finding out that class of person who had left the farm, attracted no doubt by the high wages that prevailed in industry in past years, but now finding themselves out of employment, their savings going into rents and other expenses of that sort in the cities. Then an effort was made by the two railways and the department to list available suitable farms throughout Canada, and while that survey was not a complete one by any means, yet we assembled that information. The railways and the department interviewed the person desiring to go back to the farm, finding out what kind of farm he wanted.


Charles Gavan Power: What facilities has the department to cany on that work?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is and has been for several years organized from coast to coast under the land settlement branch.


Charles Gavan Power: In eastern Canada also?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The Soldier Settlement
Boards?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. These people were placed on the' land as I have indicated. Whether we have done them an injury by assisting them to get back to the land is a matter of opinion, but certainly I am not prepared to agree with that suggestion at all, because I have had too many expressions of satisfaction from those people who have gone on the farms and who are mighty happy to be there, in spite of what the hon. member for South Perth has said. In the province of Ontario 611 families have been placed on farms.


Frederick George Sanderson: Where were they
placed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not that information at the moment but I will give it to the hon. gentleman before the estimates are through. That was the policy we pursued. The railways and the department used the existing organizations to bring the prospective farmer into touch with the farms that were
available, and we very carefully went into the question of purchase to see that he did not suffer by reason of making an improvident bargain. So far as that could be avoided, we tried to safeguard him. I went over many of them myself and the officers throughout Canada carefully canvassed the situation, because there are still people who can drive a pretty hard bargain when selling farm lands. I wanted to avoid as far as possible a repetition of what happened in some cases in the earlier days of the Soldier Settlement Board. If the department and the railway companies are, as suggested, totally wrong in this effort, then of course we shall have to suffer for our delinquency; but no one can convince me that we are wrong, because I am persuaded that these people are immeasurably better off where they are now. While a large percentage of them cannot make a considerable amount of money just now, nevertheless they will stay on the land.


Charles Gavan Power: There are a large number of people in the city of Quebec who would be only too glad to go on the land, and I should like the minister to indicate the procedure they would have to follow if they wanted to do so.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am assuming that they are people with some money.


Charles Gavan Power: No one in my county has any money left now.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I should say that in the city of Quebec they could avail themselves of the assistance granted by the province.


Mr. POW  ER@: So that it is provincial, so far as Quebec is concerned. That is what I am coming to.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is scarcely fair.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister refers to the provincial government my request for information for some of my constituents who would like to go on farms, why has he been talking so much about the 44,000 he placed on farms?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I trust we shall not get into acrimony by reason of misunderstandings. The people I am talking about are people who have some money.


Charles Gavan Power: And who could have gone without any assistance from this government at all.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not necessarily.


Charles Gavan Power: What did the government do for them, then? The minister talks glibly of having made a survey through his land settle-
22S6
Supply-I m migration

ment agencies. How many land, settlement agencies has he in Quebec? There is one in Sherbrooke.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think that is the .only one.


Charles Gavan Power: So that a survey of the whole province of Quebec was made from one land settlement agency in which there are probably half a dozen employees. Surely the minister should be able to give better information than that. I do not know, there may be several employees; but there are several million people in the province of Quebec.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For the information of the hon. gentleman I may say that we placed in the province of Quebec more than we did in Ontario, for we placed, in conjunction with the railways, 761 families.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any idea where they were placed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can get that information.


Charles Gavan Power: I should be glad to have it. Am I to understand from the minister that it was his land settlement organization that did this?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And the railways.


Charles Gavan Power: Let us, if possible, endeavour to segregate the railways from the land settlement organization. If my information is correct,-I have not checked it-I do not think that the land settlement office in Sherbrooke can have a personnel of more than five or six. The minister has said to the house, and very proudly, that the land settlement board has an organization all over Canada, that it was able to list the lands that were for sale, and was able to make a survey of the people in the cities; and, mind you, in the province of Quebec he takes one of the smaller cities as headquarters. I tell him it must have been an impossible task to organize the bade to the land movement in that province through the organization he has in Sherbrooke. It is altogether outside the realm of common sense to think that a few people in the city of Sherbrooke, a small office staff, could make anything like a survey of people in Montreal who are looking for employment. It is impossible for an office staff a hundred miles away, a staff of people who in all probability know nothing about the citizens of Montreal and nothing about agricultural conditions in the province of Quebec, except in so far as they may be acquainted with conditions in the district surrounding Sherbrooke, to make a survey of the people with money in the city of Montreal who would like to go on the land. What do they know about farms in the county

of Kamouraska or in the county of Temis-couata? Would they have the faintest idea of how many vacant farms could be purchased in the county of Rimouski on which people could obtain a living, provided there was not too much of a capital debt before they started? If they are not doing the work properly, why do we talk so much about it? I am rather under the impression that in so far as my province is concerned, the work was done by the railways, and if the minister is frank I think he will admit that that is the case.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will look into it further and if that is true, I shall have no hesitation in saying so.


Charles Gavan Power: I appreciate that reply of the minister after the speeches he has made and after the newspapers of this country have been putting him up as the great colonizer, the new father of his country. He has stated he is placing people on the land, but when I ask him how he does it, he says he will look into the matter. If he has not the information surely he should be courteous enough to say, "My deputy has that information, I will ask him and then give the information to the committee." I have no doubt the same situation exists in Ontario. Could the minister inform the committee how many land settlement boards there are in Ontario?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not that information but I can easily obtain it.


Charles Gavan Power: Does not the minister think that in order to get his estimates through he should obtain this information? We all want to get home but I do not think he should take advantage of that fact to come before the committee without knowing anything about bis department. It is a matter of common courtesy and public policy that a man paid to be a minister should know what he is administering. I have no desire to be offensive to the minister, but I think he should have the information desired by the committee. I can remember years ago hon. members then sitting on this side of the house waxing very indignant at the then Minister of Immigration. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) one of the most genial of men, was blocked for four or five days in the passing of his simple estimates because it was his first year as minister and he dared to make the statement that he would get certain papers and have them available for the evening.


Peter John Veniot: He was told he was mentally unfit.

Supply-Immigration


Charles Gavan Power: No, it was another minister who was told he was mentally unfit. There is nothing attracting more attention throughout the country than this problem of land settlement. It is easy enough to talk of land settlement, but there are many practical difficulties to be overcome before a large number of people can be settled on the land. I should like to see them settled, but before that can be brought about we must have a better organization than the present sketchy system. Placing one single family on the land and putting it in a position to obtain a living is a considerable job. If the minister does not know how that is going to be done, then I suggest to him that he get busy and learn. The cases referred to by the minister may have had some capital, but considerable study must be made of marketing, transportation and other questions and that cannot be done with a staff consisting of four or five people. Again I suggest to the minister that he should be able to give the committee the fullest information on this subject.


Mr. HOW  DEN@: Mr. Chairman, I come
from Manitoba and notwithstanding the deprecatory attitude adopted by many hon. members in connection with this movement, I am keenly interested in it. At the present time the city of Winnipeg in cooperation with the province of Manitoba is placing several dozen families, not on farms necessarily, but on parcels of land where they can make their own living. I am fairly certain that an appeal has been made to this government to give some assistance to this movement, and I should like to have an undertaking from the minister that at least he will give this matter serious consideration. A short time ago the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) stated that farmers in Ontario were being forced off their farms. That may be very pitiful, but they at least had a roof over their heads and they have had a living for the last eighteen months or two years when hundreds of thousands of other Canadians have had to get along without. An effort is being made by the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba to place these people beyond the realm of charity, at least for the time being, and, as I said before, I appeal to the minister to undertake to give serious consideration to this matter.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That matter is under consideration, and I am sure that the government will be sympathetically inclined to any effort being made to assist the people of Manitoba oi of any other province.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: We seem
to be in the position of not knowing what to
do. Some hon. members are recommending one thing while others recommend another. I should like to know if a survey has been made of the provinces in order to find out how many farms would be available. Could the minister advise how many farms at suitable prices have been found to be available for this scheme, say in Ontario?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the committee was considering the proper vote I would have more accurate information available.


Charles Gavan Power: Is any money being voted
this year for this particular purpose?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The soldier settlement
vote would cover this matter; we are dealing now with civil government.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fraser, Cariboo):: Votes numbers 55, 56, 57 and 58 cover the matter which we have been discussing all afternoon.


Peter John Veniot: Last evening the minister
said he would be perfectly willing to discuss this matter under this vote, and knowing that, he should have had the information available this afternoon.


Mr. BROWN:: I think the committee has a distinct grievance against the minister in this respect. This matter was discussed to a considerable extent last evening 'and I am surprised that the minister did not bring down the information which he has promised to bring down this evening. It has been stated that 50,000 have been placed on the land, but I am inclined to think that when we receive accurate information it will be found that that number has dwindled considerably.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a good deal of interest this afternoon to the discussion which has taken place, and I have been thinking of how quickly people forget. This country has a very elaborate land settlement scheme- I do not know the exact figures, as I intended to get them from the minister when the particular item was under discussion-which up to date has probably cost $60,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: More than that.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps
more than that has been paid for this experiment in land settlement. Seventy odd per cent of those placed on the land have been sons of farmers raised on the land. It has been said that too much was paid for the land purchased, but I think the fact is that in 90 per cent of the cases the land was acquired at prevailing prices; in only 10
Supply-Immigration

per cent of the cases could it be said that high prices or some other influence had entered into the transaction. I should like to bolster up the minister a little in his determination not to be let into another scheme of this kind, but I agree with hon. members on this side when they say that he would be well advised not to do too much blowing about having placed people back on the land.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: A bit of hot air.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I won't say that. I would give the minister a little advice in this connection. The soldier land settlement scheme, to put it mildly, has been a colossal failure. From the moment I took control of the department for a short time I felt it would be so. May I say to my hon. friends from the cities of Winnipeg, Sherbrooke and Quebec that if they want to organize any return to the land movement they had better have a board of practical farmers rather than doctors and lawyers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Let men who have had some experience on the land, and have paid for their experience, advise those who want to try farming. \ou cannot keep men on the land to-day who have invested their life savings on their farms; even although they have spent all their lives on the land, through no fault of their own they are being forced off, as my hon. friend from South Perth said this afternoon. It is all very well to talk loudly about schemes for taking people out of the cities and putting them on the land, but you cannot keep them there. I think the minister is well advised to take the matter into his consideration, and I hope he will consider it for a long time before embarking on a similar scheme. You would never think of spending money to put a man in a law office or to make a doctor of him unless he had somebody behind him financially.


Charles Gavan Power: Any fool can be a lawyer.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps he can; the difficulty is some people seem to think that any fool can be a farmer. If you give a man with some practical experience an acre of land, perhaps he is better off there than wandering homeless in a city. But at the moment any large scheme of land settlement will have just the same chance of success as the soldier settlement scheme had, and it will cost the country just as much money. If you go into such a scheme with your eyes open, with no hope of any return on your investment, I am satisfied; but otherwise for heaven's

sake don't embark on it. Why do we advocate this method of settling on the land people who find themselves in difficulties? I would deprecate anything like the dole, but unfortunately conditions are such in this country today that people cannot be allowed to starve, and perhaps the cheapest way is to grant them direct relief. By the way, I may say that until the government changes its policy perhaps that will have to be done. But the minister is being bombarded this afternoon with requests to go into another land settlement scheme, and I warn him that if he does so he will have just the same results as we had from the soldier land settlement scheme. The minister's idea of advising people who are willing to invest their money in farms is all right, but from my experience in connection with the department I say to the minister that it would be just as well not to open up any discussion about land settlement schemes, because they invariably lead to requests for assistance from all quarters. If we are to give such assistance, let us give it without any hope of ever receiving our money back.


Mr. HEENAN:: Did I understand the
minister to say last evening that the Ontario government was responsible for bringing out 500 boys from the old country?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Ontario government,
I presume, were prompted by the various churches to submit the proposal to admit up to 500 boys. The first, request was for the admission of 800. I thought that was too many. I took J;he matter up with the Ontario government, they in turn, I assume, took it up with the various church organizations concerned, and the number was reduced to a maximum of 500. From the latest information I have received I do not think more than 250 will come forward. They are coming from the United Church, the Y.M.C.A., the Catholic Immigration Association, the Salvation Army, the National Children's Home, Fagan's Home and Quarriers.


Peter Heenan: Are the church organizations and the Ontario government guaranteeing any set wage?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Those organizations take
full responsibility for placing the boys on farms. We are also placing Canadian boys on farms; that work is always being carried on by the department.


Peter Heenan: Have the church organizations, the Ontario government or this government guaranteed any set wage or security of employment?

Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They guarantee to train
the boys and find them employment on farms. I have never heard of their guaranteeing any set wage.


Charles Gavan Power: If a man in my constituency with S5,000 capital wanted to go on a farm, and I referred him to the minister, what would the minister do?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would have him on a
farm in no time.


Charles Gavan Power: How?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would turn him over
to the director of soldier settlement and he would show him half a dozen farms, and make a deal for him if he does not know how to do so himself.


Charles Gavan Power: Would you give him any
direct assistance in cash?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Charles Gavan Power: In any other way?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Only advice by trained
officers of the department.


Charles Gavan Power: So really you would give
the man advice who has money and wants to go on a farm?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The department gives him
advice, and that is about all?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: So the 44,000 who were
planted on farms were planted there through the advice of the hon. minister and his department?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not altogether; through
the advice of the department and the two railways.


Charles Gavan Power: So that sums up the return
to the land work done by the department?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: No money was expended,
saving perhaps the travelling expenses of some of your advisory officers. That is about all that has been done. I would not talk so much about it if I were you.


Peter Heenan: Are the boys induced to
come to this country by advertisement, or by the churches direct, or how?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The societies in England
submit the names of the proposed migrants to the department, then we investigate through our agents in the old country as to the desirability of the boys coming here.


Peter Heenan: I sympathize with the minister because I have been fighting this battle for a number of years both in and outside the cabinet. It is a wonder to me that the churches of Canada and the government of Ontario are not more interested in Canadian boys. I had a similar case to contend with when an organization was trying to bring boys over from the old country to work in the banks of Canada. When I took issue with them these gentlemen answered that the English boys were better bred and better brought up than the Canadian boys, and they knew how to meet the public in a more respectful manner. I took the view, and I take it yet, that we have as well bred and as well brought up boys in Canada as there are in any country of the world, and if the minister listens to gentlemen of this sort who are going to different countries of the world seeking well-mannered boys and well-mannered men to bring to Canada on the ground that we have not well brought up and well-mannered boys in this country, he will have this country flooded with that kind of people. At that time I had to get the Minister of Immigration to make a ruling that these boys came under the order in council prohibiting the bringing in of contract labour, and I feel that these boys who are being brought out now to work on farms come under that same order in council. If they are only coming here to go on a farm to work, surely they should be regarded as labour; and the minister ought to put his foot down on that immediately, because the province of Ontario is not the only province that is interested in this matter. The province of Ontario cannot give the minister any assurance to-day that these boys will not be in Calgary next week, or in Winnipeg or Vancouver a month from now, and so I say that the province of Ontario through the churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, or other organizations acting as colonization or immigration agencies, should not be allowed to bring people into Canada from any other country in the world. I am saying this in all kindness to the minister because I know what he is up against. I know that when I was Minister of Labour I was continually up against the Immigration department, but as the minister is now two in one, Minister of Labour and Minister of Immigration, he will only have himself to fight. I do not know how these two ministers will get along together, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Immigration, but they could not get along any worse than I as Minister of Labour got along with the Minister of Immigration and the deputy minister. The minister is

Supply-Immigration

laughing, because, as I remember, he sat back one time and asked, "Is this an Irish fight?" I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the minister ought to consider this question very seriously. If I were Minister of Immigration to-day let me tell you that no province, Ontario or any other, could induce me to allow boys or men to come into this country to take the place that rightly belongs to Canadians. The minister should look into that matter because there are so many societies with philanthropic ideas, always wanting to do something for somebody else in any other part of the world except Canadians. When these people told me that they were bringing boys over here because they were better bred and better brought up and could meet the public more respectfully than our Canadian boys, I told them to go and mind their own business and I would look after the Immigration department.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many deportations were there from Canada last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Deportations for the
calendar year ended December .31, 1931, were 6,582.


Frederick George Sanderson: And what' was the
immigration for the same calendar year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was 27,530.


Mr. McINTOSH:: How were they distributed by provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We have no figures as
to the distribution of migrants amongst the provinces.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The other evening
the hon. member for North Waterloo brought up the question of deportations, and in the course of his remarks referred to people who were deported from Canada by reason of having become a public charge. I have been circularized by several people in Alberta, amongst others by Mr. Joseph A. Clarke, former mayor and also a councillor of the city of Edmonton, protesting against this policy. In a letter to the Nor-East Adviser under the heading, "Should a Hungry Man be Deported," he says:
To now tolerate two subaltern municipal employees to boldly announce a right-about-face policy, without public discussion or any authority, or even knowledge, of the only body entitled to speak for us, viz.,-the city council, is un-Canadian.
In other words, Mr. Clarke says that there is a movement on the part of two officials of the city relief department to have men deported for no other reason than that,

because of being unemployed, they have become a charge upon the city. He also says that there is a movement on foot, largely initiated by these two men, to add to the criminal code the crime of being hungry. I would ask the minister whether the Department of Immigration has deported men from the province of Alberta solely because of their having become a charge upon some municipality.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Each case is investigated
on its merits. I recollect no case where deportation has been ordered of a person simply because he was without funds.


Frederick George Sanderson: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing that this item carry on the understanding that the minister give me the information that I asked for.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh, quite.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration salaries and contingencies, including grants to immigration societies, provinces, etc., as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,360,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: I should like to have some
particulars regarding the "grants to immigration societies, provinces, etc."


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The vote has been carried through in its present form for some years. Properly, it should be changed, because this year there are no grants to societies and provinces. The vote is misdescribed.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the minister prepared to give any further consideration to the complaint of Mr. A. M. Graham?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I hope that matter is a
closed book, so far as the department is concerned; so far as I am concerned, it is. I do not purpose to spend more time on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Empire settlement scheme, including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, etc., as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $60,000.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am asking the Minister
of Finance to move an amendment.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That item 56 be reduced by the amount of $45,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Why the
reduction?


Charles Gavan Power: Is this a vote of want of
confidence?

Lake of the Woods Bridge


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This vote has been carried from year to year, and with the exception of about $20,000 has never been used. The balance of it is to take care of certain commitments under agreements made a few years ago with the British government with respect to supplementing advances made by them under their boy settlement scheme. We have never had to use the money, and I do not expect we will need it this year


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff performing investigations for the war veterans' allowance committee, $1,500,000.
Charles A. Stewart: As there is
some information I should like to have on this item, and as it is now six o'clock I think the item should stand until the committee resumes.


Alfred Speakman: Yes; a number of hon. members would like to make some comments in connection with this item.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 46, to incorporate the Lake of the Woods International Bridge Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Sections 1 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section IS-rights of municipalities saved.
The CHAIRMAN:: There has been a
change in this section; the new clause appears in the bill as reprinted.
41761-144i


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Labour and materials.
Mr. CANTLEY:: In my judgment this section does not provide a sufficient guarantee as to the use of Canadian material and labour. Therefore I would move, seconded by the hon. member for West Algoma, that the section be amended by adding the words "At least one-half of all material used or being part of the bridge and the fabrication of same shall be of Canadian origin and workmanship."


Peter Heenan: I think that is covered in the reprinted bill.


Mr. SIMPSON:: I rather think that is taken care of in the amended section.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In the reprinted bill section 20 reads:
Canadian materials and labour to the extent of at least fifty per centum must be used in the construction of the said bridge and a certified statement shall be sent weekly to the Department of Labour giving the names and addresses of firms supplying materials and the quantity thereof.
Mr. CxYNTLEY: I have not seen the reprinted bill, but I do not think the words which were read are as effective as those I have suggested. My amendment is a little stiffer, I think. I want Canadian steel used and I want Canadian workmen employed to the extent of at least fifty per cent.


Peter Heenan: That is the intention of the present section, and I quite agree with my hon. friend.


John Livingstone Brown: Is there any difference in meaning?


Thomas Cantley: My amendment states
that all material must be of Canadian origin.


Edward James Young: Will the hon. member tell
us how much that will add to the cost of building the bridge?


Thomas Cantley: I fancy the sponsor of the bill will accept that suggestion.


Peter Heenan: I would accept it but I
think it is already covered. It was the intention of the committee that at least fifty per cent of the material should be of Canadian origin. I do not see how we can say that all the material must be of Canadian origin, because this is an international river, and the international line is exactly in the middle of the river bed.


Thomas Cantley: My amendment states
that one-half the material must be of Cana-
Lake of the Woods Bridge

dian origin. It might be suggested that under the section as reprinted, angles, channels and so on rolled in Canadian mills from billets imported from Germany or some other country might be used. If my suggestion is adopted you get over that point. That is why I stress the word "origin" rather than the words "Canadian material."


Peter Heenan: I understand my hon. friend's point, and so far as I am concerned I accept the amendment.


Edward James Young: Does my hon. friend mean
that this steel will have to be made from ore mined in Canada?


Thomas Cantley: In all international bridges of this type you can depend upon it that our American friends see to it that at least one-half of the material is of American origin, American workmanship and American fabrication.


Edward James Young: That does not answer the
question.


Thomas Cantley: I think we should be
equally careful in regard to our end of the bridge; that is my point; I am not interested in what the bridge costs.


Edward James Young: Does my hon. friend's
amendment mean that the steel used in that bridge would have to be made from ore mined in Canada?


Thomas Cantley: No, because a large proportion of the steel made in Canada is unfortunately not made from Canadian ore; but it is of Canadian origin in so far as the ore is smelted in Canada, and the steel is made here. The fabricated material is rolled in Canada from steel produced in Canada; it may be from home ores or from foreign ores, or it may be partially one and partially the other. At any rate, it is of Canadian origin when it comes out of the furnaces here.


Mr. GARDINER:: If the amendment is
carried, as now proposed, it will mean that so far as the Canadian section is concerned the bridge will never be built.


Peter Heenan: I understand that my hon. friend's idea is to protect Canadian industry and Canadian labour. I know he has no desire to block the building of the bridge-


Thomas Cantley: Certainly not.


Peter Heenan: -but I may say for his information that, so far as labour and materials are concerned, I know that the materials will be supplied by a firm in Winnipeg, which is the nearest point. As to whether all the materials, such as ores and so forth, will

originate in Canada, I am not prepared to say, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are anxious to protect Canadian industry and labour as far as possible. I am just as much interested in this as my hon. friend, and I should be glad if he would allow the amendment as drafted by the committee to go through.


John Vallance: In the interests of the
mover of the bill I might point out to the hon. member for Pictou that it would be possible to bring in foreign ore and billets and make one hundred per cent channels, T's and so forth, which would be fifty per cent of the workmanship embodied in the bridge. You could bring in all the ore and billets and roll the material for the bridge, so that your company would get it all.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the section carry?


Edward James Young: Is that with or without
the amendment?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: As printed, and as
amended in the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House 'in committee on Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act (preamble not proven).-Mr. Nicholson.
Thomas Edward Simpson: On behalf of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) I move that the order be discharged, the preamble not having been proven.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Railway Act.
Albert Edward Munn: This is an equalizing freight bill intended to give to the west what we think is due them -the same classification as has been made on the eastern lines through to Fort William. The trouble is that those who fix the rates do not always use good judgment. For instance, they always penalize a commodity that will stand the maximum rate. I have been shipping all my life and have had a

Railway Act
good deal of experience in this regard, and I know that the railroads are sure to get the maximum out of any commodity that can stand it. This necessitates a battle for the rights of the shipper. Take, for example, a carload of silk from Vancouver to New York as against a carload of coal; there is a vast difference in the freight, because they charge whatever the commodity will stand. We argue that one commodity rate should apply to all coarse grains, and we are opposed to the discrimination between the export and domestic rates. We contend that the domestic rate should be brought more into line with the export. The farmers of the prairies no doubt have a low grade grain that could be shipped to the coast for poultry or stock feed if they were given a satisfactory rate, but of course it would have to be lower than the present rate. This would not only furnish a market for the low grade grain which the farmer on the prairie has; it would also help the consumer in British Columbia. The climatic conditions are particularly favourable there for stock and poultry raising and, while things are quiet at the moment,- an enormous business has been done there. But there could have been a good deal more if lower rates had been in effect on all rough commodity freights. There is a regular lumber commodity rate and also a lower rate for slabwood, poles, ties and cordwood. It costs as much to ship a carload of lumber as it does to ship a carload of cordwood or slabs. Why should not a little common sense be used and these rates reduced on coarse grain as well as on wood products? The railroads are looking for business and I think they would find it by adopting these rates. It would help not only themselves but business generally. Vancouver is a port open twelve months m the year, and it is possible that there would be considerable business in poultry exporting if it was possible to obtain feed from the prairies at a satisfactory price. The equalization of the export and domestic rates oh grain would help not only the farmers on the prairies, but the people of British Columbia and throughout Canada as a whole.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say in connection with this bill. We have not the bill before us, but from what has been said by the hon. member who introduced this measure we have been able to obtain a fair idea of its provisions. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Munn) dealt more with commodity rates, but so far as I can understand, it is not intended that this bill shall deal with such rates.
The very important and complicated question of freight rates has been before parliament for some time and has been the subject of discussion throughout the country. I am sorry to say that at times this matter has been injected into the political arena in an effort to make some political gain. It is not my intention to go at length into the history of freight rates. This matter came before parliament over thirty years ago and some hon. members may recall the system then in use for the adjusting of freight rate schedules. Prior to 1903 the railways simply filed their tariffs with the Department of Railways and the railway committee of the privy council either approved or disapproved of such schedules. This system proved to be very unsatisfactory as many of the provinces complained they were being discriminated against and had no voice in the fixing of rates. In 1903 parliament, under the leadership of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, appointed what is known as the Board of Railway Commissioners, designed to function as a court of record and established in the same way as the supreme and exchequer courts. It was to have complete control and authority over all questions relating to the operation of railways, including the charges to be made for the handling of traffic. As I have indicated, it was to function as a judicial body to hear all interested parties, and its decisions were to depend, first, on the evidence submitted, and, second, on a proper appreciation of the evidence in relation to the relief sought. Provision was made for appeals from decisions to the privy council. I think it will be admitted that on the whole this board has proved to be satisfactory. At times there has been criticism, but every section of Canada has been granted the opportunity to appear before the board.
As I understand the present bill, one of its provisions is to add further powers to those already possessed by the railway commission; it is to be given the power to consider matters of trade development and public policy. The objection to this provision is that it would give a political tinge to the railway commission; there would be danger of disturbing its judicial character.
Another provision of the bill is to permit the fixing of rates without a hearing-in other words, to extend the Crowsnest pass agreement west from Fort William to Vancouver. It might be well to recall just what is meant by the Crowsnest pass agreement. This agreement was entered into in 1897 by the Dominion government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Under its terms the railway agreed
Railway Act

to construct a line through what is known as the Crowsnest pass to Nelson, British Columbia, for which it was to receive a subsidy of $11,000 per mile, or a total of $3,400,000. In return the railroad was to give a rate on grain and flour, from points west of Fort William to Fort William and any point east thereof, of three cents per hundred pounds less than the existing rate. In addition certain reductions were made in the rates on named articles or commodities shipped from the east westward. This agreement remained in force until 1918, when, under the War Measures Act, the Board of Railway Commissioners was given temporary power over the agreement. In 1924 it automatically came into force again, after which an appeal was made to the supreme court with the result that the board was directed to restore the rates provided by the agreement. At the same time the supreme court found in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in its contention that the terms of the agreement applied only to those points which were in existence at the time of the making of the agreement. It is quite apparent that in view of the condition which prevailed as a result of the decision of the supreme court, some action had to be taken; the old agreement had to be either cancelled or extended to take in the other points including the Canadian National.
A large number of people hold the view that since in 1903 we set up a court to deal with this matter, the railway commission, that court, should be given a free hand^ rather than be hampered by any such legislation. In the session of 1925 the government of the day brought in legislation extending the rate under the agreement to other points, including those reached by the Canadian National Railways. I may be pardoned for expressing the opinion that the action of the government of that day was no doubt based on political expediency; a general election was pending, and by leaving the old Crowsnest pass rate agreement in operation the government thought they would be able to draw support from the prairie provinces.
It is very interesting to read the debate on this matter during the session of 1925. It will be noticed that the Conservative members from British Columbia argued that the agreement should be abrogated, or if the government insisted on putting into force legislation extending the agreement, in all fairness it should be extended as far west as Vancouver. Its supporters on the other hand argued that the government was dealing quite fairly with British Columbia, and pointed out that an order in council had just been passed directing the railway commission to make a general

review of freight rates and to provide for their equalization throughout Canada. The government laid special stress on the provision for an appeal to the privy council, where, it was said, justice would surely be meted out. No doubt the order in council was framed with the object of giving the impression that other sections of the dominion would have their grievances adjusted. At this point I desire to quote from the debate. I find that on page 4440 of Hansard of June 18, 1925, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the present leader of the opposition, in discussing the matter said:
I would say to the house and the country that if this government remains in office it will not take the view of the order in council which my right hon. friend takes-
That is, Mr. Meighen.
-but will regard that order in council as a direction to the railway commission as to how it expects this policy to be worked out, and will see that the policy is W'orked out in accordance with the terms of the order in council. The order in council sets out the government policy. It is a direction to the railway commission to equalize rates. That direction indicates how this government expects this policy of equalization to be worked out. And I would remind hon. members that there remains, as the commission itself well knows, an appeal from the commission to the governor in council with respect to matters of railway rates. This government has stated what its policy is with respect to the equalization of rates, and unless that policy is carried out in accordance with its intention-if this government is in office when the question comes up-and I have not the least doubt it will be-it will take care to see that the policy is carried out in the spirit and intent of the letter as expressed in the order in council itself.
As I have said, great stress was laid on this appeal to the governor in council. Now, the right hon. gentleman's government was in power for the following five years, with the exception of an interruption of a few months, and although an appeal from the decision of the railway commission was taken to the privy council, up to the time of the election of 1930, no decision had been rendered. Having regard to the pledge given at the time, I think it may well be claimed that the Liberal government of that day did not keep faith with the people of Canada, and particularly with the people of British Columbia, in the matter of freight rate adjustments.
During the course of that debate the Conservative members from British Columbia urged the government to abrogate the agreement or extend it to Vancouver. The member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) the other evening said he could not understand why this bill did not have the active support of all members from British Columbia. Well,

Railway Act
the hon. member himself sat in this house during the session of 1925. I have gone very carefully through the debate to which I have referred, but I cannot find that he offered any suggestions to the then government, nor did he support the Conservative members from British Columbia who demanded justice for their province with respect to freight rates. Apparently he was a supporter of the government's legislation and a believer in the policy of that government with respect to the matter as outlined in the order in council. That was his opportunity to serve British Columbia by using his influence with a government that was friendly to him, if he believed, as he does to-day, that that particular legislation was in the interest of British Columbia. Now 'he sees an opportunity to gain a little political kudos out of this matter and is prepared to jump into the boat along with my friend from New Westminster. The people of British Columbia took the promise of the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) very seriously. I remember quite well the striking headlines in the Vancouver press, particularly in the Vancouver Sun. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni still has a copy of that paper on his file. On the front page were large photos of three of the lions of the Liberal party-the Hon. John Oliver, the Hon. Doctor King, and Mr. Jerry McGeer- with this declaration: These are the three men to whom credit is due for what they secured for British Columbia in the way of freight rates, an opportunity of pleading its cause. The cause was pleaded before a friendly and sympathetic government-but still the differential remains.	Time has
wrought great changes; one of those gentlemen has passed to the great beyond, one has been translated to another place, and the third, the $150,000 freight rate advocate, is busy looking for another fat job.
As I have already said, I think the opinion is general that such a complicated matter as freight rates and railway tariffs should be left in the hands of a competent and judicial board, such as we have in the railway commission. I should like again to quote from Hansard of the same date, page 4439, where will be found these remarks by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the present leader of the opposition:
I have been looking over some of the speeches which I made in western Canada last fall, and which were quoted, in part I think, by the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) in his remarks the. other evening. I notice in speaking on the prairies I intimated very clearly that my view was that the railway
commission was the right body to fix freight rates and should be given a free hand in the matter, When speaking in Vancouver and Victoria I made similar statements.
At that time we had the leader of the opposition arguing that this whole matter should be left in the hands of the railway commission. Then at page 4413 of the same date of Hansard the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) made the following statement:
Admitting therefore, as I do, and as I think all will, that class legislation is bad, that special agreements for the advantage of any one section of the country are bad, and also that the matter of freight rate making should not be given to parliament, we have then to consider, so far as I see the question, how far we should depart in the public interest from the principle that I laid down, that rate making should not be given to parliament but should remain vested in the Board of Railway Commissioners.
At page 4420 we have this further testimony from this same hon. gentleman:
The railway board is charged with the duty of making rates fair and equitable to all. We have set up the board to do that work. Why then not let the board perform that duty? They are infinitely better qualified to make these rates than are members of parliament. If parliament has no confidence in the railway board -and that sentiment has been expressed by some hon. members-then the remedy is not to throw the business of rate-making into this house: the remedy is so to constitute your board that you will have confidence in it.
I think that answers very fully the question which the hon. member brought up the other night in introducing this question.
I have mentioned that the Conservatives also took part in that debate. I shall quote only one. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) at page 4319 of Hansard of June 16, 1925, said:
I have argued in this house and before my own constituents and the people of my province for certain principles which I think should underlie and govern the making of a freight rate structure. I have argued that the fixation of rates is such a complicated problem that it should not be pitchforked into parliament, but rather that it should be dealt with by a competent board, that board in my estimation being the Board of Railway Commissioners.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I think it is the general opinion of all sections of this house and throughout the country that such a complicated matter as freight rates should be left in the hands of an independent judicial tribunal such as the Board of Railway Commissioners. Before this board the railways have the privilege of appearing as well as the people. Any body or individual can appear before the railway board and lay before it
Railway Act

any hardship that may be worked on them through the running of the railways.
I am anxious to support any movement which will bring relief to the farmers of British Columbia and which will help to remove that 21* cents diffei'ential that exists between the domestic and the export rates on grain. I listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman's remarks when he introduced this proposal. I have studied the question very closely, and I have come to the conclusion that the legislation proposed by this bill will not give to the people of our province that which they feel they are justly entitled to. Not only that, but if this bill should become law it would still further tie the hands of the railway board.
There is another objection. There is at the present time an appeal pending before the privy council from the railway commission, and from the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the other day during the debate on this particular question we can take it that this government has been prepared for the last year or year and a half to hear the appeal without delay, but so far the provinces have not been able to arrange a time suitable to all. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, if I thought that by this legislation or any other method justice would be done to the people of Canada and British Columbia would receive what she is entitled to in the matter of the removal of that differential, I should be only too willing to lend my support.
Mr. FRASER (Cariboo) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and debate adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dickie in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Canals-Lachine canal, improvements, $20,900.
John Vallance: Will the minister explain the item?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: This item is for the complete renewal of an old wharf at the lower entrance of north lock No. 1 on the north side of the Lachine canal which has been made necessary by the wear and tear of time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Rideau canal, improvements, $17,000.
Albert Edward Munn: Is that canal of any practical service to anybody? If so, let us know; if not, why spend the money? Years ago it may have been some use; what about to-day?


Robert James Manion: Yes, the Quebec canals are all useful. A great deal of wheat from the prairie provinces passes through them.


John Vallance: But we are talking about the Rideau canal.


Robert James Manion: Oh, I beg the hon. member's pardon. The Rideau canal is not used for business purposes to any great extent. As my hon. friend knows, it was built in the old days for war purposes, or something of that sort. It is kept open, although very little business passes through it. I doubt very much if the people in this section of the country would like to see it closed, and it does not cost much to keep it in operation.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is there any revenue derived from it?


John Vallance: I suggest it be handed over to the historical monuments branch.


Robert James Manion: We are keeping it in that shape now. The hon. member for Battle River asked if there was any revenue, and in reply I would say that very little revenue is derived from the canal. There is no charge on boats going through, but a small amount comes in from a few small water-power plants.


Peter Heenan: I should like to refer to the reduction in wages of the men on these canals. I understood the minister's explanation to be that the reduction was a realignment or readjustment of wages to conform to the prevailing rate of wages in the district. I gathered from the minister's explanation that different grades of craftsmanship had been established. Probably the minister is not prepared to go on with this item just now.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead, but please speak a little louder.


Peter Heenan: I understand the minister or his department has established first and second class carpenters, blacksmiths, machinists, chauffeurs, engineers, and so on. I was wondering if he would be willing to conform to a ruling which has prevailed in the Department of Labour for a great many years, namely, that there be only one class of craftsmanship. For instance, a carpenter was a man who used the tools of a carpenter)


Robert James Manion: I was more familiar with this matter a few days ago than I am at the

Supply-Canals
moment, and I am refreshing my memory. They are not all arranged in the two classes, as my hon. friend has suggested. Some types of workmen are divided into two classes. From a hurried observation I notice that there are first and second class carpenters, blacksmiths and cable splicers. Then on the next page of the information I have before me there may be one or two other types of crafstmen divided into the two classes; out of the twenty-five or thirty different types of workers there may be four divided into first and second classes. The rate of wages, however, was established after consultation with the Department of Labour concerning the prevailing rate of wages.


Peter Heenan: Will not the minister reconsider his position concerning the establishment of different grades? There has been a great deal of trouble in connection with the establishment of wage rates. I can recall that while the Hon. Thomas Crothers was Minister of Labour a ruling was made that a man using the tools of a carpenter should be classed and paid as a carpenter. The reason was that there were contractors working for the government who had to pay the prevailing rate of wages for carpenters. In order to get around that clause in their contracts they established different grades of carpenters. Those men were all doing the same work, but there would be only two or three first class carpenters on a job, and the rest would be second or third. If the establishment of different grades prevails a great deal of trouble will be heaped upon the minister and the government. Therefore I ask the minister to reconsider his view. The change to which I have referred was not made without due consideration, and the result was satisfactory both to the government and to the contractors. In connection with government works contractors file tenders which they believe will secure the work. Immediately they begin to seek ways and means of saving money so that their profits may be greater. Naturally they turn to the item of wages, and make an effort to cut them down. The government will not allow them to cut wages, so they then attempt to establish different grades of labour, first and second class carpenters and so on. That is a vicious method of defeating the fair wage clause, and I am sure the minister does not wish to allow contractors to employ cut-throat methods in connection with their tenders, and attempt to reduce the wages of the workingmen by the establishment of these various grades. The laws laid down governing fair wages do not force any contractor to
keep any particular man employed; the services of an unsatisfactory workman may be dispensed with. On the other hand if a man is engaged as a carpenter he should be paid carpenter's wages.
After long years of experience it has been found necessary to establish only one grade of carpenters, blacksmiths, machinists and craftsmen of all types. I ask the minister to reconsider his view, and to follow the rules of the Department of Labour, the one prevailing since the days of Hon. Thomas Crothers, to the effect that a man using the tools of a carpenter must be paid the wages of a carpenter.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I gave my
hon. friend the wrong information. Originally there was an intention to make provision for first and second class carpenters. My hon. friend was one who made objection, and further objections were received from men on the Welland ship canal. The matter was discussed with the Department of Labour, and as a result the provision for second class carpenters was struck out. The result is that there are none. May I add that there have been second class carpenters on the Quebec canals since 1920; whether or not they are retained against the rules of the Department of Labour, I do not know.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to the work going on in connection with the Rideau canal. I have no objection to that work, but I do object to being tossed out of my bed during the night because of explosions taking place on the work. I do not want that to happen again. If it does I may have to enter a suit for damages against the government. One explosion takes place at night and another at six o'clock in the morning. Surely there should be some thought for comfort and convenience of the people.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. friend, but in this instance he is in the position in which he so often finds himself in this house. The government is not doing the work; it is being done by the city of Ottawa.


Peter John Veniot: And yet the government
is paying for it.


Robert James Manion: No, it is not. The dynamiting that is going on is not political dynamiting of any kind.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I might enjoy it
if it were.
229S
Supply-Canals


Robert James Manion: The work is being done by the city.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have a clipping here
from Labour, which is the official organ of the railroad brotherhoods and other international labour organizations. Under date of March 17 it says:
Maintenance workers on Canadian canals have been handed two stiff blows by the Department of Railways and Canals.
It has announced a -wage cut, running as high as 25 per cent and retroactive to February 16, and a new classification that wrill cut further into the workers' depleted pay envelopes.
Is it true that the twenty-five per cent cut in wages was made on the date mentioned, February 16?


Robert James Manion: There was a cut which
came into effect at about that time. I explained it once before in the house in reply to a question asked by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River. The reason was that there was a reduction in the hours of work just before the last election, while the wages were continued at the same rate per day, which put the men on those canals altogether out of line with the prevailing rate of wages in whatever section was concerned. After consultation with the Department of Labour the prevailing rate was ascertained and these men were merely put on the hourly rate prevailing in the particular section.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would the minister say the basic rate was cut twenty-five per cent?


Robert James Manion: I do not know what my
hon. friend means by the basic rate.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hourly rate.


Robert James Manion: Yes, that is right; the
hourly rate was cut by 25 per cent, or whatever it was, in order to make the rate the same as the rate paid in those districts by other employers.


Peter Heenan: Just to keep the record
straight, Mr. Chairman, I may say that though the minister, with his nice smile, says the hours of labour were reduced just before the last election, that was done as part of a permanent policy. It may have been right or wrong, but it was a set policy. The treaty of Versailles, which was signed by Sir Robert Borden on behalf of this country, called for a reduction in the hours of work. In nearly every instance where hours were reduced it will be found that wages or salaries were not interfered with. For instance, when the railway men obtained the -McAdoo award reducing their hours from ten to eight the wages were left as they had been previously, and

when civil servants in Ottawa were put on the eight-hour day salaries and wages were not reduced. The same action was taken in connection with canal employees. When reductions were made in the hours of work, on canals or any other public works, notwithstanding that it was done just before the election it was the intention that salaries and wages would not be reduced in line with the reduction in working time. At the moment I am not complaining because of what the minister has done, but I do want to say it was the intention of the previous government to leave those salaries as they had been. The whole trend in labour circles throughout the world is that hours should be reduced but that the earning power should not be reduced correspondingly. I just make this statement for the information of the minister; this action was not taken because of the election but was part of the policy adopted by the previous government.


Robert James Manion: I would not for a moment suggest that this was done because of the election; I merely mentioned the date, which happened to be July 16. I am sure it had no connection with the election.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal, improvements, $133,400.
William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister explain this item?


Robert James Manion: This work is being carried on in connection with the Trent canal, which as my hon. friend knows runs from Trenton to the Georgian bay. There are a number of different items; I have a whole list here. The amount is to provide for plant and channel improvements, structural replacements, rebuilding and concreting of old decaying timber dams, aids to navigation, miscellaneous surveys, investigations and so on. Since 1925 no heavy capital expenditures have been made towards the completion of a through Trent waterway from Trenton to Georgian bay. This is for fairly heavy work in different parts of that canal, which extends for 240 miles.


William Thomas Lucas: Could the minister tell us the total amount spent on the canal?


Robert James Manion: Since the canal was first built the capital expenditure has amounted to $19,000,000, and the betterments to $3,600,000, making a grand total of $22,600,000.


William Thomas Lucas: Is there any revenue?


Robert James Manion: Practically none.


John Livingstone Brown: What is the extent of the traffic?

Supply-Canals


Robert James Manion: I think there is a little freight traffic, but it is largely the same type of traffic that is carried on the Rideau canal. There is some tourist traffic, and after all the tourist traffic of the country is one of our big industries. I think there is very,little freight, however.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any fishing up
there ?


Robert James Manion: I think so.


Albert Edward Munn: I am somewhat familiar with the Trent canal; I know that country fairly well, and I think this government should consider very carefully the further expenditure of money on that useless inland waterway. You can sit on the bank for a week and see nothing but an odd gas boat, go up and down the canal. I do not think the expenditure of $100,000 in order to provide a canal for a few fellows with gas boats is justified. I lived in Orillia, close to this canal, for several years and I think it is one of the most miserable failures of all our inland waterways.


Robert James Manion: While there is no income from the traffic on the canal there are water powers that must be kept up, and we do get an income nearly equal to the amount of this vote. Last year the income was nearly $98,000, and for each of the two previous years it was about $95,000. This income came from lock houses, water powers, land rent, transmission and telephone lines, boat houses and so on. The water powers provide ninety-five per cent of the income, so that the works must be kept up.


Albert Edward Munn: Where are the water powers?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend the exact places, but we are getting the income so I do not suppose the names matter much. With the exception of the vote last year this is the smallest amount to be voted for a number of years. A great deal of money has been spent on this waterway, and my recollection is that for many years in the neighbourhood of $250,000 was voted each year. There has been an agitation up towards Georgian bay to have the canal completely opened to Georgian bay, but that has not been done as yet. There is a good deal of capital expenditure necessary before that is done; it would require $3,000,000 more. But we have no intention at the moment of undertaking that expenditure in view of present financial conditions. The upkeep of the canal is necessary, however, and this expenditure this year, exactly as in past years, is distributed to meet absolute necessities wherever they exist.


Mr. EULER:: The minister has said that
there is no revenue from the canal. That is the fact. Is there any revenue from any of the canals?


Robert James Manion: No, none except the power revenue.


William Daum Euler: Would the minister care to
express an opinion on a matter which has been discussed in this house before and which is of some importance, namely, the question whether there should not be revenues from all our canals? Why should 'a private business -and it is almost entirely private business- have free use of canals constructed at the expense of the country? Has the minister thought of the advisability of at least making the canals self-sustaining, even if we get no interest on capital investment?


Robert James Manion: Tolls were abolished in
1903 by the Laurier government-


William Daum Euler: That does not make any
difference.


Robert James Manion: I am not saying this in
order to make any invidious comparison; I am simply stating a fact. Since that time no tolls have been charged on canals in Canada. There are sound arguments that could be advanced in support of the contention that tolls should be charged, but I do not know that it would be advisable at the present time.


William Daum Euler: This is just the time, when you need the money.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but it would be to
a large extent a toll upon western wheat, and this commodity is bringing about the lowest price paid in a considerable time. It is true that the Panama canal and the Suez canal charge tolls, and, as I say, there are arguments to support that view. But I do not think I should care to express any definite opinion on the matter at the moment. It is quite open to debate and my hon. friend has good ground for the position he has taken.


William Daum Euler: I personally brought the
matter up in the house some years ago and it has been brought up by others, and the only reply I have ever heard to the question why tolls should not be charged is that it has always been done this way. I regard that as a very insufficient answer.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: So far as tolls on
the Trent canal are concerned, I fear that the revenue would be so small that you could not see it. There are one or two sand barges that go through the canal in the season, but
Supply-Canals

the toll would be infinitesimal. What I wish to protest against, though, is not only the large vote expended on what is more or less a luxury-a vote of $133,400-but the fact that 1he vote has been increased from the previous year by the sum of $17,000. In the previous year the amount authorized was $116,400, and this year, in face of a curtailment of expenditures generally; a cutting down in the salaries of civil servants by ten per cent; a cutting down in sessional indemnities of members and senators by ten per cent; and a cutting down in the wages of railway employees by more than ten per cent-as we have heard to-night, it is twenty-five per cent-we are launching out on what might be described as a luxurious expenditure. The minister made reference to the tourist traffic. I venture the statement that our tourist traffic is not attracted here by the merits of the Trent canal; the tourists come to see something far more attractive than that. So that an expenditure of $17,000 more this year than was spent last year in a matter of this kind looks to me like extravagance run riot.


Humphrey Mitchell: With regard to that twenty-five per cent reduction in wages, which went into effect on February 16, is it the intention of the government to add to that reduction the further ten per cent cut made in salaries and wages of civil servants?


Robert James Manion: It is a matter that we have been discussing, and ordinarily it would have been done without any question whatever. I rather think, frankly, that it will have to be done in fairness to other governmental employees. It is a little unfortunate that the twenty^five iper cent reduction was made so close to the ten per cent proposal, but as a matter of fact when the twenty-five per cent reduction went into effect the ten per cent decrease had not been thought of by the government, so far as I know at any rate. It is true that this should have been done when we first came in, but it was called to my attention by my officers about the time it was put into effect and when I found what I considered was not a reasonable rate, after discussing the matter with the officers of my department and with the Labour department, we put into effect the rates that now prevail. As to the ten per cent, we have been giving a good deal of thought to that, because it does seem rather unfair to the men. But they have this to remember, that for a year and a half they received better wages than men in the same kind of employment in other parts of the country; so that while it appears at the present time to be a severe cut, they had enjoyed that

advantage for over a year. The cheques went out two days ago with the ten per cent taken off. The question is still under consideration, but at the moment it is altogether likely that the ten per cent will remain off.


Mr. HEAPS:: What pay do these men receive now with the ten per cent off?


Peter Heenan: Did I understand the minister to say that he was reconsidering his decision in this matter of the ten per cent?


Robert James Manion: No. I said that the matter was still under consideration, not having been absolutely decided, but I was frank enough to say that I thought the ten per cent would have to remain off in justice to other governmental employees. They will be treated on the same basis.


Peter Heenan: I can see the minister's point of view, that when a general reduction of ten per cent is being applied all round he should apply it here as well. I can understand why he does not wish to exempt the employees on canals. But I want to point out that the rest of the government employees did not have a twenty-five per cent reduction right on the eve of the ten per cent cut, so that in that regard the canal employees are in a little different position. If the minister will give me his attention-


Robert James Manion: I am listening to the hon. gentleman.


Peter Heenan: He takes too much notice of his officers in making these cuts. I say, the rest of the government employees did not suffer a twenty-five per cent cut on the eve of a further ten per cent reduction, so that- these particular employees are now going to suffer to the extent of thirty-five per cent. Even if we admit for the moment that perhaps they had been receiving for a time more than the then prevailing rates of wages, a thirty-five per cent cut is a pretty heavy one.


Robert James Manion: May I say here-


Peter Heenan: One moment. As I pointed out the other evening to the Minister of Finance, who agreed with me, if the minister reduces his employees another ten per cent then the contractors in that particular district will have the right to ask the Labour department for a further reduction of ten per cent so far as they are concerned, to bring their employees on a level with the canal employees. And so on down the line. There is no end to it when you are going down, although there is always an end when you

Supply-Canals
are going up. I repeat, I can see the minister's point of view, but I want him to reconsider the matter. I am not going to argue whether it was right or wrong to make that twenty-five per cent reduction in the rates paid the canal men, to bring them into line with the prevailing rates paid in the district; I will not discuss that at the moment; but when you take another ten per cent off these men, you give the contractors in that district the right to say, "Our prevailing rates are higher than the rates paid to government employees and we are entitled to make a further ten per cent reduction." In other words, you are simply inducing those contractors to follow suit. I implore the minister to reconsider this matter in that regard. I think the fairness of my argument will appeal to him.


Robert James Manion: We have been using the term "twenty-five per cent" but my officers remind me that the general cut did not amount to that much. A cut of twenty-five per cent was made where such a deduction was necessary to bring the rates paid to a level with the prevailing rates. In some instances no cut was made at all.


Peter Heenan: It does not make any difference what was the extent of the cut, the argument is the same.


Robert James Manion: There is another point to be considered. These men working for the government are assured of steadier employment than those working for private contractors. The men on the canal are practically permanent employees, and my hon. friend knows that it is a great advantage for a man to feel sure of reasonable continuance of employment.


Edward James Young: Do they work all winter?


Robert James Manion: Certain repairs are carried out on the canal during the winter. Some of these men are on part time, and some are dropped. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked for the rates of wages. I shall give the rates'paid on the Welland canal, which are as follows:
Blacksmith	
B1 acksmith's helper.	.
Timberman	
Carpenter	
Carpenter's helper.	.
Chauffeur	
Compressor runner.	.
Concrete finisher.	.	.
Concrete foreman. . .
Diver	
Electrician	
65 cents per hour 45 cents per hour 60 cents per hour 75 cents per hour 45 cents per hour $120 per month 60 cents per hour 50 cents per hour 65 cents per hour 1 25 per hour 70 cents per hour


Abraham Albert Heaps: When were those rates in
effect?


Robert James Manion: Those are the rates after the reduction had been made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There will be a further ten
per cent reduction made on those rates?


Robert James Manion: That is quite right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That will bring the rates
below the rates prevailing in the district?


Robert James Manion: It may possibly bring them ten per cent below the prevailing rates, but I have just given my argument in defence of that. The men who have been working for private contractors on the Welland canal are practically finished. I have received hundreds of letters from men who have been working for some years for private contractors and who would like to get jobs with the government. I think a protest has been received from only one organization.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Minister of Railways
ought not to use the argument he is now using, that because many are out of work those who are employed should be satisfied with any rate of wages. I have no doubt there are many people outside of this House of Commons who would be willing to act as members of parliament for considerably less than S3,600 per year, and there are many who would be willing to accept the job of Minister of Railways at a great deal less than the minister is receiving at the present time. The last thing in the world the government should do is to reduce wages because people are out of work. This brings us back to the general ten per cent reduction, but in adopting that policy the government has given a lead to outside employers. The minister has admitted that the wages received by the men on the canal or the employees of his department are probably below the prevailing rates in the district, and there is no doubt that other employers who are paying a higher rate will reduce their men to the rate now paid by the government.


Robert James Manion: The annual pay of these men would be much higher than the annual pay of the men to whom my hon. friend is referring.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are many outside employers who provide steady employment. Take the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, for instance; their men are employed steadily the year round, and probably their rates are higher than those of the federal government. It is quite possible that members of the same
Supply-C anals

union will be receiving different rates of pay, the one rate ten per cent below the other. I draw this aspect of the matter to the attention of the minister, as I do not think the government took it seriously into consideration when it adopted the general cut.


Humphrey Mitchell: The government took
advantage of the depression in order to reduce its own rates by twenty-five per cent, and now it proposes to make a further cut. This will be setting an example to outside employers to reduce again their rates of pay by ten per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: When Bill No. 19, which provides for the ten per cent cut, was introduced by the Prime Minister for the Minister of Finance, such a case as this was referred to. The Prime Minister was asked if some men who had recently had their wages cut would receive a further cut of ten per cent, and he answered to the effect that there was a special provision in the bill to take care of such cases. The Prime Minister referred to section 6 of the bill, which reads:
The treasury board may make regulations.-
(b) determining in any case of doubt the amount to be treated as the amount of compensation of any member of the public service of Canada for the purposes of this act.
That subsection was to take care of just such cases as we have been discussing this evening. I suggest to the minister that all he has to do is to take advantage of the procedure provided by that subsection and thus fulfil the assurances given by the Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: The matter is not absolutely decided, and I shall agree to give it further consideration, although I shall not go any further than that at the moment. I should like to point out that governmental wages compare very favourably with those paid by private companies. While I should not care to give the names of the various companies, I shall give the rates paid for different occupations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these companies in the same district?


Robert James Manion: Yes. I should not like to give the names of the companies, but. if my hon, friend desires I shall let him see the list. The rates for blacksmiths paid by different companies are 38 cents, 48 cents, 45 cents, 75 cents, 75 cents, 50 cents, 60 cents and 60 cents. Our rate is 60 cents, which is as high as or higher than six out of the eight.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the prevailing ra tel


Robert James Manion: I am simply pointing out what might be the prevailing rate. First class carpenters; 45, 54, 70, 75, 60, 55, 60, 60, 65 cents; ours is 60.


William Daum Euler: That is 60 before the ten
per cent is taken off, which would make it 54.


Robert James Manion: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: Don't you think the government ought to be a model employer of labour?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I think we are.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Two cuts of twenty-five per cent?


Robert James Manion: That is not fair.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One of twenty-five and one
of ten per cent.


Robert James Manion: Twenty-five was the highest cut, and some took no cut at all. It was simply put at the prevailing rates. Those are the prevailing rates. Generally ours are beyond the highest rates paid by private companies. The ten per cent cut is simply because of the fact that all government employees-including my hon. friend and myself, if we can be termed such-have taken a ten per cent cut. My hon. friend thought that plenty of people would be willing to become members of parliament at $3,600 a year. Well, all they have to do is to get elected-and my hon. friend from Hamilton has had the most recent experience in that line.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How do the government
rates in Ontario compare with the fair wage standard?


Robert James Manion: Our rates have been settled after consultation with the Labour department. That department is noted for giving breaks to the workers, and I have no doubt that it has taken into account any legislation dealing with wages. But I repeat, this matter is still more or less sub judice, and I shall give it further consideration before deciding absolutely.


Peter Heenan: The minister's citation of rates was correct. If he will look at the labour situation all over Canada he will see that that condition prevails in every province

Supply-Canals
Some employers will grind their workmen right down into the mud, into a condition of slavery; but that is no reason why the government should follow suit.


Robert James Manion: We are not doing that.


Peter Heenan: I know he would be one of the last men to follow in that line. While the fair wages legislation of 1930 mentions "the prevailing rate of wages," it empowers the Minister of Labour to declare that the prevailing rate shall not be taken as the standard unless it is fair and reasonable. I am not going to argue the matter any further in view of the minister's promise that he will give it further consideration. Unfortunately he was not in the house when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made certain statements in connection with this very same matter. Undoubtedly other employers of labour in that particular section will take advantage of the government's attitude to seek to reduce their labour wages another ten per cent, and therefore I would ask the minister to give the subject very careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland canal, improvements (revote $10,700), $25,900.
Robert Gardiner: This is the old canal, I presume. What improvements are you making there?


Robert James Manion: Yes, it is. Certain water powers and docks have to be kept up under a contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal, improvements, $125,000.
Sir EUGENE FISET:: What is the reason for providing this item when we have already provided for construction and betterments, $3,123,400?


Robert James Manion: This is for a wharf on the east side of the canal at Welland, $100,000, and the balance of $25,000 is for the completion of a dock at Homer, just outside St. Catharines. We get wharfage fees from these docks.


Peter John Veniot: I notice the following despatch in the Montreal Daily Star of this dale:
Manion asserts shipway urgent. Traffic will be diverted to N.Y. ports says minister.
Toronto, April 22.-Warning that unless the St. Lawrence river were developed, downbound traffic on that waterway might be diverted via the ports of Oswego and Albany, N.Y. through the United States, was given last night by Hon. R. J. Manion, Dominion Minister of Railways and Canals, when he addressed the Toronto Transportation Club.
Is that a forecast of the policy of the government in connection with the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway? Perhaps the minister is not in a position to answer my question to-night.


Robert James Manion: Oh yes, I remember the speech very well. I think it worth while for the people of Quebec to be reminded there is danger if the St. Lawrence ship channel is not constructed that, traffic will be diverted through Oswego and Albany down the Hudson river and out by New York. That is the sum and substance of what I said. I did not discuss the policy at all. I merely pointed out that if the St. I Lawrence waterway were not constructed there was that danger, and I quite adhere to that opinion. I think there is that danger which it is well for all of us to keep in mind.


Mr. YENIOT:: I quote another paragraph from the minister's address:
Outlining the railway situation in Canada. Dr. Manion told the Transportation Club that in his opinion the Canadian National Railways would never be able to pay its debt to the Canadian government. Occasionally editorial writers, he said, "take the attitude that because facts are told we are doing damage to our railway situation in this country. I do not see what good it does the railways of Canada metaphorically to stick our heads in the sand and not see our troubles."
I agree with the minister that we should view our troubles in the proper way, but I am afraid from the minister's assertion expressing fears of the attitude of the United States that some of that red Canadian blood has gone out of him.


Robert James Manion: Not a bit.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Not a bit? I take it that the minister was speaking on behalf of the government, as a cabinet minister at all events, not simply giving his own opinion, and apparently he is basing the policy of the government on what looks to be a threat from the United States. If anything is to be done in Canada because of threats coming from the republic to the south of us, I think we ought to know it.


Robert James Manion: I did not mention any
threat from the United States.	I merely
pointed out the possible danger which is recognized by many. I was not telling anybody in the United States anything that he does not already know. Regarding my remarks about the railway, I have nothing to withdraw. They are practically the same remarks that I made in this house. So far as the debt of the railway to the government of
Supply-Canals

Canada is concerned, I do not think that it ever will be paid. Not a cent of it ever has been paid, and I am sure that not a cent of it ever will be paid.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think that it ever was intended that one cent should be paid. That is all right, but why should it be heralded all over the country, especially when addressing such an important association as the Transportation Club.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has asked me a straight question and I will give him a straight answer. The reason it must be told is this, that the Canadian National Railways were being run too extravagantly and they had to be brought to task accordingly. The reasons there were for bringing them to task must be told the people . or we would be accused of crucifying the Canadian National Railways. That is the answer to my hon. friend's question.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Lots of red blood in that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: maintenance and operation, $288,780.45.
Mr. ROGERS:: What does this amount cover?


Robert James Manion: It covers all the expenses of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the salaries oif the staff, travelling expenses and all that sort of thing.


Robert Rogers: It looks a very big sum.


Robert James Manion: It is less by S32,000 than last year.


Robert Rogers: That may be, but I notice that there is another item for the salaries of the railway commissioners. This seems a very big sum.


Robert James Manion: The salaries for the commissioners are statutory. The item before us covers such things as the salaries of the staff, 8219,866.81; official reporting, because most of the evidence is taken down in shorthand, $11,800; official car, $3,000; printing, $6,000; stationery, $4,000; telegraph and telephone, $1,500; travelling expenses for the board and staff, $20,000; contingencies, $22,613.64. It is a big item, but it is less than last year by $32,000. Mr. Justice Fullerton has given me a very fine impression. He is a man who I believe is efficient, able and just, and I believe that he will do a great deal of good to the whole board.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Just what progress has been made with regard to the Toronto Suburban Railway?


Robert James Manion: None. The interest has not been paid. We have received recently from some shareholders in England who hold some of the 41 per cent debentures a claim sent by their legal representatives, but nothing further has been done. The property has been . turned over to the bondholders and they are at liberty to do as they wish with it. The service was discontinued and the road abandoned so far as the Canadian National Railway is concerned.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: That would mean that the Canadian National Railway from now on has no further interest in the road and admits no further responsibility as to the payment of interest and principal to the bondholders?


Robert James Manion: That is the attitude they take, yes.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Then it is finally closed up so far as the government's interest in the road is concerned.


Robert James Manion: The government never had any interest in it. The road was a subsidiary of the Canadian National, but it was never guaranteed by the government or by the Canadian National. The government had no direct interest in it at all. The government has finished with it unless these people who are making claims can show that they have legal rights to claim something that they have not obtained.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: It is a mystery to me
how the Canadian National assumed the ownership of the road without assuming responsibility to the bondholders.


Robert James Manion: They simply took over
the railway and paid the interest on the bonds, but the bonds were never guaranteed by the government or by the railway in any shape or form. The Canadian National operated the road.


Alan Webster Neill: On a lease?


Robert James Manion: They operated the road
through ownership of the common stock, and they paid interest on the bonds. For some years they have been paying the interest at a loss. They are not only losing the interest they paid which had not been earned, but they had to pay for repairs and so forth.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Did the road ever earn
interest?

Supply-Railway Commissioners


Robert James Manion: I know that it did not of
recent years, and my deputy informs me that it never did. After that state of affairs had continued for some years, when the Canadian National got into financial difficulties this year they saw no reason* why they should continue to pay interest that was not being earned, and in addition, my recollection is that to continue to operate the road they would have had to spend on it $300,000 in capital expenditures. So they simply decided that- they had no further obligation to pay the interest on the debentures. After all, the debenture holders of this road are in no worse shape than the debenture holders of many other private companies all over the world, and the only reason these people are making any claim at all, so far as I can see-I am speaking subject to any information that I have not at the moment-is that it is nominally a government institution. But the government never guaranteed it, and the Canadian National never guaranteed it. The Canadian National were simply operating the road. That is the only link there is with the government. Of course, it is possible that after further consideration it may be admitted that they have some claim, but so far I have seen no reason for admitting any.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: If the road never earned the interest, and the government have paid it out of the revenue of the country, one would feel that the government did recognize the responsibility.


Robert James Manion: The government did not
pay the interest; the Canadian National Railways paid it. It may have been indirectly paid by the government, but-


Thomas Merritt Cayley: The Canadian National
Railways did not earn it, so it was paid out of the revenues of the country.


Robert James Manion: That is correct.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Was there an offer made
by the city of Toronto at one time to buy this road?


Robert James Manion: That claim is made by
the owners of the debentures, but I cannot answer my hon. friend's question:	They
claim there was, but that is something about which I know nothing.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I understand they offered
at one time to pay $3,000,000 for this road. Do the officers of the department recollect any offer of that kind?


Robert James Manion: My deputy says he does
not, and it was before my time. I do know tljiat the owners of the debentures claim that an offer was made by the city of Toronto, but that the sale was not made.


Robert Gardiner: How did this road
become a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: It was a subsidiary of the old Canadian Northern, and I believe it was taken over by order in council on the recommendation of the Canadian National Railways' management made to the government of the day. I am sorry I cannot give the year, but I know it was some years ago. It was a Mackenzie and Mann subsidiary of the Canadian Northern Railway.	The Canadian
National Railways took it over and operated it for some years at a loss, but during those years paid the interest to the debenture holders.


Robert Gardiner: Did the old Canadian
Northern pay the interest, too?


Robert James Manion: I presume it did, but I
cannot say definitely.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I have a clipping before
me, but I am not just certain from what paper it has been taken. It is as follows:
I would like to ask if the Canadian National recognizes any moral obligations. The Canadian National Electric has the very strongest moral claim. Toronto, in January, 1922, by a majority of over 2,500 voted to buy this electric road for $3,000,000 (the mortgage being $2,628,000), which would have given the bondholders par for their bonds and later Toronto bought a portion of _the railway in the Toronto limits for $118,317 on which I believe the mortgage was nbt discharged.
Further on in the same article I find the following:
And why did the government by act of parliament passed on June 6, 1919, incorporate this road as part of the Canadian National system, and in that act state that any deficit would be paid out of the consolidated funds of Canada? If Canada is willing to take umbrage , under a legal technicality and not recognize any ' moral claim it will complete the mistrust Great Britain has in Canada's financial integrity and make Canadians hang their heads in shame.
It would seem a good offer was made at a time when the road was paying its way, and for some reason or other that offer was turned down.


Robert James Manion: Of course that is the history of many businesses. I do not suppose there is a business in the world to-day that cannot look back to a time only a few years ago when it could have sold out for a big price,

Supply-Railway Commissioners

and they are sorry they did not do so. As to "Canadians hanging their heads in shame," may I say that such suggestion is a habit followed from time to time by people who have held bonds of some Canadian road. We all know the story of the Grand Trunk junior shareholders. The matter was put before a board of arbitration with the consent of the management of the old Grand Trunk, and the board of arbitration decided against them. However, that agitation still goes on in England. It would seem that widows and orphans in Canada must also get consideration. After all there are two sides to all questions, and there may be some justice in the present case. If there is further legal proceeding or further consideration by the government, any claims will be given attention. I would have no desire whatever to sidetrack any moral claim. According to the statement put to me by the railway, however, there is no moral claim. The four and a half per cent debenture holders of the Toronto Suburban had a mortgage on the Toronto Suburban Railway. Therefore when the Canadian National Railways refused to pay the interest the debenture holders had a right to foreclose their mortgage. And if they wished to operate the road they could do so, or sell it out, or do anything else they liked. As a matter of fact even when the interest was being paid I am informed the debentures of recent years did not sell much above fifty. Surely the people buying the debentures were not sure that the government was paying the four and a half per cent, or a government bond of four and half per cent would have brought more than fifty.


Frederick George Sanderson: What was the total
issue?


Robert James Manion: About $2,600,000.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: There seems to be some
difference of opinion as to the moral obligation, and I can quite readily see that there would be. I have before me a letter on the stationery of the Financial Post, and among .other things it says:
The Toronto Suburban Railway first mortgage four and a half per cent debenture stock due July 15, 1961, generally referred to now as the Canadian National Electric railway bond issue and which I presume you prefer to, is quite a conservative investment.
The issue is secured by a first lien on over fifty-six miles of road between Toronto and Guelph, power houses, land, buildings, franchises and other immovable property, as well as a first floating charge on the remainder of the company's assets.
They call it quite a conservative investment. I should have preferred the expression, "quite a safe investment".


Robert James Manion: So would I.


Robert Gardiner: What date was that?


Thomas Merritt Cayley: May 27, 1931. Here is a
communication from the Toronto Saturday Night dated January 10, 1923. It is as follows:
We consider the Toronto Suburban Railway four and a half per cent debenture stock an attractive purchase. There is a first mortgage on the property and while the railway is owned by the Canadian National Railways one can be sure that it will be looked after by the Dominion government, if earnings are not enough to take care of it.
There was the view that the Canadian government or the Canadian National Railways would look after it. The minister knows as well as anybody that sometimes the public do not understand what they are buying. The certificates that were issued are very misleading. Quoting from another newspaper article I find the following:
The Toronto Suburban Railway passed into the hands of the Canadian National Electric Railway a number of years ago, and the certificates read-"The Canadian National Electric Railway." The bank amalgamations used a very similar form, and in each case assumed the absorbed banks' liabilities. These certificates bear the signature of H. W. Thornton and three or four other officials of the Canadian National Railways. The transferring has always been done by the Canadian National Railways and the interest cheques came from the Canadian National.
That is the point I wish to bring out. It seems as though everything was done to induce the public to feel that they were secured, and even those who were in a position to know felt to a certain extent that the certificates were good if the government had taken them over. I know we cannot protect the public against buying, and yet when they see certificates signed by men they know, they think everything is all right.


Robert James Manion: There are others in the same position.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I am very sorry this has occurred. Now I should like to ask the minister a final question. I see a long list of other bonds in a similar position, that are not guaranteed. I suppose they will ultimately fall in the same category?


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily; some of them are in a much different position. Some are on portions of the road that could not possibly be let fall, no matter how much you might wish to do so. For example, you might have bonds on a central portion of the old Grand Trunk line running from Toronto to Montreal, a part of the line that could not be

Supply-Railway Commissioners
given up. The Toronto Suburban, however, happened to be hanging out on a limb, so to speak, and I suppose the National railways felt they could let the owners take it over. If the mortgage is on an integral part of the line the Canadian National cannot take that position.
I do not wish to ibe misunderstood, and I do not wish to Ibe unfair to the people who had the interest coming to them. I greatly sympathize with them. I do not wish to be hard-hearted; I understand how people may be misinformed, sometimes quite unintentionally and at other times intentionally. Of course no government is responsible. My hon. friend read something with reference to 1923, when this government was not in power. Even the late government, however, was not responsible for the opinion of a newspaper financial critic. As I say, I have every sympathy for those people, and if later on it is shown that they have rights that have been misconstrued or misinterpreted or violated by the Canadian National Railways certainly I should ibe the ast to say they should not be given justice. That is the best I can say. I sympathize very much indeed, but at the moment I also sympathize with the people of Canada who have paid the interest on these bonds for a number of years, when that interest was not earned. I do not know, without some further reason being shown, why the interest should continue to be paid when it is not earned.


William Daum Euler: I had not intended to take part in this debate and I do not desire to prolong it, but I cannot quite agree with my hon. friend the minister with regard to the moral obligations and the liability of the owners of the road, who after all are the people of Canada through the Canadian National Railways. I do not agree that the obligation to pay the interest or the principal is at all dependent on whether the road earned the money.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend said he had a great deal of sympathy for the people of Canada. We all have that sympathy for ourselves, because the railways are losing money and naturally they do not want to pay out more than is necessary. But I view the matter in this way: There is a distinct difference between the shareholders of this road, who after all are the people of Canada, and the bondholders of the road who are the creditors. When a 'business goes wrong those owning the business should be the losers and the creditors should be paid if the assets are there with which to pay them. It may be perfectly true
that there is no legal liability; it may be perfectly true that in order to satisfy their claims as far as possible the bondholders may take possession of the road, which is worth practically nothing. To-day the people of Canada, through the government of Canada and the Canadian National Railways, have taken absolutely, I contend, the position of the original owners, who were the Canadian Northern or the Mackenzie and Mann people.


Robert James Manion: They were the owners subject to the mortgage.


William Daum Euler: Quite so, but the mortgage
holders are the creditors and the men who own the stock are the owners.


Robert James Manion: I am the owner of my
house, but if I do not pay the interest the mortgagor can take the house.


William Daum Euler: I am very glad my hon.
friend raised that point, because I was going to use that illustration with regard to the moral obligation. We will suppose that I have a house or property, or my hon. friend has it, which is worth $10,000. I need money, and I place a mortgage of $5,000 on that property. I owe that $5,000; I merely give the mortgage as a sort of security upon which the creditor may realize. I owe the whole of the $5,000, whether or not there is any security given; that is my contention. If it should happen, for any reason at all, that the property becomes worth only $2,000 or $3,000, or if the insurance on the house is allowed to lapse and the house bums down, that does not wipe out the debt; the money is still owed if there is any possibility of paying it Should the house burn down, the debt is not wiped out even legally if there was a personal obligation, but of course in this case there was no personal liability.


Robert James Manion: And the government was
not really the owner; the National railways owned it.


William Daum Euler: The government is the
National railways; I do not think you can dissociate the two at all. The point is this: There was a liability in the first instance, when these bonds or debentures were sold. I presume the actual money, which amounted probably to almost the par value, was paid into the treasury of Mackenzie and Mann, or the Canadian Northern Railway, and now the government of Canada, through the National railways, has placed itself absolutely in the position of that original company. I think that must be regarded as true.

Supply-Railway Commissioners
Now there is a debt to the extent of over $2,000,000 owing to these debenture holders. Is there not a moral obligation? The mere fact that a mortgage was given as security means nothing whatever as far as the moral obligation is concerned. I do not care whether the road is worth a red cent; if the debtor is able to pay he ought to pay his debt when it comes due. I think that argument is absolutely sound. The legal obligation may not be there, but I cannot see how the government of Canada, which placed itself in the position of the original borrower of that money, can escape the moral responsibility.
Mr. MANION; I think there is a slight difference in the two cases. The government of Canada never guaranteed those bonds, nor did the Canadian National Railways.


William Daum Euler: But they borrowed the
money.


Robert James Manion: No, the government did not borrow the money and neither did the Canadian National. The old Canadian Northern borrowed it on a mortgage on the road, and the persons holding the mortgage have a right to foreclose. If the debenture holders thought the Dominion of Canada was responsible why was it that the bonds sold for from $50 to $35 during the last few years?


William Daum Euler: That is quite justified by
the position which has been taken by the government. The debenture holders began to fear that the interest was not going to be paid, so they were glad to realize whatever they could on the bonds.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to argue too strongly, because there is merit in what my hon. friend says, but I think there is merit also in the other standpoint, anid certainly the Canadian National take that attitude. So far we have backed them up. If it can be shown that through the whole history of the companies the Dominion of Canada is liable, then I presume the day will come when the Dominion of Canada will come through with the money.


William Daum Euler: A debt was created, and I do not see how the debtor can escape payment in full.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did the government create the debt?


William Daum Euler: No, but the government
placed itself in the position of the original debtor.


Robert James Manion: In 1919 Mackenzie and Mann would have been practically bankrupt

if they had not been taken over by the government. If the government had not stepped in those bonds would not have 'been worth one red cent.


William Daum Euler: That is quite true, but the government did step in, very unwisely, I think. They should not have taken over the road at all.


Robert James Manion: They did step in, but I am not sure they stepped into the debt to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar.


William Daum Euler: Certainly they did if they took the place of the original debtor.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the government allow a fiat to be issued if the people concerned wish to take the matter into court?


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to give a definite answer; that would be taken into consideration.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Section 18 of the act passed in 1919 states:
The works of any of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system which have not heretofore been declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. . . .
What does that mean?


Robert James Manion: Does that refer to the Toronto Suburban?


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Yes, it is a section from the act by which it was taken over.
Mr.	MANION:	I	should prefer	not to
attempt to answer that question. It is a legal question-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can answer it, Mr. Chairman.	To declare	a	work for the	general
advantage of Canada means nothing more or less than to bring it under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada under the terms of the British North America Act.
Mr.	CAYLEY:	I	am very glad	to havethat information.	It	seems to me that it is
more than a moral obligation that we have towards these debenture holders; it is really a legal obligation.


Eugène Fiset: Was not that order
in council passed under the War Measures Act?


Mr. PORTEOUS:: With regard to these
bonds, I have a communication from Sir Henry Thornton which reads in part:
The	earnings from	the properties	of the
Toronto Suburban Railway Company (now Canadian National Electric Railways) have for

Supply-Railways
many years past been insufficient not only to pay interest on the debenture stock referred to in the trust company's letter, but even operating costs, and the Canadian National Railways, without any obligation on their part, have during the period advanced moneys to the electric railways company to enable it to pay the interest on the debenture stock.
The question I want to ask is this


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the date of
that letter?


Victor Clarence Porteous: It is dated October 21,
1931. My question is this : If the Canadian National Railway's had no obligation in connection with these bonds, why did they pay interest on them during that period?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I can
give the reason for their having done so, but they did for some years. That, of course, is not a sufficient reason why they should do it forever. Possibly they thought that the road might be used again, that it might become a profitable investment. They have done many things with which I do not necessarily agree.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Section 19 of the same act from which I have been reading provides, with respect to the power to abandon the line, as follows:
With the approval of the governor in council, and upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the. company may abandon the operation of any lines or parts of lines of railway and incidental Works, the operation or continued maintenance whereof has, in the opinion of the Board of Railway Commissioners, become unnecessary or inexpedient through duplication, or other economical considerations; and with the consent of a majority in value of the registered security holders affected may dismantle or dispose of the lines of railway or works so abandoned.
Has the law been carried out in that regard? Has the approval of the governor in council and others concerned been obtained?


Robert James Manion: No, I do not think it has.
What was done was simply this. The railroad was abandoned by the Canadian National Railways and the owners, that is to say the debenture holders, could operate it if they chose. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think we have ever passed an order in council or that it has been submitted to the Board of Railway Commisioners, though I cannot say positively.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Would it not be necessary?


Robert James Manion: I think not, for the reason that the debenture holders could operate the road.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: You simply walked out
and left the property.


William Daum Euler: Have foreclosure proceedings been taken?


Robert James Manion: I do not know. That would be done through the Canadian National Railways, but certainly it has not come back to me in that form.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services: including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily (revote $5,000), $41,300.
Thomas Reid: How is this item made up?


Robert James Manion: It is made up of a number of items. It is for salaries to provide for emergency assistance if required, the equivalent of five temporary clerks, $5,400 less ten per cent; maintenance and operation of official cars; general expenses; travelling expenses; telegrams, telephones, express, printing, stationery and contingencies. It is really for emergency demands that may arise in the department during the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway employees' provident fund: to supplement pension allowances payable under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payments during the period 1st January, 1932, to 31st March, 1933. the sum of $30 per month instead of $20, as fixed by the said act, $29,000.
Eugène Fiset: Will the minister
explain the purpose of this queer legislation. Will it be retroactive? Are old employees under that pension fund going to be treated like the new pensioners, or will their minimum continue at $20? I see it applies only for one year. I suppose the purpose of this is to enable the railway to retire as many of the old employees of the Intercolonial as it can this year, but the minister must realize what a shock it will be to the old pensioners who are receiving a minimum of $20 per month to-day to see new pensioners getting $30, and this only for one year.


Robert James Manion: This is for the very purpose my hon. friend mentions; it is to supplement the pension allowances paid to employees on the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Eugène Fiset: Will it be retroactive?


Robert James Manion: This is a supplementary
vote to give the employees the extra $10 so that they will receive $30.
Supply-Immigration


Eugène Fiset: It applies to everyone?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
J. L. Weller, $3,500.
Peter John Veniot: Explain.


Robert James Manion: This is a pension paid to
Mr. J. L. Weller, who for many years was an engineer on the canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I assume we shall not be able to discuss the Mafeking cut-off this year?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry, but that opportunity will not be provided.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I suppose we will have a chance next year?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman had an opportunity under the vote for the Hudson Bay railway, but he did not avail himself of it. I am sorry, because I should have liked to discuss this matter.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Soldier and general land settlement-amount required fox' soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff performing investigations for the War Veterans Allowance Committee, $1,500,000.
Peter John Veniot: Will the committee be able to obtain under this item the information asked for this afternoon?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The informa. tion asked for has no reference to this item.


Alfred Speakman: Could the minister furnish the definite items of expenditure in connection with this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Alfred Speakman: For what purposes are these advances now made? I understand that no further loans are being granted.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Alfred Speakman: How many of these
settlers are still on the land, and how many have left their farms during the last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As at December 31, 1931, there were 11,612 soldier settlers, and 5,184 civilian settlers, making a total of 16,796. Under the British family schemes there were still on the land, 2,383 settlers and 226 purchasers of reverted property, making a total of 2,609. The grand total of both schemes is 19,405.


Alfred Speakman: How many settlers, particularly soldier settlers, have left the land during last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As at December 31, 1930, those who had left were as follows: Soldiers, 252; civilians, 195; British family schemes, 103, making a total of 550.


Alfred Speakman: The minister will remember that under the amendments of 1930 it was provided that no foreclosures were to take place except through the district courts. Could the minister advise the committee if any adjustments have been carried on in such a manner as to require the services of these district judges?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It has not been necessary to utilize the legislation referred to. The policy laid down is that no rescission of contract shall take place which would cause a man to have to give up his farm. Such a policy would be utterly hopeless at a time like this.


Alfred Speakman: There were no forceful
foresclosures?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None whatever.	.


Alfred Speakman: How much was due from the soldier settlers and the other two classes during the past year on arrears and on current account, and how much has been paid during the past year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: To April 14, 1932, the current payments falling due amounted to

Supply-Immigration
$3,373,890.87; there were arrears of $2,065,151.67; there was paid on account during the past year $881,705.63-or 26 per cent of the current payments falling due.


Alfred Speakman: Is that the general percentage as applied to all three classes?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That applies to the soldier settlers only. With respect to the three thousand British family settlement scheme, the current payments falling due amount to $850,487.33; arrears, $652,910.23; total, $1,503,397.56. The payments on account during the past year amount to $91,548.94-or 18 per cent of the current payments falling due.


Alfred Speakman: So the soldier settlers have done rather better than the others, I suppose on account of the deductions that have taken place with regard to the soldier settlement farms.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It would appear that the soldier settlers have done better than the others by just the difference between 26 and 18 per cent. That in a measure is due to the remedial legislation, and also to the fact that they have been longer established on the land than the British family settlers.


Alfred Speakman: What were the total
advances made by the Dominion government on this whole scheme; the amount paid, the amount deducted by way of legal exemptions made during those different years, and the total now outstanding as the whole investment?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As of December 31, 1931,
the gross loans, including interest, totaled $137,882,141.98. From that should be deducted land transferred to the British settlement scheme, $8,431,234.51, repayments of $47,657,960.27, legislative reductions-that is the remedial legislation to which I made reference -$21,721,976.52-making a total of $77,811,171.30. That deducted from the $137,882,141.98 leaves a balance of $60,070,970.68. Then there were losses on resale of reverted properties, $10,565,913.42, which should be deducted from the amount just mentioned, leaving a balance of $49,505,057.26, The British family settlement loans amount to $13,878,170.64. This makes a present net investment by the country, $63,383,227.90.


Alfred Speakman: There is one point in these statistics that I do not quite follow.
I understand the total advances made, including interest, represents the country's original investment in the entire scheme of about $140,000,000, that something like
$48,000,000 has been repaid, including interest. The minister will have noted from the records that in 1922 interest exemptions were granted, running over two, three or four years, according to the length of time of the men on the land, amounting I think to $10,000,000. I was chairman of that committee at the time. That apparently is not taken account of. Should not that $10,000,000 of exemptions have been added to the $137,000,000 of total investment, and then deducted just as were the other deductions? Because undoubtedly the country will be paying interest upon the equivalent of that $10,000,000.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The amount referred to is not included in the $137,882,141.98. It would have to be added.


Alfred Speakman: It should be. It was an exemption just as much as the $121,000,000. I shall have something to say later on the general policy.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am instructed that the amount never was charged up to the advances. Strictly speaking, I think it should have been.


Alfred Speakman: Yes.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I have heard some complaints from the municipal councils that they were unable to collect their taxes on abandoned farms. Is any provision made for the payment of such taxes? I have in mind some of these veterans who have undertaken farming operations, and have done well, but under present conditions they find their taxes are a very heavy burden. Some have reached the condition where they are likely to have their chattels seized for taxes. In order to keep these well qualified farmers on the land, is the government extending them any assistance?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question of taxes on these lands of course always has been a problem, because under the British North America Act, if I remember correctly, such lands would not be subject to municipal taxes. With respect to the settlers themselves we have adopted the policy that Where a settler is desirous of staying on the land, even in these times when he is having a difficult struggle, he will not be disturbed and the government will take care of his taxes, making the advance to soldier settlers as the act contemplates in order to tide them over this period.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Then all he needs to do is to make application for the advance?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If he makes application to the district office for an advance for his taxes, the officer will very likely know all the man's circumstances, and if the settler is making

.	Supply-.-Immigration
an honest effort, in other words, if he is not making a fraudulent attempt to secure an advance,, the policy is to make that advance of taxes to him in order that he may not find himself confronted with a bill that he cannot meet.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Do you take a lien on his chattels for the repayment of that advance?
.Mr. GORDON: Originally under the legislation the government. had a prior lien or charge against not only the land but the chattels as well, but in 1930 legislation was passed disposing of the prior lien against the live stock, so that now the government has no priority on the live stock for taxes. I can assure the hon. member that in any case of merit the government will see that no man has his live stock sold for taxes during this trying period.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Thank you.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister tell the committee how the, collections during the past year compared with the preceding year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Does the hon. member want it by provinces?


William Thomas Lucas: Perhaps the minister would give the totals and then by provinces.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1931 the total collections amounted to $883,642.45, or 27.6 per cent, and in 1932, $881,705.63. The figures are not given in all cases by provinces, but in some cases by districts. The amounts collected from the soldier settlers in 1931 and 1932 were
as follows:
District
1931	1932
British Columbia.	.	$237,490	32Calgary office. . .	.	89,383	75Edmonton office. .	.	105,140	03Saskatchewan. . .	.	150,358	86Manitoba	
81,700	23Ontario	
118.258	83Quebec	
30,991	53Maritime provinces.	70,318	90

So in spite of the low commodity prices the settlers I think are doing remarkably well, and it will be noticed1 that in>
spite of the tragedy in southern Saskatchewan the settlers paid *more in 1932 than in 1931.


Alfred Speakman: A little over a year ago the minister put into effect certain, changes in administration for the purpose of bringing about economies. Would the minister tell the committee what was the result of the economies thus effected? I aim not asking for details but simply in the gross, as to the number of employees and the amount expended.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister be good enough to state the total arrears of interest?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Answering my hon. friend
from Red Deer first, on August 6, 1930, the staff amounted to 526 persons with annual salaries of $974,274, and on December 31, 1931, the staff had been reduced to 368 persons with annual salaries of $704,010. The reduction in the staff therefore was 158, and the reduction in the annual salaries $270,264. Then there was a reduction of 41 in the number of motor cars. In August, 1930, there were 161 motor cars, of which 41 were deemed to he unnecessary. I believe the experiences in the last year and a half have amply justified the reduction.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister made
some change in the settlement board within the last year. Previously there was a board of three members.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did not make the
change; parliament did.


Frederick George Sanderson: But the minister must take the responsibility.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Certainly I do. Originally
there was a board of three, now there is one. It was by reason of that change that the economies to which I have made reference were possible. I shall illustrate, if hon. members wish: Originally there were three members, composed of a chairman and two commissioners.


Frederick George Sanderson: Were the three all
ex-service men?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No; two were ex-service
men and one was not. There were nine divisions at head office, each commissioner having three divisions of the service under his jurisdiction. In the field I found that no one of the offices was so organized that it corresponded with head office, and that no two districts seemed to have the same method or system of accounting. I believed that it would be desirable to do away with the board of three and to place one man in charge. That was done, and the nine divisions at head office were reduced to three. Each district office throughout Canada was reorganized so that its business methods would conform to those at head office. We found that irritating delays in answering complaints and requests from settlers were eliminated, because there was very little if any conflict in jurisdiction at head office. From the correspondence I

Private Bills
have reviewed coming from many hundreds of .settlers I think the change was desirable, and I know it is working out very well.


Frederick George Sanderson: One member now
takes the place of the former three; is that member an ex-service man?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, and one with a very fine overseas record.


Mr. DUFF:: Which two men were let
out, and what positions did they hold?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Colonel Rattray, the chairman, and Mr. Maber, one of the commissioners, who was not an ex-service man and who had a substantial superannuation. I am told that his superannuation amounted to about $3,600.


William Duff: Why was Colonel Rattray let out when he Had been chairman of the board, and when he had advised that the board be reduced from three to one? Why was he not kept on as the one remaining member, instead of bringing in an outsider?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was never advised that
Colonel Rattray suggested the reduction. Certainly he never did so at any time to me.


William Duff: I do not suppose he had a
chance, when you fired him.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Well now-


William Duff: Would the minister give us
the reason why Colonel Rattray was let out? He was chairman of the board, an ex-soldier, a good business man, and there were no complaints against him.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Because I believed I was getting a better man to take charge. I do not make that statement as any reflection upon Colonel Rattray, who I believe was a fine soldier and a gentleman. However, after making a complete survey from coast to coast I concluded that a stranger and an outsider should be. put in charge, and I think the efficiency of the department has amply justified the change.


William Duff: Who was the gentleman put
in charge?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Thomas Magladery.


William Duff: Where did he come from?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Originally he came from
Edmonton, and subsequently lived in New Liskeard. He was appointed in October, 1930, by the old board composed of Colonel Rattray and the other two commissioners, to make a survey on all phases of soldier land settlement.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the recommendation of the minister, of course?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, on my recommendation. I may say there was no division of opinion among the members of the board as to the necessity, for doing it. Prior to that he had made a general survey among and had organized the sales forces of a large agricultural machinery company operating in the three western prairie provinces. He was well acquainted with the' situation with respect to settlers generally and with those in the west particularly.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, if I understand my geography the place from which this gentleman came who was appointed after Colonel Rattray was the town of New Liskeard, which is in the constituency of my hon. friend the minister. In other words he appointed a man from his own constituency and dismissed a good servant of the public who had served overseas.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Duff: We want Rattray put back.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 25, 1932