Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	Was the work of removing the rook at a point situated on the west side of St. Francis river, in the village of Melbourne, county of Richmond, let by tender ?
2.	If so, who was awarded the contract, and what was the amount of the contract?
3.	Were there any other tenders? If so, what were the amounts of the tenders?
4.	What was the total cost of the seven icebreakers placed in the River St. Francis near the iron bridge across said river which connects the town of Richmond with the village of Melbourne?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1,	2 and 3. No ; work was done by day's labour.
4.	There are eight structures altogether, viz.: four ice piers below the dam and not far from the iron bridge and four ice piers above the dam. The cost of construction of the eight structures was $16,453.75.


PIERS AT RICHMOND, QUEBEC.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	What was the total cost of the building
of piers in the St. Francis river below the town of Richmond?	_
2.	What was the total cost of piers above the town?
3.	What was the cost of repairing the piers below the town in 1907?
4.	What was the cost of blasting rock and repairs to piers during the present year?
5.	Was the work so done let after public tender?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Total cost of four piers below Richmond dam : $12,076.80.
2.	Total cost of four piers above Richmond dam : $4,376.95.
3.	$634.95.
4.	$737.37.
5.	Construction of four piers was done by contract after public tenders had been called for. Four additional piers were built under agreement with same contractor. All subsequent work was done by day's labour.


PORT MAITLAND PIER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LALOR-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the patronage committee of the town of Dunnville nominated W. W. Krick for the position of inspector of the building of Port Maitland pier?
2.	Has Colonel A. T. Thompson recommended the appointment of W. W. Krick as inspector ?
3.	Has the government made the appointment of an inspector for Port Maitland piers ?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No ; the department is not aware that an inspector is required at Port Maitland piers, at present.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-INVESTIGATION BY MRS. A. M. PAGET AND MISS FERGUSON.
Mr. W. WRIGHT asked :: 1.	Has any report been made by Mrs. A. M. Paget and Miss M. Ferguson, of their investigation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, mentioned in page .T-45, Indian Affairs Department?
2.	If so, is the report printed and will it be laid on the table of the House?
3.	What was the total amount paid to said parties, and the total cost of the trip?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	A report has been made.
2.	The report has not yet been printed as it is intended that it should form part of a larger publication.
3.	The total cost of the trip was $1,999.86. Salaries paid, Mrs. Paget, $664.50; Miss Ferguson, $150.


SUBSIDIES TO PACIFIC COAST SHIPPING COMPANIES.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	How many shipping companies doing business on the Pacific coast are receiving subsidies from the government?
2.	What are the amounts of such subsidies, and for what purpose are they given?
3.	Do any of the companies receiving subsidies encourage the immigration of Orientals, contrary to the restrictive legislation of the j government?


Mr. BLAIN.: 


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Six.
2.	(a) Canada and Mexico, $5,000 per annum ; Victoria, Vancouver and Skagway and West Coast Vancouver Island, $17,500 per annum ; Victoria and San Francisco, $3,000 per annum ; Canada, China and Japan, $73,000 per annum ; Canada and New Zealand, $50,000 per annum ; Victoria, Naas River, Port Essington &c., $100 per round trip.
(b) For the purpose of assisting trade generally.
3.	The government has no such information, but such a practice, if it existed, would be deemed by the government as compatible with the Subsidy Act.



THE SASKATOON PHOENIX.

Mr. LAKE asked :: Have any orders been given by the government for special numbers of the Saskatoon 'Phoenix' during the years 1906 and 1907, for immigration or other purposes ? If so, what number of copies were purchased, and what was the sum paid for them in each case?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of' the Interior) :: 5.000	copies special edition, Saskatoon Phoenix, at five cents per copy. $300, ordered October 15, 1906, and paid for November 23, 1906.
5.000	copies special edition at seven cents per copy, $350. This was a special number ' of about twenty pages printed on eight pound book paper, seven column quarto, illustrated with pictures of Saskatoon and district, with reports of the actual grain yield of all the farming districts east and west of Saskatoon. This account was paid January 11, 1908.



RAILWAY LAND GRANTS.

Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	What is the total acreage in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in odd-numbered sections, of lands granted to railways to November 1, 1907, shown on map recently issued by the Department of the Interior?
2.	What is the total acreage in even-numbered sections?
3.	What is the acreage of odd-numbered sections otherwise disposed of?
4.	What is the acreage of Indian reserves surrendered and sold?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	29,550,179 acres.
2.	2,212,775 acres.
3.	12,027,599 acres.
4.	216,892 T4 acres.



HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.

Mr. AMES asked :: 1. What was the total acreage in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta covered by home-

stead, entries and pre-emptions, with cancellations deducted on November 1, 1907?
2.	What was the acreage of even-numbered sections disposed of prior to November 1, 1907, otherwise than as homestead, with Hudson Bay Company land excluded?
3.	What was the acreage covered up to November X, 1907, by half-breed scrip?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	31,513,990 acres.
2.	8,070,720 acres.
3.	2,488,710 acres.



IMMIGRANTS BY SS. MONTREAL.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What proportion of the 1,782 immigrants reported to have arrived at St. John, New Brunswick, on the Canadian Pacific Railway steamer ' Montreal/ on the 5th April, have been passed by the inspection officers?
2.	How many have been rejected, and how many ordered to be deported?
3.	What is the nationality of said immigrants ?
4.	Upon how many of said immigrants is there a bonus payable to agents?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	98f per cent of the 1761 passengers arriving ex SS. ' Montreal,' on the 5th April, passed inspection.
2.	19 of those destined to Canada and 7 of those destined to the United States were detained. It is not yet known how many of this number will be deported.
Immigrants Immigrants for	for
Canada. United States.


Austrian N.E.: S	.... 11	1Buckowinian	.. .. 443	1Galician	.... 971	4Hungarian	.... 1	2Belgian	.... 10	2Dutch	.... 1	2French	.. .. 1	2German	.... 25	7Hebrew, N.E.S	.. .. 2	7Hebrew, Russian	.... 51	7Hebrew, Austrian	.... 2	7Italian	.... 32	7Polish, N.E.S	.... 1	7Polish, Russian	.. .. 1	7Roumanian	.... 15	1Russian, N.E.S	.... 31	32Returned Canadians.. ..	.... 116	Totals	.. .. 1,714	47Immigrants Immigrants for for	Canada United States	detained.	detained.Bukowinian	3	Galician	10	2German	10	2Hebrew Russian	4	2Polish	1	2Russian	1	3-Totals	
4. None.	19	7



IMMIGRANTS DEPORTED.

Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: Upon whose authority or complaint from the city of Chatham, did the government take action in deporting five families recently from the city of Chatham?


Frank Oliver: Attention was drawn to these cases in a general way by Mr. F. J. Naftel, manager of the Bank of Montreal, Chatham, on behalf of the charity associations of that city. Immigration officer Robert Boston was then sent to investigate and the department acted on his report in each case.



MONTREAL POST OFFICE.

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the new addition to the Montreal post office in the old 'Gazette' building?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and the prices tendered ?
3.	Whose tender was accepted, and at what
price?	_
4.	What arrangement, if any, was made for the joining of the two buildings?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Peter Lyall & Sons, Montreal, $487,537 ; James Ballantyne, Montreal, $499,000 ; George W. F. Nicholson, Montreal, $520,-
000.
3.	Peter Lyall & Sons, $487,537.
4.	By a bridge or connecting corridor over Fortification Lane.



IMMIGRATION FROM FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Does the government pay premiums to the agents in Europe who send emigrants to the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the amount of premium per head, and the total amount paid in 1907?
3.	What are the names of the agents in France and Belgium who receive or have received such premiums, and what is the amount received by each of them in 1907?
4.	Are the Reverend Abbe Gaire, parish priest in Manitoba, and Reverend Abbe le Floch, a parish priest in Saskatchewan, but now in France, carrying on a propaganda for Canada bv recruiting colonists for the Northwest, paid by the government; do they receive salaries or are they given a premium per head?
5.	If so, what amount of money has each of them received, as salary, premium, expenses and cost of travel, in 1907?
6.	Has the government agents, lay or clerical, in France and Belgium, who carry on an exclusive propaganda for the province of Quebec, as do the Reverend Messrs. Gaire and le Floch for Manitoba and the Northwest?
6D23

7.	If so, what are the names and what is the number of such agents, how much are they paid, what salaries do they receive, are their travelling expenses and cost of living paid, and do they receive a premium pel' head ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 
Mr.  P. DOYLE@: 


Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	When and for what reasons was one P. Dovle, immigration agent at Quebec, superannuated?
2.	Who has been appointed by the government in his stead, and what are the names of his assistants?
3.	What was the date of the appointment of the new agent, and of his assistants, and what are their qualifications?
4.	What are the respective salaries of each?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	It is proposed to superannuate Mr. Doyle on the 15th instant, on account of age, and consequent inability to discharge properly the duties of his office.
2,	3 and 4. The assistant agent, Dr. Joseph Lavoie, is being promoted to the position, his promotion taking effect on the date of Mr. Doyle's retirement. Dr. Lavoie's assistants will be the following :


Mr. BERGERON.: Name.	Date of Appointment.	Salary.J. J. O'Flaherty.	April 15, 1908.	$1,500 00L. Stein	[May	1, 1874.	1,500 00J. P. Stafford...	Oct.	17, 1892.	1,000 00Dr. Potvin	May	8, 1897.	1,200 00Dr. Dobbin	April	1, 1907.	1,200 00


Mrs.   E.@: 
Mrs.   E.@: Cornell.	May	1, 1888.	50 00 per monthMrs. Tremblay..	May	25, 1901.	40 00 i.Geo. Hayden...	April	6, 1897.	800 00Jos. Huek 	July	1, 1904.	50 00 per monthN. Poulin	Sept.	17, 1904.	1 75 per day.
They are considered to possess qualifications suitable to the work.
Dr. Lavoie's salary will be the same as that of his predecessor, viz., $1,800 per annum.



DUTIES ON COAL, ETC.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN asked :: 1.	Why is coke, which is a manufactured article, imported free, while coal from which coke is manufactured, and which is a raw material, is heavily taxed?
2.	Does the government intend to refund to Canadian manufacturers of coke the duty on the coal from which it is made?
3.	Why are makers of binder twine allowed to import coal free, while the same privilege is refused to producers of gas.
4.	Why is coal tar, which is a manufactured article, imported free, while coal which is used by the Canadian manufacturer of coal tar, is subject to a heavy duty?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: With reference to these three questions all of which are asked by the hon. member for Hamilton, I desire to say that it is necessary to consider the tariff as a whole and it would be obviously inconvenient to discuss isolated items. My hon. friend will see that these are rather difficult questions to answer, dealing with isolated items alone.



QUEBEC BRIDGE COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When may we expect the report of the Quebec Bridge Commission in printed form ? It Is a long time since it was first presented to the House.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I am afraid it will be

quite a long time yet. It was only yesterday that I presented to the House the last appendix to that report. It is a very elaborate report, there are a great many drawings attached and we are trying to include all in the report so that it will be complete.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask whether a report which can be presented by itself could not be printed by itself and placed upon the table of the House.


George Perry Graham: I will make inquiry as to that. The report is not only of importance to the House but judging from the correspondence and the inquiries I have received it will be of vast importance to the engineering world and we are anxious to make it as complete as possible so that in connection with the catastrophe those interested in the scientific aspect may get what lessons there are to be derived from it. I will make inquiry to see whether a portion of the report, or the main report possibly cannot be procured for the information of the House.



THE TRENT CANAL.

Mr. LENNOX.: When may we expect t!ie report of the engineer who surveyed the line of the Trent canal from Kempenfeldt bay? I think the survey was made last year It will be remembered that there were two propositions as to the outlet of the canal, one by way of the Severn river and the other from Kempenfeldt bay which is part ol' Lake Simcoe, through, by way of the Not-tawasaga river to the Georgian bay. The survey has been made and I would like to know when we may expect the report.


George Perry Graham: I will look into it.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-MAJOR HODGINS.

Mr.   I@: Might I renew the question which I addressed yesterday to the Prime Minister as to the intentions of the government respecting the letter of Major Hodgins respecting the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: This morning I again telephoned to ascertain whether Mr. Parent, the chairman of the commission, had returned. I was informed that he had not yet returned, but that he was expected to return to-day. If |my hon. friend will renew his question to-morrow I shall be in a position to give him an answer.



THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I wish to ask the government if the translation of the report and evidence of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service is proceeding, and if instructions have been given to have it translated as soon as possible?


William Stevens Fielding: No instructions have been given. It was presumed that the usual course would be followed of translating all public documents promptly. I am not aware of any difficulty in the way, but it was not a matter about which we thought it necessary to give any instructions.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In case the work of translation is not going on, will my hon. friend be kind enough to see that it is proceeded with as soon as possible?


William Stevens Fielding: Now that the hon. gentleman has called attention to the matter, I have no doubt that the officers of the House will attend to it.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I was informed the other day by one of the officers of the House that the translation was being proceeded with.



ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATY.

Mr. MONK.: I would like to ask the government if any draft of the convention signed at Washington between the British government and the United States government was submitted to this government before it was signed?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The correspondence will be brought down as soon as we are in a position to bring it.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any reply to the telegram which was dispatched yesterday to the British embassy at Washington?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have received no answer yet.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-JUSTICE CASSELS.

Mr. NORTHRUP.: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to inquire if the Mr. Perron who has been appointed a counsel to appear before Mr. Justice Cassels in the investigation of the Department of Marine and Fisheries is the Mr. Perron who is a partner in the firm of Prefontaine, Archer, Perron & Taschereau, of which the late Mr. PrC-fontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was the head ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that Mr. Perron was for a very short time in partnership with Mr. Prefontaine several years ago, before he became a minister.


William Barton Northrup: Might I inquire if it has come under the consideration of the government that it might be advisable that some counsel should be appointed to appear before the commission on behalf of the people of Canada?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.



DREDGING CONTRACTS.

Mr. BENNETT.: I wish to ask the Min-1 ister of Public Works if he will to-day lay on the table of the House the order in council he referred to about a week ago in reference to dredging contracts and also the report of the chief engineer which he also promised on that occasion to bring, down?


William Pugsley: I gave my hon. friend the information as to this yesterday. I stated that when the matter was previously before the House, I had said that the question of extending the time for the completion of certain contracts was under consideration. I also said that since the matter had come before the House I had come to the conclusion not to extend the time, but to ask for new tenders, and under these circumstances I did not think it was proper or at all material to lay on the table of the House an order in council which had been cancelled.


William Humphrey Bennett: On that point I would appeal to the Speaker as to whether it is not clearly laid down in the rules of the House that, the minister having stated that there was an order in council and having based an argument upon it, that order in council must be laid on the table. The rule will be found at page 461 of Bourinot.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think that rule should have been invoked at the time the discussion took place.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule was not quoted, but it was invoked, because the minister was asked in accordance with it to bring down the order in council.


William Pugsley: I may say that I will consider the matter. I did not think yesterday and do not think now that it is of any consequence to bring down this order or any other order that has been rescinded. But I will consider the matter until tomorrow.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The rule of course is plain. If a minister refers to a public document it should be laid on the table of the House. I do not now recall that the rule was invoked at the time of the discussion. If it had been, I would of course have stated that that was the effect of it.


William Pugsley: All I said about it was in answer to a question put by the hon. gentleman. He asked if an order in council had been passed, and I gave an explanation in answer to his question.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, the minister made a distinct promise to bring the order in council down. If he refers to ' Hansard ' he will find that I am absolutely correct in that statement.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is quite right. But the discussion went on Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
without waiting for the order in council, and since that time the order has been rescinded.



SUPPLY-IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding :	That
Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto.
['No, he had no ministerial function. That probably is the reason why he could speak his own opinion.\nThe chief argument which has been advanced in favour of the bonus system is that we need farm labourers and that the bonus was paid practically on farm labourers. The hon. member for Stratheona even stated that he had inside information from the Superintendent of Immigration that this system was, as far as possible followed, but I think I have as much information from\nthe Superintendent of Immigration in his testimony made in 1907, before the committee. He was examined by Dr. Sproule as follows :\nO.\tIf I understand correctly you simply ask the immigrants if they propose to be farm labourers in coming here?-A. That is what we do when they disembark.\nQ. Is that all the information that you have as to the class to which they belong?-A. Yes, we ask their a^e and their occupation.\nQ. What occupation they have followed before coming to Canada ?-A. What occupation thev were in in the old country. The manifest, I believe, is prepared by the purser of the steamer, who is in no way an official of the government, and is certified by the captain.\nQ. I would have thought that an officer of the government would have occupied himself with this work and would have seen that onlv certain classes of immigrants were sent to us? -A. Whoever has the money can buy a ticket.\nQ. But if he has the money will he get the premium?-A. No. but I sav that anybody may buy a ticket in the old country.\nQ. If I ask you that it is because I know several immigrants like that. It was said that they were farm labourers and had come here to take up farming. I took the trouble to inquire and I discovered that out of six or seven there was not one who had worked one hour on a firm.-A. That may be very true.\nQ. And nevertheless they are sent to us as farm labourers?-A. No, they are not so called. They are sent to us as intending to take up agriculture. In England the day labourer receives on the farm as high a wage as in Canada.\nThe point that the hon. member for Stratheona was trying to make a few minutes ago was that it was only on farm hands that the premium was paid and that a statement is simply exacted from the newcomer to the effect that he intends to come as a farm labourer. In the present debate the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) read a letter from the Salvation Army which points out that the premium should be paid only on farm labourers and suggests that a certain party, not a farm labourer, but a skilled mechanic, should accept a position on a farm for the first six months, at the expiration of which time an opportunity might be offered for work in his own trade. That is where the difficulty lies. What opportunity has the government of discriminating between the farm labourer and the skilled mechanic or other person when he arrives at the port of landing especially in view of the suggestion which is contained in this letter that a man should at the outset represent himself to be a farm labourer? It is on people of this class that $5 per capita is paid. If the theory, as advanced by several hon. members of this House were correct, that this bonus is going to be paid to secure desirable immigrants, I would be the first one to support it, but I say that there is not a man in this Dominion that can put this 1 system into practical operation and apply', "it to the right people. The fact is that many people who come to this country as farm labourers are not in reality farm labourers, and we have to pay out our good money without getting the results which we have in view. The object attained may be good in some respects, but it is not the desired one. It seems to me that there are other directions in which the money of this country can be more profitably expended than by devoting it to this purpose. Another answer which was given by Mr. Scott was this :\nThe agricultural population of Great Britain is but a very small percentage and you must naturally address yourself to working men and day labourers. Besides whoever has the wherewithal to pay his passage may come to this country.\nThere is a long deposition that I shall not continue to read because it might weary the House. I think that I have quoted sufficiently upon this subject to establish my point. It being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the adjournment of the debate."]
Mr. G. H. McINTYRE (South Perth).: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the question before the House has been so interrupted and broken by other matters intervening and by the Easter holidays that it may be appropriate to read the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It is as follows :
While recognizing the importance of legitimate, well directed efforts to encourage desirable immigration, this House declares that it is time to cease paying a bounty at so much per head to agents for immigrants coming to Canada.
It will be noticed, Sir, that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier favours immigration while desiring it to be of a good class. That is a very natural desire in a new country. It is a desire that has been shown in Canada at all times under all governments. We cannot expect any new country to make headway and prosper if it simply depends upon a natural increase. I can quite sympathize with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in his desire that the immigrants to this country should be of a desirable class. With many of the arguments that he advanced I agree ; with many of the desires he expressed I have the very strongest sympathy. With some of the statements made I do not find myself in agreement, and I will take the liberty of criticising them as I proceed. It is true, Sir, that we have a fine field to offer for immigration in this country. Probably no finer field exists throughout the world than Canada offers at the present time. In addition to that we have made an excellent start in this country, and if, with the fine field and the excellent start, we could gather from the world and bring into this country the strong, the clean, the moral, the intellectual, the active, there is no telling how fine a country we might make. There is every necessary feature in the circumstances to allow us to almost reach Utopia. What is it then that we may not accomplish? I think the real fact is this, that these choicest spirits whom we would like to bring into this country are not easily obtained. They are a class of fruit that does not grow on every tree, even in Canada. They are not particularly numerous in other lands and not easy to obtain, because in the countries where they exist they are too useful to be easily spared. Therefore when we view the matter in that way, we realize that we can only do the best we

can under the circumstances and not expect to secure the very finest people of all countries. We must realize that we have either to depend upon our natural increase or be satisfied with the best available material in other lands to help us to develop our own. Members of this House will agree on consideration, that in bringing immigration into Canada we are not likely immediately to improve the character of Canadian citizenship. We must face that as something to be accepted. If we have made progress, if we have improved on our original stock, if our environment, laws and customs have improved that stock, we are not going to immediately improve it still more by bringing in people from other countries, so that, granting the necessity of immigration, we have to accept it on the understanding that the newcomers are not going immediately to improve the character of our citizenship.
[ have often felt in favour of exclusiveness myself. One gets to like his own people. We feel that we have grown up with the country, that we belong to it and it to us, and we are inclined to resent the intrusion of others whose point of view is not exactly our own. But when we look at the circumstances, when we realize that the country requires immigrants, when we realize that every settler in our Northwest requires a neighbour to assist him in making roads, building schools, paying taxes, and increasing the value of property, when we recognize that every settler had a tacit agreement nr understanding with this government when he took up land, that this government would do everything to provide him with neighbours, we are bound to admit that no effort should be spared to fill up the country. Every transportation company wants immigrants, so does every manufacturing establishment and wholesale merchant. All these combined influences are so naturally strong that they are almost. if not entirely, irresistible. I know that necessity does not make for quality. It is left perhaps for a few idealists, such as my hon. friends from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne), to raise the cry for quality rather than quantity: but if my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) were Minister of the Interior. he would no more be able to resist the cry for immigrants and for the filling up of our new country than is the present Minister of the Interior. But we ought all to welcome every plea made for the improvement of the class of immigrants coming to our country.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has chosen as his point of attack on the government tlie question of bonuses. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) says that the bonus is not given to assist immigrants to come to this country but as a means of advertising this country and as a stimulus to the booking agents to forward a good class of settlers. I notice also that there 220}
is a difference between the amendment moved this session by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and that moved last session by my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne). The present amendment simply declares that the time has come when we should cease paying a bounty to agents for immigrants coming to Canada. No reason is given why these bounties should cease, but last session my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) gave specific reasons why they should be discontinued. But though any specific reason is absent on the present occasion, the same reason which the hon. member for Montmagny urged last session appears all through the line of argument of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). So that we may take it for granted that the same reason exists this year in the mind of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as existed last year in the mind of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne). There is, however, a change of form, and sometimes a change from one season to another in the form of an amendment may indicate a change of mind. It may indicate that those who favour the cessation of the bounty system realize that the point of attack made last session was not effective. But while the argument of the mover of the amendment was along the same lines, I felt, as I listened to it, that the bounty itself, much as it occupied his time, does not represent the real strong reason for the position he took. It seemed to me that running through his argument there was an expression of doubt or fear with regard to our whole immigration policy. The bonus is simply one part of that policy, and I would not consider it a vital or essential part. It is only one feature and it may have its weaknesses. The real strong features of our immigration policy are the advertising of the country, the spreading of information, -the offer of land to the immigrant, and the giving of that land on easy terms. These are the strong features of an immigration policy and the bonus, though important in a way, is merely incidental. It was shown last year how an immigration policy could really adapt itself to the necessities' of the time and the varying circumstances in different countries. We had last year an effective speech from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), and after listening to his argument and that of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I was forced to the conclusion that the attack on our immigration policy, because of its bonusing feature, was not at all conclusive.
If you take the actual number of immigrants on whom bonuses were paid, you will find that in 1896 the total number of immigrants was 16,835 and that bonuses were paid on 4,384. The amount has gradually grown until in 1907-8, out of 235.328, bonuses were paid on 20,516. It will be seen that the bonus was paid on about one

in every twelve immigrants. On the face of it then, the bonus is not really so important a feature in our immigration policy as to demand more especially the attack of our opponents. It does not appear to me to be the vulnerable point in our immigration policy and I cannot understand why my hon. friend should have directed his attack on that particular feature.
If you look at the whole series of years in which 1,209,000 immigrants arrived and bonuses were paid to the amount of $1,248,000, you will see that we! paid on only about one in five of these immigrants. The percentage since then has been decreasing, as, last year, we paid on only one in twelve. Now, if that circumstance were really widely known and understood by our people, I think there would be quite a change in their attitude, quite a changed feeling towards the immigration policy. That it is not widely known is perhaps partly our fault. I do not know how widely our friends of the opposition have endeavoured to disseminate such a thought, but I know that, in the ordinary political warfare, while a man of ability may be trusted to present his own side of the case in a favourable light, it is not always possible for him to present the opposing side in a light that will satisfy that side. Therefore, I have felt that the presentation in many of the '(newspaper articles has not quite done us justice. And I have heard many speakers tell of very striking cases of immigrants who were evidently undesirable, and, after dwelling on that subject for some time, with a wave of the hand declare that this is the class of people on whom we pay bonuses. The oratorical effect was there. But, as a matter of statistics, would it not be more accurate to say that on one of twelve of these we paid bonuses ? Yet my hon. friends did not "take the trouble to do that. It is left for us to point out what the exact facts are.


Robert Laird Borden: May I point out to my hon. friend (Mr. G. H. McIntyre) that the information to which he refers was elicited in response to a question put by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blaiu) on the 19th of March last.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: To that extent, we are indebted to the hon. member for Peel.


Robert Laird Borden: And to no one else.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Yes, and, perhaps, somewhat unconsciously, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has benefited us to that extent. Whether he did it intentionally or otherwise, we should thank him for eliciting that information. For the nine months ending December 31, 1907, we received 235,328 immigrants. We paid bonuses upon 20,516. It will be seen that this, again, is about one in twelve. Now, I have pointed out that, in the minds of the people, and in Mr. G. H. McINTYRE
the speeches by most of the members on this subject, especially those who oppose the government there is a quiet assumption that the bonus is paid on all immigrants.


Mr. ARMAND I.AYERGNE.: No.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Armand Lavergne) does not agree. I do not charge it as a specific attempt to mislead the people or misstate the position, but the case as stated is : There are the immigrants and on immigrants of this class a bonus is paid.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. G. H. McIntyre) will allow me : I think we tried to make it clear that the bonus was paid to booking agents for advertising purposes, and that the advertising attracted a variety of people, but especially the more destitute-that is where the danger lies


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: But, proceeding along the line on which I was going, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who, I regret, is not in his place, is one of the fairest minded men in the House. He has spoken on this matter. I have a quotation or two from his address, which, to my mind, shows that he has rather failed to reach to that point o? perfection where one places his opponent's arguments in a way that would strike that opponent as fair and just. The hon. gentleman was dealing with a case in which 8,500 immigrants -who came into Canada within one year passed into the United States. He pointed out that of this number some 500 were rejected for various causes, this argument being used to show that the restrictions upon immigrants in the United States were more severe than in Canada and that we had allowed undesirable immigrants to come in. And, with regard to these 500 immigrants that were rejected, he said that we had these immigrants in Canada at the present time. But he accepted his information on the subject from the American returns. Who these 8,500 immigrants wrere he did not know, by what ships they came he did not know. He did not know in wdiat part of Canada they had settled. And yet, when he is asked by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) whether we paid a bonus on these 500 immigrants that were rejected, his answer is ' No doubt we did. No doubt they came within the classes, so very extensive and comprehensive, upon which we pay bonuses.' Now, will he not, upon a little consideration, think that language rather strong ? If you gathered all the immigrants who came into Canada last year in one place, only one in twelve of them could be pointed out as immigrants for whom bonuses had been paid. If you choose out a single immigrant, the only thing you can say is that the chances
APRIL 22, 190b
are eleven to one that no bonus was paid for him-the chances are against a bonus having been paid upon any particular person. Now, can the hon. member (Mr. Monk) say that ' no doubt ' we paid a bonus on these 500 and more who were rejected ? Nor does the hon. member stop there. Speaking of the 8,000 who were refused entry into the United States, but passed into that country, he said :
On these no doubt the government paid a bonus. Why should they not? If these people were booked from England or any other country in which we grant a bonus to immigrants of certain classes-very comprehensive classes-the booking agent got his bonus on them when they came here, and they afterwards went to the United States.
There is an entire assumption that the bonus was paid on every one of these 8,000 immigrants. I can read it in no other way. I cannot concede this, as a fair statement of the case, nor is it putting our own statement in the light in which we think it should be placed. Again, touching on the same point -the presentation of our case (if I may call it our case) in the light in which we think it should be viewed-let me point out that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in dealing with the matter of bonuses said :
When we spent from $20,000 to $100,000 on immigration, though the bonusing system mav have existed, but it amounted to a negligible quantity. But to-day. when we spend over $1,000,000 on immigration, a large portion of it in bonuses, it becomes an important question.
' A large portion of it in bonuses.' Now, my hon. friend knows the use of English words. Now, what is the impression given by ' a large portion ' of $1,000,000. Let me give the hon. gentleman's own figures as to what was paid. The table quoted by the hon. gentleman shows that for the nine months of 1907-8, the bonus paid on British immigrants was $84,495, on continental immigrants $34,619 and on United States immigrants $3,963, making a total of $123,077. Can that be said to be, under the circumstances, and using the argument as my hon. friend did, ' a large portion ' of $1,000,000 ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does that include payments to the North Atlantic Trading Company ?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: These are the figures given by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier showing the amount of bonuses paid on immigrants for the period stated. I give the figures just as the hon. gentleman gave them.
Now, Sir, I realize that even these lapses -so I call them-from the class of statement we think would fairly present our case, are not as strong or as striking as we have sometimes heard. But we do not measure my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier by ordinary standards ; we give a special standard to a man of that class. I would tell the hon. gentleman that we give him a very high standard indeed and I believe that if he simply held to his own standard we would find in the revised version of ' Hansard.' a modification of some of these statements.
Again, Sir, touching on that same question, upon the presentation of your opponent's case in the light in which you think it ought to be viewed, I will take a statement of the hon. minister's which I find headed in large letters in the ' Hansard ' :
Statement showing what proportion of our immigrants go upon the free lands of the Northwest.
Notice the heading, ' Statement showing what proportion of our immigrants go upon the free lands of the Northwest.' Evidencing his intent the sentence preceding it begins :
Let me give briefly a statement showing what proportion of our immigrants go upon the free lands of the Northwest, the increase in the number of homestead entries, the total immigration and the percentage of the homestead increase to the total immigration for each year from 1896 until the present.
How does the hon. gentleman ascertain that proportion or percentage? He has taken the total number of homestead entries in a year and the total number of immigrants and ascertained the percentage of the homesteads to the immigrants. Thus he shows in his last year's statement 25,281 homestead entries, 235,328 immigrants, percentage 11. Then by the heading of his statement we have 11 per cent of our immigrants of last year go upon the free lands of the Northwest. That is the statement my hon. friend has sent abroad through ' Hansard.' Is that, I ask my hon. friend, a really correct statement of the facts? Have only 11 per cent of our immigrants gone upon the free lands of the Northwest? Is it not a well known rule that a married man may take a homestead but that his wife or his children may not? Is it not a well known rule that you must count at least two and a half people on the land for every homestead? Does not the farmer's son, not yet of age to take a homestead, go upon the lands? I am inclined to believe that he feels he is very mush on the land, as he sweats in the eye of Phoebus and sleeps in Elysium. I think that far more have gone upon the lands than the figures of the hon. gentleman would indicate. I would eliminate the introductory sentence, I would eliminate from that statement the heading in large letters:
Statement showing what proportion of our immigrants go upon the free lands of the Northwest.
I think I would wine out the whole statement, because for the purpose in view, the

figures are altogether misleading. Thus I think that in this case my hon, friend lias scarcely done the minister that justice which the Minister of the Interior would have been able to do himself.
Touching on that question of the 8,500 immigrants who passed from Canada within a year to the United States I would like to present one thought. We have been tojd that the restrictions on immigration into the United States are more stringent than those on immigration into Canada. I may say that has been my own impression, but I know that the mere technical reading of a restriction does not decide the matter; it is the actual working out of the system that decides. However, if yon grant that the restrictions into the United States are a little more stringent than ours, let us see how it has worked out in connection with these emigrants who went to the United States through Canada. The hon. member says that 8,500 passed in. Who were they V My hon. friend does not know. Who were they likely to be? Are the best immigrants who come into this land lying around idle. The best of them are at work. Is it not a fair inference that the 8,500 were not the best who came to this country? If, within a year, these 8,500 did not settle in this country, did not find work and do well, if they were of the class of people who could not'fit in. we may fairly claim, without any straining of the argument, that they were of the less desirable of those who came in. And yet of these less desirables, facing the more' stringent regulations of the United States if you will, 8,500 passed in without any question apparently, and only 500 of this class were rejected. I hold, in view of the possibility or the probability that these were the least desirable of our immigrants, that we may fairly congratulate the Minister of the interior on the evidence shown by this that he has been fairly successful In getting us a good class of immigrants.
My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) has dwelt very strongly, more strongly possibly than my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), upon the fact that the bonus stimulates the undesirable rather than the desirable to come to this country. The bonus does stimulate the undesirables; it is unavoidable that in the very process of stimulating the desirable you will stimulate the undesirable. Every step you take to advertise your country stimulates the undesirable as well as the desirable to come here.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hear, hear.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: You cannot give publicity without doing it, you cannot let your country be known without reaching the undesirable and stimulating him to come to you. It has been frequently said that the best immigration agent is the successful settler, but the successful settler Mr. G. H. McINTYRE.
stimulates the undesirable as well as the desirable. It is inevitable, the news cannot be concealed from the undesirable, he knows the advantage of Canada and everything that stimulates the desirable will attract the attention of the undesirable and stimulate him as well. That is a condition which we have to face, and there is where I think my hon. friends have failed to see the real danger in immigration, the real point to be safeguarded. If I were inclined to suggest-that the thought in the mind of my hon. friend who is moving this amendment (Mr. Monk) is political gain, then his suggestion (hat the bonus is paid to everybody would perhaps be good politics, but I do not think that any one who carefully and calmly examines the question will find that the bonus is the serious matter, the serious matter is the restriction at the port of entry into Canada, the sieve through which you pass the immigrants, the test you make. You must expect that the undesirable in other lands will hear of this good land as rapidly as the desirable. Dealing with the bounty system and the effect of the bonus in stimulating the undesirable rather than the desirable, let me read to my hon. friend the opinion of a very hon. gentleman in this House who spoke on the matter. I may say that I agree entirely with the views expressed. The words are ;
It does not seem to me that the payment of bonuses in itself has any tendency to bring in a less rather than a more desirable class of people into this country; that would depend altogether upon the way you worked it out.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Who was that ?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The name is R.
L.	Borden. I know. Sir, that I cannot claim that the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) should obey that hon. gentleman and I know further that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in speaking in that way had not had the benefit of the argument of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Neither at that time nor on this occasion did he hear that argument and he will be at liberty to act as he at present thinks right. But. I can tell my hon. friend from Montmagny that he had the opportunity to convince the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and in that case he failed. I agree entirely with the views expressed in a portion of his speech by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think those views were absolutely sound. Again, taking up that very matter of the payment of bonuses and applying it more strictly to the amendment here, I wish to point out that on that occasion the hon. leader of the opposition had not been converted-whether he is now or not I do not know-it is for him to say-to the view that the bonus system should not be used. The words that he used on that occasion were these :

In a word, I would be inclined to restrict our efforts so far as tile system of bonusing is concerned to the people of the British Isles.
But, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier does not restrict it in that way. I am sorry that the hou. leader of the opposition has not had the benefit of his argument, but we will be able to see later on whether my hon. friend, as he will have the right to, and as he has had a year to think over the matter, has changed his views. But, I will say in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that the time will come when all this House will agree with it. I believe the time will come when we will no longer have reason to pay bonuses to secure immigration. The question is: Has that time come now?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is the opinion of the Minister of the Interior.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That is virtually the question at the present time and it is a question of judgment. The bonus is not a vital and essential part; it has been a very valuable part, and It has done its work, and in many ways good work. But while I have no particular prejudice for or against a bonus, except in so far as it aids our chances to do good work in the majority of cases, rather than take my hon. friend's view in favour of abolishing the bonus I think that we should improve the character of the immigration, that we should endeavour to get the finest of other lands to come to us and in order to do that I would not only retain the bonus but I would double and treble it. What are the results to-day? Have we suffered very much from the present system of immigration? While it is true that there have been cases of immigrants not behaving well, while there have been cases of suffering largely through people not understanding our country, perhaps coming out in the autumn when they should come in the spring, we are not really suffering in Ontario, Quebec or the maritime provinces. If I look then to what is the actual condition of affairs in the west, if I take the figures that were given us in 1900, in Alberta I find that it then had a population of 185,412. Of that 185,412, which was the beginning of the province, there were British born people to the number of 111,138. It was a matter of surprise to me when I first ascertained these figures. I could hardly think them correct. It had struck me that with the influx of population from all countries the proportion of British born would not have been so great as 111,138. In addition to that, of United States immigrants, there were 43,000, making a total of 154,138. The balance from all other countries numbered 31,274. That can only be considered as an excellent start for any province. It by no means gives cause for anxiety. If we take the figures which have in the past been given us in regard to the increase of population in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta, taking the years 1901 to 1906, in which year a census was taken, we find that there was an increase of 389,351. Of that increase British born people numbered 239,044, or 62 per cent of the whole increase were British born. Of the remainder, 71,000 came from the United States, or 18 per cent, leaving only 20 per cent of an increase altogether from all other sources combined. There again, sir, I feel that there is no cause for anxiety.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will my hon. friend allow me to read him this? The sentences were pronounced at the assizes in the city of Montreal yesterday, and I see by the Montreal ' Gazette ' to-day that about four-fifths of those who were condemned were immigrants. I will read the names if my hon. friend desires me to do so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will accept my hon. friend's word without his naming them. There can be no doubt that in the immigration which is coming to this country there will be found many undesirables, but my hon. friend must bear this in mind that at the present moment we are not so entirely considering the character of all the immigrants who come in as the effect of the bonusing system upon immigration.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Railway labouring men are bonused, most of them are Italians, and most of the immigrants condemned are Italians; therefore, I must say that the immigrants who are condemned are the bonused ones.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: In so far as Italian immigration is concerned we are paying no bonus on Italian immigrants as settlers. We are paying no bonus whatever on them, but from the very necessities of the case, in as much as we must open up our country and prepare means of transportation, we must get somebody to do that work. We apparently cannot get railway navvies from any other country than Italy. There was a time when railway companies were able to get railway navvies elsewhere, but that appears to be no longer possible. While my hon. friend may be perfectly correct in saying that in a particular lot of Italian railway navvies we will find they have been bonused; that is one of the exceptions to our rules, and it is because of the necessity that we are under of building railways. We do not expect these people to become settlers but the necessity of building railways makes it necessary that we shall make an exception in this ease. We must bonus incomers of that kind to build our roads and to open up our country. We realize in doing that that we may be bringing in many who are not so desirable, but these people will not like-lv become permanent settlers in our country.


Frank Oliver: May I just correct my hon. friend on that point ? I wish to say, in order to clear the point up, that the bonus

is paid on farmers, farm labourers and railway labourers, wlio are citizens of certain countries and who are of certain occupations in these countries. Italy is not one of these countries for whose citizens bonuses are paid.


Louis Lavergne: I never said that these Italians came from Italy; they came from the slums of Liverpool and London.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Certainly.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: While many of our friends on the opposition side of the House can find instances in which immigrants have not behaved well, I feel satisfied that a l'air examination of the conditions in Canada .o-day does not show that the immigration population has been of such a character that this proposed change needs essentially to be adopted. Neither does it give cause to any one to make much of it, but unfortunately a case of this kind is likely to be much more prominent than that of the man who quietly settles down to work. But, up to the present time I repeat that we have no cause for anxiety. What are the probabilities for the future? My hon. friends have dealt strongly with that, and I suppose one man's guess may be as good as another's. It is a matter of conjecture. The danger will not come from the quantity, but the danger will come from the quality and the grouping and locating of these people. I would not in the least endeavour to belittle any words of warning in regard to the quality of the immigration that we are getting or of the danger that might come from the bringing in of undesirables. I accept all these words of warning, and I would treat them not with scorn, but with great care. Words of warning are frequently valuable. Taking the figures we find though that for the full calendar year 1907, Canada received 277,376 immigrants, and from Great Britain we received 132,060, or about 50 per cent of the whole amount of the immigration that came to Canada in the calendar year 1907. From the United States there came 56,690, leaving-and I am grouping it in that way for certain reasons which I think not unfair-leaving 88,000 from all other countries combined. Here again it will be seen, that there is not necessarily, from these figures, any fear that we are inundating our country with nationalities that may not be properly assimilated. I do not see that there is any danger of making of our country what my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. A. Uavergne) called a ' mongrel nation.' It is true that among the immigrants there are some we may have some doubt about. I myself in looking over the list and noticing there were 14,626 from Galicia, wondered whether these would make good citizens or not. Tn my reading on this matter I have found, however, that a very fair character has been given these people by the leader of the opposition, and I am willing to receive Mr. G. H. MoINTYRF
his recommendation. He has stated that the children of these people will probably prove the equal of the children of other nationalities. I have found among the number coming in 1907, 6,206 Russian Jews, and again I feel that these are perhaps not the class of people I would like to see coming in great numbers. I have found there were 13,076 Italians, and if among them there are a great number of railroad navvies as I suppose there are, they are doing a very necessary work even if some of them are not very desirable. I have found there came In 7,80S Japanese, and this I understand is an immigration that is not likely to continue to any marked extent. I have noticed that the German immigration that year was about 2,500. I regret indeed that the number is not larger, and I hope it may be possible to obtain more German immigrants. The general result is that of the various nationalities that came to this country in 1907, Britain sent 50 per cent, the United States the proportion I have mentioned already, and consequently I have not been able to feel that alarm which some of my friends feel at the existing condition of affairs. But the fear is expressed, that with the incoming tide we will not be able to assimilate these new people. I do not belittle that fear. There is a fear expressed that the incoming tide will weaken our Canadian character or our Canadian institutions or our aspirations or our point of view. It may be fair to ask: What do my hon. friends mean by assimilation in such a case? I presume that the phrase will mean different things for different people. And what is the Canadian character or temperament of which we speak and which we fear may be injured V I think, Sir, that when our ancestors, the early immigrants came to this country, Englishmen and Frenchmen, and took up their work here 100 years or two ago, they were not Canadians in any sense that we may term them. They were simply Englishmen and Frenchmen transplanted from their natural home. That is all. In the process of time, however, living here, influenced I would judge by further immigration, influenced by their work, by their climate, by their environment, they did gather some characteristics which they transmitted to us, and this we call the Canadian temperament. I fancy that is what we mean when we speak of the Canadian character. If we have been able to acquire such a character, temperament, disposition, traits, it is the result mostly of our environment. Do we think that environment properly applied may not have a similar effect upon other immigrants who come here ? I think we may fairly expect that it shall. The results up to the present time have been fairly satisfactory in the character of our people. I do not undervalue the desire on the part of any one to retain a certain identity of character, although we must recognize that nations like individuals

must grow, and from time to time change. But, Sir, we are far from being a homogeneous people. My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Armand Lavergne), and I probably look upon matters in a different light. AVe naturally speak a different language, although I must congratulate my hon. friend on having the language of the two nationalities as has also my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Louis Lavergne: So have you.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: To a limited extent. But if I were to say to my French Canadian compatriot : You are not a Canadian, you do not speak the language I do, your point of view is different, you cannot be assimilated; I think he would laugh at me and say; If there is a Canadian at all I am he; I am Canadian and Canadian only, I have no other land but Canada to look to: This is my own, my native land.
And, just in the same way my hon. friend might say to me: You are not entirely Canadian because you do not speak the language I do. But, is either of us not assimilated, are we not both Canadians, is the matter of language or of a certain difference in our point of view, in any way to be considered; are we not assimilated as Canadians ? Take again the races whence the British people have sprung-is Britain a thoroughly assimilated and homogeneous nation? AVhy, the British people are as complex as anything well could be; they are partly Saxon, partly Danish, partly Norman, and in many parts of the old country you find the old Celtic. The Scotchman from the North of Scotland is as different from the Englishman from the South of England as anything well could be, and the Irishman is different again. Will the Englishman say to the Scotchman: You are not assimilated because your language is somewhat different, your characteristics are different, your point of view is different from mine? The British nation is complex, it is made up of many races, but, notwithstanding, the people of Britain have the one national idea in many respects. They have certain ideas in common on the line of matters of government, on the line of individual liberty, but in other respects they are complex. Bet me take also as an illustration one that has come very much under my own eye, when we speak of assimilation. We have in Western Ontario a large grouping of German settlers in a number of counties : in AA7aterloo, in Perth, in the Greys. There is no finer class of people in Western Ontario than the German people who went in there and there have been no more useful citizens. The same wisdom that led them to choose out the best land when they came to settle here in the early days has characterized them in all their work, and they have shown aptitude along commercial lines as well as along agricultural lines If any one goes to the
town of Berlin he will be amazed at the growth of that town, and its multiplicity of manufacturing institutions, and it is essentially a German town. The same may be said of Preston, the same may be said of Hamburg, of Tavistock, of Hanover. In many ways the Germans have been the finest settlers we have had in the country, and I sincerely wish the Minister of the Interior could persuade more of them to come here. Shall I say to my German friend : You are not assimilated because you still cling largely to your own language, because your point of view on some questions is different from mine ? No, I would be ashamed to. It is association with the various nationalities which make up our country that makes me feel it is narrow and small in any man to think that Canada must be made up of his own particular stock and his own particular race. I do not fear in the least when I examine into matters of that kind and realize what we have achieved in the past. I feel that a man is really assimilated for all proper purposes in this country if he gains the lessons that come from our institutions, if he gains that selfreliance that our land will give him, if he gains self respect, if he becomes an honest, industrious and prosperous citizen, if he realizes the liberties that we have given him. And, Sir, if he feels all that and is loyal to this land, we may trust to it that no man can enjoy the liberties and privileges of Canada and enjoy the success which industry here will bring to him, without being contented with his lot and without being loyal to Canada to the core. There is no fear that his children when they grow up will be the least different from ours. Indeed, in many respects the descendants of these immigrants may be an improvement on ourselves. Every nationality who brings in its particular colouring here will bring in some virtue with it. There may be vices to check and there may be weaknesses to restrain, but you may depend upon it that the good sense of our people, the freedom of our laws, and the respect for the rights of the individual will cure the defects and that the virtues which these nationalities possess will be perpetuated and will be helpful to us all. I realize, Sir, that all immigrants will not be satisfactory, but I regret when I hear the sharpness of the criticism which is directed in many cases against the immigrants who come to this land and, who in my opinion should be received by us with a sympathetic spirit. When I listen to that sharp criticism which we sometimes hear I am inclined to ask the question: Who are we? Are we not the sons or the grandsons or the great grandsons of immigrants? I think we are. Who has come to this land because he had plenty of money and thought it a picnic to come to Canada ? Did not every one of our forefathers come here to better his condition? If we could with the eyes of to-day look

back and see our forefathers who landed in Canada, say a hundred years ago, would we, with our more fastidious taste, be impressed with their appearance? If we could see them-tradesmen, mechanics, clerks- labouring with the unaccustomed axe to cut down the forests, wouldn't we almost laugh at what we would regard as their feeble efforts?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does my hon. friend think that our forefathers ever looked like the Doukhobors?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: My hon. friend has, I think, made a mistake. He has shown a narrowness of view that I think is rather unfortunate in. a young man of his parts and his acquirements. I will not follow the argument further. To seek out a very striking and unusual exception, and endeavour to lay down a general rule upon it is very unwise. My hon. friend himself perhaps had forefathers who were immigrants to this country, and no matter how fortunate or favourable may have been their circumstances, I think he will realize the force of the argument I was endeavouring to make, that our forefathers who came to this country did not come because they were doing well in the old land. They came, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred because there was pressure behind them to send them here; and when they came they did not or could not the moment they landed make the kind of immigrants we would like to have. We must have patience with these immigrants; for, while we may not make a really good citizen out of every immigrant who comes to this country, you may depend Upon it that his children will make good citizens. There are immigrant children running around the streets of this country to-day any one of whom may worthily fill the seat now occupied by my hon. friend from Montmaguy. This has been shown time and again. There is not such a radical difference between the nations of Europe as to prevent such things coming about. Take the young children, bring them up properly, give them education, and class distinctions will disappear, and those [DOT]of ability are bound to come to the front. The children of immigrants, who are now running around the streets, will yet share in the government of a prosperous country and be a credit to it. In regard also to the 'filling up of the Northwest, we should not forget that the really vital point there is to get in a sufficient number of native Canadians from the older provinces to give the colour, the example, the impetus, to the incoming tide of immigration. That we have most successfully done ; and there is very little doubt that when you get a happy and contented people on the land, you will have a safe people.
I would like to refer to an example taken by way of illustration, by my hon. friend from Montmagny from the history of the Mr. g. h. McIntyre.
United States. As he put it, it was not put unfairly; and if you look at it simply from the point of view he did, and accept the figures he gave, you might have some cause for anxiety and alarm. He stated that the United States had a population of fifty millions before it received as large a flow of immigration as ours of last year, that is, 300,000; and then he used the argument that on account Of the incoming immigration the United States had become alarmed-that with its 80,000,000 people it was now receiving 1,000,000 immigrants a year, and was restricting its immigration; and he used the argument that with our population of
6.000.	000 we could not afford to let 300,000 people annually come in. On the face of it that argument has some force and it should be carefully considered; but if you examine it, you will find that there are some very marked points which my hon. friend has either overlooked or has not emphasized. The United States have in the first place the unassimilated millions on millions of negro population. This makes for them a question intensely vital and extremely difficult. We have no such question to face. With them it is a most troublesome question, and the outcome of it no man can tell. Take again another feature. My hon. friend, in his figures of immigrants coming to Canada, spoke of so many thousands of them being foreign born. Now, the term foreign-born is correctly used; but does it mean for us what it means to the United States? There is a very marked difference indeed. Of the million immigrants who flow into the United States how many speak the same language as the predominant language of the country, the English? Comparatively few. The most of them are people who speak an alien language, who are unaccustomed to the individual liberties given to the people of the United States and who are unused to the form of government prevailing there. Does that condition compare at all with the condition in this country? Take our Canadian immigration of
300.000.	The great bulk of these people speak the language of the majority in this country; we have not to assimilate them in that respect. Every British immigrant who comes to Canada is accustomed to parliamentary government; the mother of parliaments was created in the land from which he comes. Every immigrant who comes from the United States speaks the language of the majority in this country, and is trained in a form of government almost identical with our own. The term foreign-born does not mean in Canada, in any respect, what it does in the United States. And so. while I feel that the argument my hon. friend used is somewhat plausible as he used it, it requires only a little examination to show that it does not at all apply to the matter in hand. An Englishman who came to Canada a year ago is not foreign-born in any true sense of the term; he Is a

part of the British empire in any case; he speaks one of our two languages; he has been trained to our system of government; and he has a sense of individual liberty and responsibility.
_ Again, there is this great difference in the immigration that comes to these two countries. In the United States, with their lands exhausted, there is a tendency on the part of immigrants to gather together in groups in large cities, speaking only their own language, and ruled by their own organizations. It is a very striking fact that in Greater New York there is to-day the largest Jewish community in the worid. No such thing is possible in Canada. The more we send the immigrants to the free lands of the west, the less danger there will be, if they are settled, not in groups by themselves, but among others. I have no doubt of the result as long as proper care is taken.
While I have spoken in that way, and while I feel that the really bad immigrants are not numerous, although given great prominence, I do not in any way belittle the arguments used in favour of a good class of immigrants in this country. I desire it with all the force of my hon. friends who have spoken on this subject, and I feel that a very great responsibility is thrown on the Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend has received very hard knocks and much sharp criticism in this House, and I cannot say that he returns the soft answer ; I think he invites the combat.
At the same time my hon. friend may be assured he has won the respect and confidence of both sides of the House in his good intent and sincerity, and that will prove to him a great assistance indeed in facing his work. No doubt he realizes the very great responsibility that is attached to his work. In this House at times we have to face conditions that are irrevocable, that we cannot change. Our immigration policy is not one of these. We could at any moment change that policy and put up the bars to stop immigration and it is my hon. friend who has the responsibility. He stands at the gate, he forms our immigration policy, and just as he devises and plans so he gives a colouring to the new nation. He. more than any other man in this House or country, is building up the nation, and I would earnestly impress on him the desirability of every effort to bring in the very finest class of immigrants and give us the best chance possible to make the Canadian nation of the best quality possible. The responsibility lies with him, and while I wish to impress on him more and more the sense of that great responsibility, at the same time, while the circumstances' may give rise to some anxiety and concern, there is not at present any real necessity for alarm.


Mr. E. PAQUET (I,'Islet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. McIntyre) for
the magnificent speech he has just delivered, and which is worthy of the attention of this House. I must also congratulate him for his unceasing efforts in mastering our language and his endeavours in getting better acquainted with the character and spirit of the French race in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, while the attention of the old impoverished nations of Europe is fastened upon the solution of the problem of emigration, the stronger and more valorous races of the new world are anxiously seeking to settle the social problem of immigration. In 1907, the United States got amended to a considerable extent its immigration legislation and appointed a commission to investigate the whole question. At that time, the first ministers of the British colonies were giving their attention to that question while in conference in Loudon. The Canadian parliament also discussed in a remarkable manner the Asiatic immigration, that from the United States, from the British Isles and from continental Europe. The legislators in the House of Commons are to-day endeavouring to perform their duty toward the community in devoting a few hours to the discussion of this most important subject. In the course of my remarks I shall ask the government to abolish the bonus system, while at the same time extending a substantial and effective aid to desirable immigration. According to an economist, Canada with its wealth of agricultural, forest and mineral resources is man's last reserve, his furthermost boundary. Thanks to the two great races that live in this country, we are building up a vast national structure wherein people from the United States and Europe come to seek liberty and plenty.
The Canadian people must have common aspirations, but in order to reach that worthy object, we must exercise a special supervision over the class of immigrants coming into Canada. These should feel like us that they are bound to work for the material and moral welfare of Canada, and this object should be their bequest to their children in this new and hospitable land. In our task of selecting immigrants, we should live up to our great traditions; we must allow ourselves to be prompted by the teachings of our history: we must recail a glorious past and call to memory the lessons taught to posterity by the founders of Canada. Eustel de Coulnnges has the following to say:
There is no such a thing as a dead past for man. He may forget it, but it still lives in him. For, such as he may be at different periods of his life, he is the product and a diminutive of all former mental evolutions. If he goes down into his soul, he may trace back and distinguish those various periods by what each of them left within him.
These principles we must apply to our history and cast a retrospective look upon

our traditions. Immigrants for New France were selected with the most minute care. Our forefathers were of the most noble and most generous blood of France. Our ancestors came from the old provinces of Normandy, of Anjon, of Pieardie, of Bri-tany, those chivalrous aud highly moral pioneers of the church, of freedom and of France. Those men who at the time of Louis the Great were governing the mother country, were actuated by the desire of creating a new France beyond the seas, something like an expanse of their native laud. And they were very strict in the selection of the settlers. French Canada is the work of great patriots and able legislators. French Canada is the offspring of the best French peasantry; of men gifted with the highest moral and physical qualities and civic virtue; enteiprising, industrious, brave and upright men. Historical documents are there to show how very scrupulously were selected the French women which were sent to New France by Richelieu, Colbert, Talon and de Laval. The most rigid moralists are forced to admire the work of the emigrated girls of the seventeenth century.
Historians as a whole are agreed upon the distinguished origin of the French Canadians. And they were able to grow, to prosper and to spread despite all their trials, and to devote the whole power of their national spirit, the whole strength of their powerful moral and physical organization to the development of Canada. Mr. Claudio Jannet wrote thus of the moral pre-eminence of the various elements which established the Canadian colony:
Fom the time of Champlain down to the last day of the French domination, the different governments which ruled the colony have always made it a point to exclude from the country individuals of a doubtful moral character.
And an orator said:
. The reason of our glory and strength to-day is not simply because we are of French stock, hut because we sprang from France at a time in her history when she was at the apex of glory and when the hand that rocked our cradle was still amenable to the word of God.
After the cession of Canada to England, the Anglo-Saxon race grew side by side with us. At the close of the war of American independence, in 1783, the United Empire Loyalists, who remained true to the British Crown during the rebellion, and who sustained the persecution of their revolted brethren, came by thousands to the Canadian province. According to an author:
' The United Empire Loyalists brought forth to Canada the richest blood that was up to then the pride of the thirteen American colonies.' These emigrants were the founders of the new British empire in America. Since then they have progressed steadily and they are worthy of admiration.


Eugène Paquet: We also are proud of their success. Mr. Hall, in his work entitled ' Immigration/ says: ' We must not forget that New England's first settlers were selected with the utmost care.' We may say it is only a fancy, but I will answer No, it is our history, our glorious past. And when those records are filled with heroic deeds they should be placed before the people of this country.
I recognize, Air. Speaker, the importance, the necessity for the government and parliament, to endeavour to develop a desirable class of immigration. There is no doubt but that the better suited classes to develop Canada's resources are the descendants of France and the descendants of Loyalists, or better, the Canadians. In order to follow up our great traditions, we must above all encourage farmers to come to Canada. Every province of this country has thousands upon thousands of acres of available agricultural lands which will eventually be the great purveyors of Europe as well as the east owing to their great producing power. We need settlers to develop our unoccupied lands in order to increase the production and the national wealth. We could get a great many desirable farmers in more than one country, and these will be able in the noble pursuits of agriculture to enhance the development of this country.
The provincial authorities of Quebec have adopted a very commendable policy on immigration. I will acquaint the House of it by reading a letter from Mr. RenS Dupont, which is addressed to the editors of newspapers in Canada, and which reads thus:
Quebec, January 8, 1908.
Mr. Editor,-In order to give an impetus to immigration in the province of Quebec, the Interior Department has just authorized the organization of ail information bureau, relating to farm land under cultivation, and available, so as to inform all intended purchasers of such farms.
* So far such information were lacking altogether, although we had often received demands for the sale of settled farms. This branch of the department will he available to every one intending to acquire a farm in any part of the country, or to whoever wishes to sell his farm for some purpose or other.
I include for your information a blank form which we send to all who intend disposing of their farm, and I would he very much pleased if you could give a word of encouragement to our countrymen about this new scheme in your valuable paper.
Thanking you beforehand for the interest vou display towards colonization, and for services which vou are always ready to render to that cause. I have the honour to beg you to believe in the most distinguished sentiments of
Tour faithful servant.
RENE DUPONT, Colonization agent.
A statement and classification of all available farms may have good results, especially

in those localities where emigration of our countrymen to the United States has caused untold injury to the farm industry. This policy may have a helpful effect in bringing back our citizens to Canada.
Farm hands and domestic servants are also a desirable class of immigration if only we take the trouble of selecting them. Allow me to quote the wmrds of my colleague in the legislature, they are the expression of my own opinion:
' Agriculture suffers from a shortage of help on the farms. It is very difficult to get farm labourers and domestics, notwithstanding the high wages which are offered. It is a state of things which is an impediment to the cultivation of our farms and tends to discourage the agriculturists. The time has really come for the government to organize a movement to bring into Canada farm labourers, which could be easily found in France and Belgium if serious and persistent efforts were made. It is a very serious question. It exists in a very acute state in certain localities.'
In the province of Ontario the Minister of the Interior has under control a great many agents whose duties are to find employment for farm labourers. I was reading in ' La Patrie,' of the 9th of March.
Ottawa, March 9, 1908.
Special to ' La Patrie.'-As ' La Patrie ' said a tew days ago. that the Hon. Mr. Oliver, at the request of the French-speaking members of the cabinet, has decided to appoint ill each county of the province of Quebec, one agent whose duty will be to find, free of charge, employment as farm labourers or domestics for the immigrants wishing to settle in the province. This decision will be oi very great advantage to the farmers and to the emigration agents, who will be in position to communicate with the provincial asrents and get exactly the class of immigrants which is necessary. Following that decision, the Minister of the Interior has just appointed twenty agents in the province of Quebec, and other denominations will soon follow.
Since that date, new agents have been appointed. There is a lack of the farm labourers in the province of Quebec. The president of the colonization and repatriation of Montreal stated in January, 1908 : [DOT] The decision which we have taken has had the good result of aiding the farmers in getting help and to secure servants for a good number of families. Our employment bureau have in this way found employment for a good many hundreds of farm labourers and servants and besides that, they have been the means by which individuals and industrials have been able to get the same advantage.'
In some localities our labourers will fear the competition of farm labourers coming from the outside. One of the most distinguished citizens of the county which I have the honour to represent was writing me last week: ' The lion. Mr. Oliver has decided to appoint in each comity of the province of Quebec an agent whose duty will be to recruit farm labourers and servants so as to help our farmers. Would the result of this movement, whose object is noble, he to increase the exodus of our fellow-countrymen towards the cities and industrial centers of the United States? Would it not be the means of introducing in our parishes socialists and anti-clericals ? Is there no danger of bringing in our country elements which will brake harmony between the clergy and the people?'
1 put this letter before this House believing that it contains opinions worthy of consideration. The government must be very careful in selecting and appointing the agents. They should be allowed to introduce in the midst of our moral populations only emigrants whose character is well known.
On the 15th of April, 1907, I was urging upon the government to make the strongest and most generous efforts to bring in this country desirable French and Belgium immigrants. The government has adopted a more active policy towards France. Three new immigration agents have been appointed. It seems as if measures have been taken for a larger distribution of literature and information. The Minister of the Interior has secured the active co-operation of many French immigration agencies. These agencies will get commission on the immigrants belonging to certain classes which they will send to Canada.
In the past the government has thought that it was its duty to pay bonuses in order to aid and encourage immigration. Bonuses were offered to booking agents to encourage them to send immigrants from Great Britain. At that time New Zealand, Australia and Argentine Republic were spending very large amounts in assisting immigration by way of bonuses. But the booking agents have, unfortunately, no interests in looking to the character and the morality of the immigrants. They have no other care naturally than to send the greatest number possible of immigrants to Canada so as to get more premiums. What do they care about the character? What do they care about the morality of our population ? I am almost sure of it the government will soon abandon this policy. There is a fear that during this financial and commercial stringency, the suspension of payments of bonuses on immigrants would bring a crisis, but I think the last commercial crisis has had the effect of consolidating our credit in the world.
During the fiscal year 1906-7, 34,647 immigrants came into the country from the United States. The premiums paid in the United States amounted to $4,743. and these American immigrants brought with them values amounting to some fortv millions of dollars. During the nine months of the fiscal year 1906-7, 235,32S immigrants came

into Canada, on 20,492 of which a bonus was paid. Excellent results might be obtained in the United States, in Great Britain and in continental Europe without resorting to the bonus system. Indeed, economic conditions in Canada are changing for the better. The country is growing marvellously and becoming known among civilized nations. In several of these, the name of Canada may be said to be famous, and will soon attract emigrants, as does now that of the United States.
In every country with which we entertain agricultural, commercial or industrial relations, we should' have emigration and commercial agents understanding our wants and our aims. Such agents might deliver lectures and give information to all classes. They should be educated men and well informed as to our laws, resources and economic conditions. They should be honest, progressive and capable of helping to develop social, commercial and industrial relations. A journalist remarked -with great truth, on the 7th April last : ' A commission composed of men conversant with our commercial situation and making a study of the markets of the world with a view of finding an outlet for our manufactured articles and information for our importers, would help the rapid and profitable development of our foreign trade, which has shown of late years such prodigious powers of expansion. It would create a demand for our goods abroad, and by spreading the knowledge of the natural wealth we possess, would bring to us, in a continual and abundant stream, new capital and very desirable immigration.'
Special delegates might also be sent abroad-emigrants who have been successful here. They would speak of their success on their native soil and become the very best of emigrant agents. We should also invite here, more frequently than we do. members of the foreign press and of the Boards of Trade of the United States and of Europe. These distinguished visitors would admire and speak of our natural wealth, thus promoting desirable emigration.
The people of Britain and of the United States are pretty well acquainted with our resources and economic conditions. Yesterday, the Canadian press foreshadowed a great immigration movement to Canada from the American republic. Most American immigrants are farmers enjoying a certain amount of wealth. Among them may be found a certain number of Canadians. Canadians from Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Dakota are being attracted here by our agricultural development and progress.
French Canadians have crossed to the States seeking that intense industrial life which the country affords. The province of Quebec, thanks to technical education, to the development of its agricultural, forest and mining wealth, is bound to become a Mr. PAQUET.
great industrial centre. The development of our industries will be exceedingly favourable to the work of repatriation. In the midst of the human throng massed in great American cities, in that great crucible where races are mixed, expatriated French Canadians have preserved the distinctive character of our national genius. Their ideas, feeling and ideals are not very faraway from those which we ourselves entertain. Repatriated French Canadians are among our best immigrants.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: (Translation.) Very good, very good.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) English economists have made some very true remarks with respect to emigrants coming here from the British Isles. According to Gerald Adams, our emigration agents do not make any very serious effort in tbs rural districts of England. It is there that we should reach the English farmer. The exhibition of our products in rural districts produces very good results. The Franco-Canadian treaty will favour French emigration to a certain extent, if we take proper advantage of the conditions of that agreement. ' It is the duty of France to help her far off sons.'
The small birth rate of France may prevent her from sending* many emigrants here, and the economic conditions obtaining in that country may render unnecessary the departure of her sons, but France should send us capital in order_ to develop transactions with France, especially in the province of Quebec.
We should have a consul or a commissioner in Belgium where agricultural emigrants of the best class may be recruited. This suggestion may perhaps appeal to the government.
Most classes in Belgium have as yet no knowledge of our resources. In that country which may be called a French land, we might secure good agricultural emigrants, excellent farm hands and intelligent and skilled workmen. This system might be expensive, but the solution of a national problem is here involved. The social question is more important than the financial. Remaining faithful to our traditions, I am ready to vote the necessary funds to advertise our wealth abroad.
Mr. Leroy Beaulieu finds that of all countries Canada is to-day the one offering the best inducements to emigrants and being the most rapidly developed, especially as regards agriculture.
After the exhibition of Liege. I read in ' La revue economique Internationale ' :
The Canadian exhibit reveals to us.or reminds us that there lies to the north of the vast American continent, territories of abundant natural wealth, inhabited bv a population small in numbers, but energetic, enterprising and resolved to develop, with foreign help, the treasures of the soil. Overpopulated countries will find there an extensive field

for emigration, the more worthy of attention that the climate is healthy and temperate. Strangers are astonished at the actual condition and future prospects of Canada.
We can point out to them our progress in matters of transportation, construction of railways, telegraph and telephone lines, in the improvement of waterways, in thrift, in agricultural, forest and mining industries.
Our vast and fertile agricultural lands, our wealth in forest and minerals, in iron and coal especially, ' the muscle and blood of modern industry,' our developed industries. the religious and political liberty we enjoy, the advantages of Christian teaching, our satisfactory economic and social conditions ; the harmony existing between Church and State, Capital and Labour, employer and employee, are all of a character to attract emigration to our shores.
The Canadian Emigration Act is sometimes biterly criticised. If it be properly applied, the Act would appear to answer to the economic and social requirements of the nation. It contains provisions for getting rid of bad emigrants. The medical examination has become more serious, at least at Quebec. According to Mr. Bryce's report (page 120) ' 1,422 emigrants were detained at the Quebec hospital in 1904-5; in 1906-7, 523 only were detained at that hospital. The examination in European ports is also more serious and this is to our advantage. The United States government flues Steamship Companies $100 for every person shipped without sufficient inspection or suffering from tuberculosis, epilepsy or any eontageous disease. It is sometimes difficult to discover the true physical and mental condition of an emigrant at the time of his examination. But we can deport those who prove undesirable.
You will allow me to make a few remarks concerning the medical inspection of emigrants at Quebec. Dr. J. D. Page t00lU'!iar^ of tho emigrant hospital there in 1904. Before that there was no system ot scientific medical inspection. Two inspecting physicians were appointed, but there was no place for sick emigrants or emigrants under observation. The government understood the necessity of efficient medical organization. Dr. Page was in consequence appointed, in addition to his hospital duties, medical officer of the port of Quebec. He has thoroughly organized the system of medical inspection at that place.
I am in a position to state that the medicai inspection of emigrants at Quebec, is in no wise inferior to that of any American port. Our emigration Act says': 'No weak minded, epileptic or insane emigrant shall be allowed to land in Canada.' Those having any experience in the practice of medicine know how difficult it sometimes is. to discover the symptoms of epilepsy. Certain patients are quite intelligent and the attacks infrequent. It is also known to be
very difficult to locate tuberculosis in the first period. The physician is obliged to make long and repeated examinations and sometimes resort to a bacteriological test. As to madness and crime, all jurists know how difficult it is, in a criminal case, to clearly establish the mental state of the accused.
It would doubtless be more prudent to * forbid access to this country of all emigrants whose antecedents cannot be discovered. Any person wishing to come here should be compelled to produce a certificate stating that he is guilty of no moral crime. Such a certificate might be delivered by a reputable magistrate, the clerk of a court of justice or a clergyman. But cases of personation might here be possible.
American laws restrictive of emigration are very often highly praised. It appears to me that the economic conditions of the two countries cannot be compared. Our emigration, as to character and morality, does not seem inferior to that of America. Formerly the strong and robust northern peoples emigrated in great numbers to the United States. Since 3890, things have changed and the northern emigrant, the most easily assimilated, no longer occupies the first place in American emigration statistics. People from southern and eastern Europe are flooding the States since 1890. As Leroy-Beaulieu says :
' The enormous increase of immigrants tends to introduce in this country elements far more heterogenous; more difficult to assimilate, poorer, less educated and at all points of view less progressive.' In 1907 the United States received:
From Italy	 238,000
From Russia	 258,443
From Austria-Hungary	 338,452
We must notice that in 1907 the United States received only 56,637 immigrants from England. This is a very serious question, says Leroy Beaulieu. However, these new elements coming in since a few years have not yet had time to exert any sensible influence on the American people, and its population is now so numerous that the new comers will not have a very great effect upon its character in the future.
Our immigrants are coming in great numbers from the United States, Germany, France, Belgium and British Islands.
I do not wish to criticise too severely the immigrants from Russia, Italy, Hungary, Austria and Roumania, but in my humble opinion our immigration is more mono-geneous than the one of our neighbours.
The problem of assimilating the races in our immense territory is of the greatest national importance. The Slavs, oriental and meridional, are slow to understand our institutions and aspirations, but the immigrants from the United States, British Islands, France and Belgium, having in then-own country the representative institutions,

understand rapidly our political system. The English and French immigrants find here the old beloved language. They hear it in the churches, in the courts and in parliament.
In the great work of immigration, I fear the desire of making money, the passion of graft. Some speculators, who would like to make a fortune rapidly, naturally want the gates of Canada to he widely opened to every nation. These men exert in our country a nefarious influence. We do.not want here those people who will not help to the progress of the country. I read the following lines in ' La Patrie,' of the 18th March, 1908:
The department of immigration at Ottawa has established a new rule by which, after the 15th of April next, the immigrants sent from England by the philanthropic societies will be immediately sent back if they have not with them a certificate from the Canadian office of immigration in London, stating that they are fit to become useful citizens.
If properly put In force these regulations might have the effect of preventing undesirable immigrants to enter in our country. The government must act wisely in this case. You have heard a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Quebec saying:	' The increase of criminals in certain parts of the province, principally those parts where the immigrants come in greater numbers, has been the subject of serious cousideration by my cabinet who is firmly decided to neglect "no means possible to protect the lives and property of the people.' These alarming words, pronounced by a man of wide experience, by an old magistrate, should awake our attention.
Canada has immense resources. The sons of the soil and the immigrants having good morals, good health, and being able of supporting themselves can take advantage of our national wealth.
The new generations of immigrants growing stronger and more numerous will perhaps one day be masters of Canada. If our immigrants are Christians, we might be treated with justice. We deserve respect from those who come to settle into our country. As a matter of fact, we have always shown great generosity towards the new comers. In 1831, the legislative assembly of Lower Canada granted full rights of citizenship to the Jews, putting them on the same footing as the Canadians.
In 1847. thousands and thousands of Irish emigrants, leaving their country where there was starvation came to Canada. Illness brought many deaths. Our people gave to these Irish all the necessary care. They sacrificed their own lives to save them. We should entertain the same good sentiments, the same sympathy towards immigrants of good character. I wish to repeat it, I am in favour of giving our aid. small but gen erous. to help a desirable immigration, but Mr. PAQTJET.
I believe we have come to a sufficient degree of development that we can dispense of paying premiums on immigrants.
I welcome desirable immigrants; I welcome in our country all those people whose liberties have been abolished, whose rights have been violated and prayers ignored.
But, in the interest of our civilization, in the interest of Canada, we ask from this government to make a proper choice of the immigrants who want to become part of the Canadian family.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE (Strathcona).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I make some brief remarks on the motion moved by the hon. member for .Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I think that hon. gentleman is to be congratulated on the presentation of the question, for it was a careful presentation and, in the course of it, the hon. gentleman put forward arguments that are agreed to by both sides of the House. That we require immigrants and require a desirable class of immigrants, it is a foregone conclusion. The hon. gentleman puts forward ids view's in the beginning of his speech in this way-I quote from page 6S77 of unrevised 1 Hansard ' :
We are, therefore, Sir, considering the vast extent of our territory, a small community numerically and our country could no doubt well support a far greater number of people. There is no congestion in Canada and all will and do, I am sure, agree that an increase of population in Canada is desirable. All must also readily agree that if an increase of population in this country is to accrue to us through immigration from other countries it is essential also that none but desirable persons should be admitted to Canadian citizenship and to the Canadian family.
With these sentiments we are in accord. But, in the course of his address, the hon. gentleman puts forward some rather peculiar arguments and draws some more peculiar conclusions. I have read the hon. gentleman's speech very carefully, and I find running through it two or three main ideas. One may be thus expressed: Cease operations of a selective nature and you will procure immigrants of a more select class. I cannot agree with any such deduction from any such premises. Another may be thus stated:	Cease operations and the desirable
classes of immigrants will increase. Which, applied to business, I take it, might be stated in this form : Do not endeavour to do business and you will do more business; do uot earnestly desire to attain a certain object and you will attain It all the more surely and speedily. That seems to be ab-sured on the face of it. Another idea in the hon. gentleman's speech may be thus expressed' : Undesirable classes come here because a number of agencies are at work other than the bonus system, but, because these undesirable classes-or, more accurately, these undesirable persons-come

here, there can be only one reason why they come here, and that is the bonus system. That is the hon. gentleman's whole argument. As pointed out by my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. G. H. McIntyre), that is the only point of the immigration policy that he aims at. Yet the bonus system exists purely and simply because it is of an essentially selective character. Now, what bonuses do we pay ? As I understand it, the first bonus that we paid in this country was begun in 1867, a bonus to certain charitable institutions for bringing our children of a certain class. Those children, it was understood, must not be institutional children-that is children who had been in a penitentiary or a home-in other words, they must be carefully-reared children. That bonus to these institutions is in existence to-day. The second bonus that I would speak about is the bonus on immigrants from the United States. At certain eligible points in the United States we have agents who are paid $3 for every man, $2 for every woman and $1 for every child who, through their influence, settles in Canada. These bonuses are paid for giving directions, for advertising, for getting location points and railway rates and issuing certificates in order that these immigrants may get a reduced rate to certain points of our country. There are more favourable points at which the bonus paid is only .$2 per head for men, $1 for women and 50 cents for children. We have still another bonus, the bonus paid on British immigrants. This bonus is paid as specified in the order in council to certain agents at fl per adult and 10 shillings for each person between 18 years and 1 year, for farmers, farm labourers, stablemen, gardeners, carters, railway service men, navvies, and domestic servants of one year's experience in each occupation. This bonus is applied to the continent of Europe for exactly the same classes, but is only applicable to these countries: Norway, Sweden. Denmark, Holland, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Austria-Hungary. I would point out to my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Armand Davergne) that Italy is excluded from the countries in which bonuses are paid for farm labourers or other classes.
Now, if there is one impression which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) would like to convey without stating It, it is that a bonus has hitherto been paid upon all classes and upon every one who comes here as an immigrant. That impression has been conveyed to the country. I believe such an idea was put forward in the days of the North Atlantic Trading Company, when our friends opposite declared that every man, woman and child cost the country $5. There never was a time when the North Atlantic Trading Company or all the companies operating. received bonuses on more than 30 per cent of the people from any country. A 221
few figures will show how the commission operates at the present time. In the nine months of 1906-7, the total immigration from the United States was 36,659 and we paid bonuses on 2,561. That is, we paid bonuses on 7'04 per cent of the immigrants of that year. In the year 1907-8, we had 46,925. American immigrants, and paid bonuses on 2,425 or 5 per cent of our American immigrants. In Great Britain the operation of the bonus is slightly different from what it is in the United States. The question why we paid a bonus on British immigrants might well be taken up. You are well aware that the people to whom we pay the bonus are the booking agents. Their occupation is not solely as Canadian agents. They engage in some other occupation that takes them through the country and brings them in touch with other people and enables them to carry on a propaganda in advertising, just as if they were paid agents of the government. That is, the bonus paid on British and continental immigrants is simply a means of advertising.
These booking agents are not booking agents for Canadian ports alone ; they are booking agents for Australia, New Zealand, the Argentine Republic and other countries much farther away than Canada. It is important to remember that they receive a commission from the steamship companies and that that commission is a percentage on the amount of the ticket. Therefore, it would naturally follow that every booking agent would want every one purchasing a ticket from him to go to the most distant ports. Here is where the bonus operates: Our Immigration Department steps in and says: _ For certain classes of immigrants we will pay you $5 a head extra. You. cannot imagine any more selective scheme. The person who is undesirable from our standpoint, who does not belong to the agricultural or labouring classes, as we have them specified here, will naturally be induced to go to other countries, whereas the farm labourer, the domestic servant and the farmer will be induced, owing to the bonus, to come to Canada. This must necessarily be the result.
There is a suspicion, and it was expressed here some time ago, that when a man goes to a booking agent he simply says he is a farmer and that is all there is about it, that no further certificate than his word is required. This is not the case. In the first place he has to sign a written statement of where he comes from, where he served and what experience he has had. That statement is kept by the booking agent. Now, as to the second check


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How does my hon. friend know that and since when did that rule
exist?


Wilbert McIntyre: My informant is the Commissioner of Immigration. When the farmer lands in this country he



himself need have no knowledge of whether that booking agent is receiving a bonus or not. When he comes to the Canadian side of the water he is received by the inspector who asks him whether he is a farmer or a farm labourer, and if he comes under these classes a different certificate is made out. These certificates of inspectors are preserved and are forwarded to the head office. The returns of the booking agents are also forwarded to the head office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman say that the examining officer makes out another certificate here?


Wilbert McIntyre: He makes out another certificate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I deny that; he never does.


Wilbert McIntyre: All I can say is that the person who has stated that to me is the Commissioner of Immigration.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the information in writing or oral ?


Wilbert McIntyre: The information submitted to the head office is in the return.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the information from the Commissioner of Immigration to the hon. gentleman in writing or oral?


Wilbert McIntyre: It is not in writing.


Robert Laird Borden: Simply an oral conversation ?


Wilbert McIntyre: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there anything in the published reports which substantiates that?


Wilbert McIntyre: I am not aware of that.


Robert Laird Borden: It is remarkable that the hon. gentleman should have information that no other hon. gentleman has.


Wilbert McIntyre: My method of securing the information was simply to ask the question, because it was stated here that there was no check and I was exceedingly anxious to ascertain if that was true.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish my hon. friend to misunderstand me. I was not criticising him. His action shows very great diligence and earnestness as a member of the House, but it would seem that if information of that kind is available and is valuable it should be in the possession of every member of this House in the shape of a report.


Wilbert McIntyre: As I understand, the report that is made out by the booking agent is sent in to the head office. He claims a bonus on the people so specified.


Wilbert McIntyre: There is no continuity of record so far as the immigrant is concerned, a different report is made out by the immigration officer at the receiving point and that record is forwarded to the head office here. When the booking agent applies to the commissioner here for a bonus on certain individuals, his report must tally with that of the inspector at the receiving port. Thus there are two checks on the individual, there is the check of the booking agent and the check of the receiving officer. I asked Mr. Scott, the commissioner, if any requests preferred by the booking agents were ever refused, and he assured me they were, because the report of the receiving officer did not agree with the report from the booking agent.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I thought Mr. Scott, the superintendent of immigration, said that they accepted the list from the purser of the steamer ?


Wilbert McIntyre: My hon. friend may be right there. My information is simply as I stated, that the inspecting officer at Halifax or other receiving ports makes out a list using a separate form for the farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants, those who come under the bonus system.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: How does the inspecting officer at Halifax know that these domestic servants or farmers or whatever they may be fulfil what is expected of them ? Are they followed to their employment as farm labourers or domestic servants ?


Wilbert McIntyre: I know of no system; I am not aware that such a system is in vogue of following the individual, but the authorities are perfectly conversant with all those who go on the farms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it not a matter of fact that the inspector makes no list, but has a duplicate or triplicate of the ship's manifest and he checks the crowd as they go past him and then sends the manifest to Ottawa ?


Wilbert McIntyre: My information is quite different. My information is that it is the duty of the inspector to find out if the man is subject to bonus, and if so to make out a separate certificate and have that forwarded to the head office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will see it all in the committee before long.


Wilbert McIntyre: As to the claim that the bonus is necessarily the cause of all the undesirable immigrants coming to this country you must remember that there are certain' charitable institutions in Great Britain who consider it their duty to pick up certain people who wish to be placed I in different environments, supply them with I means and have them brought as independ-

ent travellers to Canada. You will also recognize that certain governments, such as the Ontario government, from whom, by the way, we have received a good deal of abuse in reference to this matter, give bonuses annually to these charities. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) read the report of the inspector of public charities for Ontario, and if I remember the inspector's words correctly he said : Let us put the trouble at the door where it belongs, the Dominion immigration authorities. Sir, I have in my hands this year's estimates of the Ontario government and I find that for colonization and immigration the government of Ontario have subscribed $58,000 this year. Prom the public accounts of last year I find that they gave somewhere in the neighbourhood of $38,000. Is there any retraction on their part ? I And last year they gave $7,000 to aid the Salvation Army and this year they have increased that amount to $10,000. The people who are operating in this way are very desirable people, those who wish to place a man in a different environment, to change the whole tenor of his life and give him a fair chance, must be lauded for so doing. But with these various indigent agencies at work is my hon. friend quite fair when he says that the undesirable people are brought here by the bonus system ? Is the inspector for public charities for Ontario fair when he says :	Let us
put the blame at the door where it belongs. Had he not better take into account the system of immigration carried on in Ontario ? Had he not better take into account certain charitable institutions ? These people are dealing with people who have no independence, who have come down to the particular status where they have to throw themselves upon public charity and when they come to this country and the circuDistances are a little adverse they naturally go back to their old surroundings the population centres, and to those population centres they say :	We deserve your
care. I do not think the evil is as great as it has been represented by many members of this House but if it be as great do not lay all the blame on the bonus system, but rather think how very largely these public charities that send these people to this country may be responsible for the whole trouble. The government in the past have not interfered with people who came to this country. To a man who came independently, to a man who was not a criminal and who was physically capable the government have said : We will put no restriction upon you; but, this evil has worked to such an extent in our population centres that now the government have found it necessary to inquire of these public charities and ask that immigrants coming through them even must be examined to ascertain if they are capable of carrying on such work as may fall to their lot in this country. As I re-221 i
fleet upon this particular phase of the question I cannot help but think of how often we find our friends on the other side of the House getting up and reading the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior when he was a private member of this House.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Wilbert McIntyre: 'Hear, hear says the hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton. They reiterate it and reiterate it. When the hon. minister was a private member of this House he was opposed to indiscriminate immigration and when he took the position of Minister of the Interior he proceeded to crystallize into legislation the ideas that he had put on ' Hansard ' in those days. If you will examine the restrictions that the minister has placed upon immigration you will find the justification in every particular of what the minister said in those days. There seems to be a difference of opinion on this question. Some say that the west and the east differ, some say that the west wants a great deal of immigration and I am perfectly willing to admit that, but before proceeding further let me give you some statistics as to how the system works out in Great Britain and on the continent. In nine months of the year 1907-8 we received 55,781 British immigrants and we paid bonus on 8,861, or 15'8 per cent. In 1907-8 we received 111,238 British immigrants and we paid bonus on 14,710 or 13-02 per cent. Now, it is frequently argued- and the whole question came up some time ago

that we pay bonus on the undesirable and that we get only the undesirable with that bonus. Let us examine into the figures for a moment. We paid bonus on 14,710 immigrants from Great Britain and we had 5,208 homestead entries from Englsh, Irish and Scotch alone. The average family of the homesteader consists of 2-5 persons. In that way we placed on the land 13,020 persons and this is only one of the designated classes on which we wmre paying bonuses. Of continental immigration we paid a bonus on 2,093 in 1907-8 and we had homestead entries to the number of 4,609, or a total by the same computation, of 11,517 persons who were placed on farms. We paid bonus on 2,093 to secure eight selected classes and we received of one class alone five times as much as we paid for all classes.
There is another idea in the minds of a great many people and that is that all the people who come over on the ships are classified as immigrants. I might give you some figures in that particular. On the steamers landing in Canada from foreign ports during nine months in 1906-7 there were 148,818 passengers. Of these 124,669 were immigrants, 9,293 were returned Canadians, 2,414 were tourists and 12,444 were saloon passengers. During the year 1907-8, there were 266,317 passengers of whom 235,-

328 were immigrants, 14,094 returned Canadians, 4,688 tourists and 12,207 saloon passengers. Tills is the result of a most careful examination of the statistics. iSta-tistics are compiled to designate exactly who are immigrants and who are not. With regard to continental bonused immigration our statistics are even better than they are from Great Britain or the United States. During nine months of 1906-7 the total immigration from continental countries was 34,217 and we paid bonus on 1,198 or 3'5 per cent. In the year 1907-8 we paid bonus on 2,093 out of a total immigration of 77,165 or 2 71 per cent. I would sum the matter up in this way: Last year we paid bonus on 13 '02 per cent of the British immigration, on 5 per cent of the American immigration and on 2

71 per cent of the continental immigration. It seems to me that I have fairly well satisfied the House regarding the question of whether we pay bonus on all the people coming in. We pay the bonus for a definite purpose and I think I may say that we have fulfilled that purpose. We pay the bonus to get certain desirable classes and while we pay a bonus to receive eight different classes we have received in one class more people than we paid a bonus for in all classes. Our only absolutely incontestable statistics regarding these immigrants are the homestead entries during the time of making which the officers find the birth places of the immigrants. There can be no doubt of any kind that these figures give an absolute record that we pay a bonus on certain classes of individuals and that we get more of that class than we pay a bonus on. Yet, our friends on the other side of the House would try to leave the impression that the people that we pay the bonus on are the undesirable class. If we were to discontinue the bonus system we have just two other ways in which we can operate in so far as I can see. One is to pay agents to do the work that is being done by the bonused agents to-day. We have paid agents in a certain peculiar way to do a peculiar work and I have given the statistics to show that that work has been well done. Now, if we are to pay agents it is a self evident fact that we cannot have any inspection or any method whereby to tell that the peculiar classes we desire are coming to this country. The other alternative would be to cease immigration operations altogether and that is not even suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) who moved the resolution. But I would go further than that and I would say that not only is immigration desirable but that we should use every legitimate means within our power to secure a desirable class of immigrants.
I would ask the House to reflect for a few moments on what we have to do in this country and the field that lies before us if we are to pay any reasonable regard to the development of our resources. According
Mr. w. McIntyre.
to the census of 1906 we have only 8.407,927 acres of land under cultivation in the three prairie provinces and 30,502.927 acres were occupied by farms and ranches. There was a surveyed area at that time of 120,488,455 acres. Do we need people to till the soil : do we need immigrants in view of the fact that only a mere fraction of the fertile lands in that country is at present under cultivation ? If you examine the statistics you will find that in the same census of 1906 we have 357,016.788 acres of land in these three provinces, and that only
8.000.	000 acres are cultivated, leaving 350,000,000 acres uncultivated. Now, certain hon. gentlemen who oppose immigration say : You have brought in great numbers of people, you have had the lands tilled, you have built up villages and towns, you have done very wrell, now stop. But, Mr. Speaker, we are only beginning. As I have said, we have only 8,000,000 acres out of 120,000,000 acres of surveyed land under cultivation. Let us remember that only those portions that are reasonably adjacent to a railway are surveyed, and that it is only on application to the department that certain townships are surveyed. Therefore, the great mass of the land in these new provinces is still unsurveyed and it is only a few favoured persons who know of its enormous natural resources. Why. the other day I saw a photograph of a crude asphalt deposit that was 250 feet high and that would cover 10,000 acres. That asphalt was the ooze of immense oil deposits underneath. A photograph was also submitted of a bubbling salt well where tlm salt was crystallized to a height of 20 feet. Those of us who are familiar with the northern country know that the soil is underlaid with lignite coal, that bituminous coal is to be found in great quantities, and that practically all the streams are gold bearing. Are we going to stop immigration and allow these vast natural resources to remain dormant ? We can support a farming population alone equal to the total population of the United States, and in addition to our wealth of farming land look at the immense natural resources we have aud the vast industrial operations that will ensue on the development of these resources because of their proximity to fuel and the possession of other facilities for their development. According to authentic statistics we have
100.000.	000 acres of land north and west of the Athabaska river and lake, and I need only mention that the nearest point of the Athabaska river is 100 miles distant from the city of Edmonton. I may also point out that in that 100,000,000 acres of good agricultural land there is practically not any part of it that has been surveyed. There are of course two or three isolated spots where the Hudson Bay Company have built their posts, but I am correct in my general statement that no part of that vast area is

surveyed to any appreciable extent. I have confined my remarks to the new provinces and I have not referred to that great province of British Columbia which is known to contain enormous mineral, agricultural and forest wealth. We have vast untold resources ; we have vast areas of the most fertile land, and if we can only get transportation facilities and if we can only get people to develop them there is indeed a great future in store for the west. We have had in recent years an opportunity to get more people than formerly and what has been the effect of that on eastern Canada ? You can explain the immense industrial expansion in eastern Canada and you can explain the tremenduous increase in the wealth there in no other way than by pointing to the development, of the west. You can talk about the budget and you can talk about your tariffs, but the solution of no problem is so important to us to-day as the development of the great natural resources of the west.
Let me now speak for a moment on the financial side of the immigration question. A considerable sum of money has been spent on immigration and we have had the North Atlantic Trading Company and the fact that it received upwards of half a million dollars dragged before the House time and again. It would seem indeed that certain members cannot rise to discuss any subject without talking of the money that this government has paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company and other companies which were organized for the attraction qf immigrants to Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. member commend the North Atlantic Trading Company ?	'
..if. W. McINTYRE. I can tell the hon. gentleman that the North Atlantic Trading Company had its place in the development of the country.


Samuel Hughes: What was that place?


Wilbert McIntyre: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it succeeded in bringing in more immigration than any other organization.


Samuel Hughes: Nothing of the kind; it did not bring in a man.


Wilbert McIntyre: I cannot help the hon. gentleman forming any opinion he pleases.


Samuel Hughes: I will prove it.


Wilfrid Laurier: He will prove it to his own satisfaction, no doubt.


Wilbert McIntyre: It was shown during the course of another debate that the immigrants into the west this year had
brought in settler's effects alone to the value of $52,000,000. There is another unestimated asset that comes into that country which we have no similar means of ascertaining, because the settlers' effects all pass through the customs and we can get the statistics concerning them. But remember that our American friends who come to the west are generally farmers who sell their farms at from $50 to $100 an acre, and there is no method of determining what any particular immigrant has at his credit in the bank or is carrying with him when he reaches the western country. But there were 46,925 immigrants from the United States. Among these there were probably
10,000	farmers. They sold their farms at an average, we will say of $50 an acre. Taking each farm at 100 acres, these 10.000 farmers would realize for their farms $8,000 each, or a total of $80,000,000. That added to $52,000,000 makes $132,000,000. But there is another side to the question. The average homesteader has a family of 2 5 This would represent 25,000 souls of the immigration, and we have still 21,925 left to be accounted for otherwise. Supnose these had an average of $100 each, that would enrich us by $2,192,500. By the whole immigration from Britain, continental Europe and the United States, on the basis given above, we are bnriched by $86,903,575 ; and we have not allowed one dollar for settlers' effects. Some hon. gentlemen during the budget debate were puzzling regarding the excess of imports over exports, or the balance of trade. Here is an estimate which on its face shows that we have had brought into this country about $90,000,000 of which no account is taken. I believe that the greatest asset we have received directly m the way of ready money is that money which tire settler brings into the country.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that we are bringing more people into the country than we can assimilate. The same statement was made by my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Armand Lavergne). . My hon. friend from' Montmagny is always afraid that we are getting in too many people of a certain class. In that respect he was exceedingly moderate in this debate as compared with the debate of last year. I think the hon. member for Montmagny is learning a very wholesome lesson, and the day may come when he will find that it is an unhealthy thing to stand up in this House and appeal to race and creed. The hon. gentleman has no business to stand up in this House of mixed races and drag in the question of whether we are Frenchified or not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I did not drag in that question. It was dragged in by the officials of the government, Mr. Smart, the deputy minister, and Mr. Preston, the government immigration agent, who

said that the government did not want the country to be Frenchified.


Wilbert McIntyre: Then it would have been policy on the part of the hon. gentleman to have left the remark to the men who made it, and not drag it into this debate and revivify it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to a question of privilege. Those who are responsible for the words uttered by Mr. Preston and Mr. Smart are the government, and as they have never disavowed them, they are responsible for what these gentlemen say.


Wilbert McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is not aware, any more than from a newspaper report, that the officers of the government did say that. It was brought in before, and it is brought in again. It is brought in with the very evident intention of stirring up race feeling. As long as we are a people made up of different races and different religions, it does not become any man to stand up here as the champion of any particular race, whether French or German or otherwise. What we want in this country is good, loyal Canadians. I tell the hon. gentleman that the men he has been attacking as hooligans and ex-convicts are building up a nation west of the great lakes that will have a national sentiment and that will not stand for the kind of thing he brings forward in this House so frequently.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speaker, I again rise to a question of privilege. I never called those men hooligans or drunkards. but the report of the Department of the Interior called them that.


Wilbert McIntyre: These are the hon. gentleman's words:
If we look at the report of the Interior Department we find that his immigration agents, the Church Army, were eager to bring to this country hooligans, scamps, ex-convicts, loafers and drunkards, but were not very eager to bring in Belgians or Frenchmen.
I asked the hon. gentleman on that occasion to define hooligan. He did not seem to be conversant with that kind of person, and asked to have the term defined by the Minister of the Interior. I would warn the hon. gentleman that when he stands up and talks in that way against a number of people, the greater portion of whom go to the western provinces, he can have only one object, and that is to insult those people.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speak-ed, I rise again to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is again putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. I read the report of Mr. Bruce Walker, of the Department of the Interior, saying this:
This organization is of a many-sided character. embracing the reclamation of the drunkard, the reception of the discharged


Wilbert McIntyre: prisoner, the shelter and food of the homelass and an asylum for the unemployed.
I read then the advertisement of the Church Army, asking for drunkards and hooligans. I do not know if there are drunkards and hooligans in the west, although the government has done its best to bring them there.


Wilbert McIntyre: There is no doubt what the hon. gentleman's intention was, whatever he said. He has not been as frank on this occasion with regard to what he means as he has been on other occasions. He is a great deal more frank when he talks in the country about the class of people who are going to the west. I want to tell him that we have a people there who are not concerned about the kind of religion a man professes or the tongue he speaks. We are all glad to have these people speak English. I consider it an honour and a privilege to speak the English language. I would like to be able to speak the language of the hon. member for Mont-magny as fluently as he does; there is no object I would aim at more readily than that: but at the same time I cannot see why that is any qualification for citizenship in this country. The hon. gentleman simply drags this matter in, in order that he may use it as a catch-ball in his own province. I have no quarrel with that province. I know that the men who come from it to this House are as liberal as I am. But I am very much afraid that my hon. friend is not dealing with men who are as broadminded or as well informed as the members of this House, and he thinks that by dint of making certain statements he can convince them that certain ideas are well founded. Well, in my opinion, it ill becomes any member of this House to stand up in his place and give utterance to such ideas. When I spoke to the hon. gentleman regarding the British immigrants who came to this country, he said they were the worst people who came to our shores.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I did not say that.


Wilbert McIntyre: That is not in ' Hansard,' but I leave it to a dozen hon. members who heard him whether he did not say so.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that the immigration policy of this government had the effect of making what ought to be the best immigration, the British immigration, the worst that comes to us. Any one who knows anything about it. or who reads the papers, knows that what I say is the case.


Wilbert McIntyre: So far as we are concerned in the west, we are not dealing with race questions and raising race difficulties.

Mr. ARMANI) LAVERGNE. We saw that in the school question.


Wilbert McIntyre: The hon. gentleman seems to have that question troubling him even yet.


Louis Lavergne: Yes.


Wilbert McIntyre: Now we have the statement made that the immigration which we are bringing in is alien in ideas and is changing the sentiment of the people of this country. We are confronted with the statement that these people whom we are bringing in are lowering the moral tone of this country. We are told that we are bringing in too many people who have been accustomed to different institutions and who naturally favour the Institutions to which they have been accustomed. Well, I listened to some of the statistics given us by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and I was pleased to notice that, as compared with the United States, we occupy in this respect a very advantageous position. Let us compare the percentage of foreign population in this country as compared with that in the United States. For that purpose I have chosen three groups, the eastern, western and central states, and selected five states out of
each group. Here	are the statistics	whichI have been able	to obtain of the	proportion of foreign born population to the native	born population in	each groun :	Foreign born.	Eastern group-	1890.	1900.Massachusetts.. .	29 *4	30-2Rhode Island.. ..	
30 -8	31-4Connecticut.. ..	
24 -6	26-2New Jersey	
22-8	22-9New York	
26-2	26 1
Of the central division the five following show :
Minnesota	35-7	28-9Wisconsin	30-7	24 -9North Dakota	42-7	35-4South Dakota	26-1	22-0Michigan	26-	22 -4Of the five western Utah	states :	25 -2	19-4Washington	25 2	21-5California	30-2	24-7Nevada	31 1	23-8Montana	30-2	27-4And of the whole	United	States	I find
that in 1890 the foreign born population was 14-8 of the whole population and in 1900 it was 13-7 of the whole population.
Now, as to western Canada, where our population is increasing most rapidly and the new comers go in largest numbers. Take the province of Alberta. I have the census of 1906, and I have added to it the report of 1907, and I find the percentage of foreign population


Samuel Hughes: You are not counting the British as foreign ?


Wilbert McIntyre: No, nor even the United States, because they have the same language and the same aspirations.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are you counting the French as foreign ?


Louis Lavergne: Certainly.


Wilbert McIntyre: The French are counted as foreign. All born outside the British dominions are counted as foreign.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What about the United States? Are they in the British dominions?


Wilbert McIntyre: My hon. friend (Mr. Lavergne) attempted to give statistics'of the foreign born immigration, and he went so far as to call the British immigration foreign.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly.


Wilbert McIntyre: And when I challenged his statement he said the British was the worst class of immigrants we received.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I deny that again.


Wilbert McIntyre: I find by the census of 1906, added to the distribution of population of 190T, that the percentage of foreign population necessary to assimilate-excluding the United States immigration-is as follows :
Per cent.
Alberta, foreign	born population..	15
Saskatchewan	 20 6
Manitoba	 [DOT][DOT].[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	I2'3
Average of foreign population in the three provinces	 18'7
I have not the statistics of the province of British Columbia, but from the census of 1901 I have selected the foreign population percentages for the five eastern provinces, and I find as follows :
Per cent.
Ontario	 3'4
Quebec	 jj-5
New Brunswick	 2
Nova Scotia	 1 '4
Prince Edward Island	 [DOT][DOT]	0 7
In the whole Dominion of Canada the percentage of foreign born population in 1901 was only 5'5 per cent as compared with 13-7 per cent in the United States in the year 1900. It seems to me, therefore, that, as regards the percentage of foreign born population, our position compares very favourably with that of the United States.
The argument is also put forward-I think it was put forward by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) that we should keep our lands for our natural increase in population. He said, Leave that land there for our children and our child-

ren's children. Well, the hon. gentleman must imagine that our people are very much against competition. Any one who talks like that must claim that competition is a bad thing for the people, because the question must naturally arise as to whether we would prefer to have our country cultivated, its conditions improved, its schools and railroads aDd other public utilities increased rather than have our broad plains remain unpeopled or sparsely populated and in many places an unprofitable waste. J o talk of the possibility of populating Canada by natural increase within any reasonable period is to talk of something practically unattainable. Take the increase of population as shown by our census returns. From 1891 to 1901 the increase was 538,076, of which 223,321 was foreign born. That is to say, the natural increase was 315,753. You can go back, and you will find practically the same natural increase every decade of about one-third of a million. I have attempted to show that we can support a population in our western provinces equal to that of the United States or 80,000,000. We have at present about 800,000 people up there, and we have under cultivation only S,000,000 acres of land. Thus we have one man to every ten acres, and we are cultivating per capita far out of proportion compared with the older provinces. If we had the 120,000,000 acres that are surveyed alone under cultivation, that would support 12,000,000 people on the present average of one man to each 10 acres. Then if we take into consideration the natural industries that must necessarily grow up as the result of our natural resources being cultivated, we could support a very much greater population per acre. But with a natural increase at the rate of one-third of a million in ten years, it would take us ceuturies to increase our population to such an extent that we could develop as they ought to be developed the natural resources of that country. Why, we in that country are handicapped in every way, wp are held back in every way for lack of help. Within 150 miles of Edmonton we have one of the largest bituminous coal fields of the west-coal that is equal, by assay, to that found in southern Alberta or in the Pittsburg region. And yet the Canadian Northern to-day is drawing its bituminous coal all the way from Pittsburg to Edmonton to supply its engines. Why ? Because our resources have not been developed ; we have not gone ahead fast enough.
A great deal has been said about the enormous annual expenditure of this country. In my opinion, when this government, or any other government, ceases to spend liberally for the development of the natural resources of this country, it should no longer have the support of loyal Canadians. For we have enormous resources, and we must have large expenditures in order that Mr. w. McIntyre.
those resources may be developed. The money that we spend in immigration, according to the figures I have given, is shown to be wisely spent by the one fact of the great amount of money brought into the country by immigrants. It is the duty of this government or any other government to_ use every means within its power to bring the people in. We have the fertile fields by the millions of acres, and all that is required is cultivation in order that they may produce and the country develop. We have begun to produce, we have brought Immense wealth to eastern Canada by our production resulting from the cultivation of these wide acres. One part of Canada cannot develop without another part. We are all the same family; we are practically all the same workshop. When we have a failure of crop in the west, nobody feels it more acutely-not even the homesteader

than the eastern manufacturer and the labour depending upon him. I say, then, it is our duty to fill up that country-to bring in desirable classes, it is true.
I know I shall be accused of somewhat representing the western idea. Well, now, let me read a short quotation that will show you the mandate of the west-though ' mandate ' may not be just the word to use. I have here a resolution submitted to the Liberal convention of the province of Alberta, assembled in the city of Calgary. These people in Alberta should know, if anybody in Canada knows, how this immigration policy is operating. I do not care to take as a criterion of Canadian sentiment the view of the crowded cities of the east, where you have brought in farm labourers for the surrounding counties and these people have filtered back into the cities. Those cities naturally object to this surplus labour. But our people in the west, who are dealing with these immigrants, who are homesteading with them, who are living and working with them-these people should know whether this policy is wise or not. We had delegates at that convention from every part of the province, from 700 miles north of Edmonton to the international boundary, and from the summit of the Rocky Mountains to the fourth meridian, which is our boundary on the east. And the sentiment of every part of that great province of Alberta, is expressed in this resolution which was received as heartily as any resolution could be:
Resolved, that this provincial Liberal convention expresses its approval1 of the wise and progressive immigration policy of the Laurier government.
That is the mandate of the west; that is the estimate that the people out west have; and I may tell you that the Liberals in western Canada, if there are evils, are not at all backward in exposing them. By this resolution the immigration policy of the government received the unanimous endor-sation of that convention.

But in the east it is a different matter. When the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)

and I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment-was on his campaign tour he spoke in the east, and, of course, learned the sentiment there. And when he visited my hon. friend from Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) in his county, the sentiments attributed to him by the Montreal ' Gazette ' of September 2, were the following:
The immigration question he considered of extreme importance, as it constituted one of the most potent influences in moulding the destiny of the country. We were beginning to develop a great national spirit, he said, but this development was -rendered difficult because the population of Canada was made up of scattered communities, heterogeneous in race and creed. Between the east and west there was a vast stretch of territory that could not be peopled and there was danger of the two sections of the country becoming antagonistic to each other. Under these circumstances, he thought it most unwise to crowd into the west, as the government was doing, a class of undesirable immigrants-Galicians Bohemians, Doukhobors, &c.-who did no! understand our customs and did not readily assimilate either with the French or English elements of Canada.
That was spoken in the province of Quebec. But, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) reached the western country, the opinion of his friends up there had its influence upon him. It would almost appear as if the hon. gentleman had been cautioned that it would be unwise to give expression to any such sentiments in that country. This is what he said:
While I am in the west, I wish to say that in respect to the question of immigration, the report which represents me as referring to certain nationalities as undesirable is quite inaccurate. I have never made any such references during my present tour. In the House of Commons I have frequently referred to the Galicians as desirable settlers, basing my opinion on what I saw of the west during my tour of 1902.
There is the one side and there is the other; which are you going to accept? Is it ' while I am in the west ' or ' while I am in the east'? Is it the sentiment of Quebec or is it the sentiment of the west?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilbert McIntyre) will allow me-that is not fair. What the leader of the opposition said in the west is the best answer to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilbert McIntyre) read. It is not a case of Mr. Borden in the west against Mr. Borden in the east. It Is Mr. Borden speaking personally against the report in the newspaper which is a different thing entirely. He should take the version of Mr. Borden himself instead of a newspaper report that Mr. Borden has declared to he inaccurate.


Wilbert McIntyre: My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) chooses to champion
the leader of the opposition along these lines. But I happen to know from certain reports I read, that the hon. member for Beauharnois, when in Quebec, expresses some such sentiments as these. I want to tell the hon. member (Mr. Bergeron) that when he was in the west he gave expression to no such sentiment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I want to tell my hon. friend that the member for Benuhar-nois always uses the same language whether he is in the west or in the east. The hon. gentleman can take the career of the member of Beauharnois during the last 30 years and he will find that such is the case.


Wilbert McIntyre: I will say this: that in looking through the reports of the hon. member's speeches throughout the west, I found he was absolutely silent on the immigration policy of the government. It is a very easy matter to talk in a certain vein in one part of the country and then talk vehemently in the very opposite vein in another part, but the hon. gentleman was absolutely silent on this question in the West. He said nothing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I must have great talent if I spoke for an hour and a half without saying anything.


Wilbert McIntyre: Well, it was pretty nearly that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The hon. gentleman did not hear me, because if he did he would not say what he is saying now.


Wilbert McIntyre: The hon. gentleman used the time of the people in the west and he used his own time entertaining them about the ' Arctic ' and about the ' Montcalm ' and other such matters as to which they had no opportunity of obtaining the real facts. But in that storm center of the immigration question he was absolutely silent because the people knew that the sentiments he commonly expressed in Quebec on that question were not the sentiments of the west.
,\ow, this immigration question largely resolves itself into a business question, and in looking at it from a business point of view we should consider what other countries similarly situated to ours have been doing to secure population. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) took the comparison of the United States with Canada, but he must know that most of the natural resources and fertile land of the great American republic have already been exploited with their eighty millions of population. If to-day we had 80,000,000 people in Canada I would hold up both my hands for the resolution of the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why?


Wilbert McIntyre: Because our natural resources are undeveloped and we must use every legitimate means to develop them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it a proper way to bring In the wrong people?


Wilbert McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has not proved to the slightest degree that this method of bonusing brought in the wrong people, but on the contrary, I have endeavoured to show that it brought in the right people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You must have all the good people in the west because we have a bad lot in Montreal.


Wilbert McIntyre: Let us see how [DOT]other colonies, situated as we are have endeavoured to get population. I find that Australia very materially assists immigration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Any North Atlantic Trading Company there?


Wilbert McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman will permit me we will see. I quote from the London Times of January 31st, 1907:
Sydney, New South Wales.-In consequence of the general prosperity of the country and the scarcity of labour the premier has recently oxtondeTl the immigration regulations. Ihe government is using every endeavour to secure a good flow of the right type of rural *settlers and now invites artisans, general labourers and domestic servants of a desirable class to come to the country. Agricultural labourers and general servants may travel from London to Sydney at a nominal cost. Liberal railway concessions will be made to agricultural immigrants and capital qualifications are abolished.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is there any bonus?


Wilbert McIntyre: 
Mr. L. ROBITAILLE (Quebec County).: I have listened with intense interest to the able remarks of the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. W. McIntyre). He seems, however. to be under a false impression in trying to make this House believe that we are against the development of the west. Such an idea would be far from our minds. We are delighted at the magnificent figures which have been given to show the development of the west, not only from a financial standpoint, but from the standpoint of national development as well. What we are against is the bringing to Canada by a system of bonus premiums of people who are undesirable not only for the west but for the east or any portion of Canada where they may establish themselves. The figures of development which he has just given to the House are not the basic argument upon which he should rely to prove the advisability of the bonus system, because from my observation during certain trips I have made to the west, we have there a large number of American citizens who have sold their lands in their own country and have come to Canada from the two Dakotas and Minnesota, bringing their children and their money and have planted themselves in the west, making in my estimation as high class citizens as any immigrants we could get by a bonus system. No bonus has been paid by the goverment on these immigrants and still we are glad to include in the statistics of our western development the magnificent result of their enterprise and skill.

The hon. member was very paternal in some remarks he made concerning my friend (Mr. Armand Lavergne), trying to teach him what broadmindedness was. It is very well to offer suggestions, but I think the best thing for the hon. member for Stratheona (Mr. W. McIntyre) and others to remember is that they should be broadminded first and that the west is not the only portion of the Dominion to be considered. Personally, I think if that broadmindedness in theory of which lie spoke had been put into practice last year we would not have had the position we have had of the promulgation of the English statute before the promulgation of the French statute. There are many other instances which I could cite in political history where that same broadmindedness has not been shown.
We demand the abolition of the bonus system because it is one of the most potent causes of the introduction into Canada of the undesirable element which it is generally admitted we have In Canada. Perhaps my words may not have much weight with the House, so I shall quote a statement given in 1902 by the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) who said:
We have made an error in the past in paying 'large sums of money as premiums to navigation companies for the transportation of immigrants, because we transform there and thep the navigation companies into immigration agents, and the character of the immigrant, as well as his origin, is of no account so long as they obtain the premium. This system seems to me very undesirable and I would demand its abolition. Levying to navigation companies the task of inciting immigrants, means that a premium is given on the bad quality of immigrants rather than on the good.
That is exactly what we are asking. We claim that the system of premiums to-day, far from inducing the good and desirable class, forces on us the undesirable immigrant. Further on in 1903, the same gentleman stated :
Reference has been made, I believe, to the premium as a means of inducing immigration In my opinion, if ever that system has been necessary it is no longer necessary. The payment of premiums or commission tends to bring to us a class of people not the most desirable.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was he minister then ?


Mr. ROBITAIELE.: No, he had no ministerial function. That probably is the reason why he could speak his own opinion.
The chief argument which has been advanced in favour of the bonus system is that we need farm labourers and that the bonus was paid practically on farm labourers. The hon. member for Stratheona even stated that he had inside information from the Superintendent of Immigration that this system was, as far as possible followed, but I think I have as much information from
the Superintendent of Immigration in his testimony made in 1907, before the committee. He was examined by Dr. Sproule as follows :
O.	If I understand correctly you simply ask the immigrants if they propose to be farm labourers in coming here?-A. That is what we do when they disembark.
Q. Is that all the information that you have as to the class to which they belong?-A. Yes, we ask their a^e and their occupation.
Q. What occupation they have followed before coming to Canada ?-A. What occupation thev were in in the old country. The manifest, I believe, is prepared by the purser of the steamer, who is in no way an official of the government, and is certified by the captain.
Q. I would have thought that an officer of the government would have occupied himself with this work and would have seen that onlv certain classes of immigrants were sent to us? -A. Whoever has the money can buy a ticket.
Q. But if he has the money will he get the premium?-A. No. but I sav that anybody may buy a ticket in the old country.
Q. If I ask you that it is because I know several immigrants like that. It was said that they were farm labourers and had come here to take up farming. I took the trouble to inquire and I discovered that out of six or seven there was not one who had worked one hour on a firm.-A. That may be very true.
Q. And nevertheless they are sent to us as farm labourers?-A. No, they are not so called. They are sent to us as intending to take up agriculture. In England the day labourer receives on the farm as high a wage as in Canada.
The point that the hon. member for Stratheona was trying to make a few minutes ago was that it was only on farm hands that the premium was paid and that a statement is simply exacted from the newcomer to the effect that he intends to come as a farm labourer. In the present debate the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) read a letter from the Salvation Army which points out that the premium should be paid only on farm labourers and suggests that a certain party, not a farm labourer, but a skilled mechanic, should accept a position on a farm for the first six months, at the expiration of which time an opportunity might be offered for work in his own trade. That is where the difficulty lies. What opportunity has the government of discriminating between the farm labourer and the skilled mechanic or other person when he arrives at the port of landing especially in view of the suggestion which is contained in this letter that a man should at the outset represent himself to be a farm labourer? It is on people of this class that $5 per capita is paid. If the theory, as advanced by several hon. members of this House were correct, that this bonus is going to be paid to secure desirable immigrants, I would be the first one to support it, but I say that there is not a man in this Dominion that can put this 1 system into practical operation and apply

it to the right people. The fact is that many people who come to this country as farm labourers are not in reality farm labourers, and we have to pay out our good money without getting the results which we have in view. The object attained may be good in some respects, but it is not the desired one. It seems to me that there are other directions in which the money of this country can be more profitably expended than by devoting it to this purpose. Another answer which was given by Mr. Scott was this :
The agricultural population of Great Britain is but a very small percentage and you must naturally address yourself to working men and day labourers. Besides whoever has the wherewithal to pay his passage may come to this country.
There is a long deposition that I shall not continue to read because it might weary the House. I think that I have quoted sufficiently upon this subject to establish my point. It being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 23, 1908.