TREATY WITH UNITED STATES RE BOUNDARY AND FISHERIES.

Mr. SPROULE.: I would call the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to the following paragraph which appears in this morning's ' Citizen ' :
Washington, April 11.-Secretary of State Root and British Ambassador Bryce to-day signed two treaties negotiated recently between the United States and Great Britain One provides for a commission to determine the boundary between the United States and Canada and the other regulates fishing in the great lakes and contiguous streams. The boundary commission will be charged with the work of resurveying certain sections of boundary line and determining disputed questions in that connection. It is said that the fishery question also is placed in the hands of a commission by the terms of the treaty.
Are the government in a position to give the House information ? Have they any control over the appointment of the commissioners or over their selection, especially on behalf of Canada?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER (Prime Minister). 1 have just received a telegram stating that these two treaties have been signed. One refers to the boundary. It is not contemplated to establish new boundaries but simply mark again the boundaries and describe them on maps. The second deals with the fisheries. In the contiguous waters, we have had difficulties for many years owing to there being a close season on our side and none on the American side. By the treaty all contiguous waters will be put under a commission which will make regulations for the fisheries. The appointments on the British side exclusively belong to the government of Canada.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I would like to ask the government if it will lay upon the table the two agreements which have been concluded between Great Britain and the United States and the correspondence connected therewith. I see in this morning's Montreal 'Gazette' a reproduction of a despatch to the New York ' Herald ' making a rather long reference, which I will not read, to Canada's nttU'dp. This despatch is from Loudon to the New York ' Herald ' and dated about 12th April. There must be considerable correspondence, and there are also the two agreements. May we expect that these will be laid on the table ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It goes as a matter of course that, as soon as the ratifications of the treaties have been exchanged and we have received them, they will be

communicated to the House, as well as the correspondence. I have not seen the articles to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) refers, but I have seen articles in the American press to the effect that there are some other' questions as to which negotiations are pending. Of course, this correspon dence cannot be brought down until the matter is concluded.



MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. FOWLER.: I wish to draw the atten tion of the Minister of Marine and Fisher ies (Mr. Brodeur) to the alleged miscon duct of one of the officers-


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is not proper to in troduce matter for discussion at this point



DREDGING CONTRACTS.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) if the appropriation to be voted this year at Midland and Tiffin harbours for improvements-which I take it is dredging-amount $75,000, and Victoria liar hour, $75,000, has been given to two com panies known as the Canadian Construction Company and the Owen Sound Dredging Company, without tenders being asked for?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Certain dredging work, which would form part of these improvements, was let last year by public tender, and by the terms of the contract the time for the completion of the work is to be fixed by the minister. The question of giving until the close of the present season for the doin; of the work is under consideration. The matter will be decided in a few days.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are any tenders to be called for the work to be done at either point during the coming season, or are those companies to proceed at the commencement of navigation with the work to be done there ?
tenders and for the same schedule prices as last year ?


William Pugsley: The matter is under consideration. I have had a very strong report made by the chief engineer of my department, stating that, in quite a number of cases, where the prices were obtained fixed by competition after public advertisement, and in which he eei'tifies that they are reasonable and that the contractors are equipped with complete plants for doing the work, it would be in the public interest to fix a period during the coming season for the completion of the work. The matter is under consideration with regard to a number of cases.


Mr. BOYCE.: Are there any other cases mentioned in the order in council besides the two spoken of by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) ?


William Pugsley: The order in council will speak for itself when it comes down.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I have a letter from a dredging firm wanting to know if works in Lake Ontario will be let by tender as well. Is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) in a position to give any information on that point at the present time ?


William Pugsley: I think I can only repeat the statement that the order in council' when it comes down, will show.


William Humphrey Bennett: In this connection, will the minister be good enough to bring down the report of the chief engineer, as well as the order m council ?



DISTRIBUTION OF SEED GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
*fr- HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe). i desire to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to an item that appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' of Saturday last.
. Mr. SPEAKER. Is this with the intention of asking a question ?
William Pugsley: If I exercise the power which is contained in the contract of fixing the time during the present season, either at the close of navigation, or earlier, new tenders will not be called for and the prices will be determined by the tenders called for in the early part of last season.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has an order in council been passed to this effect ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Au order has been passed authorizing the Minister of Public Works to fix the time if he sees fit to do so.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman lay a copy of the order on the table tomorrow, as I propose to make some remarks on going into Supply ?


William Pugsley: I will be glad to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the intention to give dredging at other places without calling for


Mr. LENNOX.: Yes. The item reads as follows :
An order in council has been passed relating to the distribution of seed grain in the Northwest by permitting advances to be made to settlers who have sown no grain in the season of 1907?
I would like to ask the minister if such an order in council has been passed as is here referred to and, if so, under what authority it was made ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: There was an order in council of the nature of which my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) speaks. It was passed under the same authority as the regulations providing lor tlie distribution of seed grain which were brought before parliament and discussed here, as the House will remember. At that time the view was very generally expressed that it was not desirable that the

distribution should be restricted in this particular as it was restricted in the regulations as they were brought before the House.
I explained at that time that it was thought desirable that we should not then expand them, but that, if circumstances afterwards, should seem to justify it, we might do so. Finding that the requirements were not as large as we had anticipated, finding that our purchases were suflicient to cover such requirements as might be made, such as are mentioned in this order in council, we thought we should be acting in the public interest, and, as well, carrying out the views of parliament, by passing the order in question.


Haughton Lennox: If I may be permitted, I would ask leave to call the attention of the minister to the fact-as I remember-that he refused, at that time, to expand the resolution, and the statute was founded on the resolution as originally introduced without alteration, that is, without providing for these cases now arising.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. The statute, of course, provided a certain amount of money. Had the requirements been of a greater amount of money than the statute provided the case would have been different. But as the statute provided that the seed should be distributed according to the regulations passed by the government, and agreed to by the provinces ; and, within the terms of that statute, we believed, this order could be passed.


Haughton Lennox: And the order provided to
whom it would go


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would call again the attention of the House to this custom of reading newspapers and from questions drifting into discussion. This is a clear violation of the rules of the House, and I shall have to rule much more strictly if this is continued.


The Hon.  J. A.@: 0. BOYCE. Has application been received by the department for assistance to people in northwestern Ontario-Algo-ma for instance ? And, if so, is it the intention of the minister, or is it under consideration, to give assistance to people in that section similar to that to be extended people in the Northwest provinces ?


Frank Oliver: My memory is that I did receive a communication from some part of northwestern Ontario on the subject of seed grain. My reply was that the conditions were not similar to those existing in the western country, as, in the first place, so far as homesteaders were concerned, the Dominion government had no obligation in regard to the homesteaders in Ontario as it had in regand to the homesteaders in the three western provinces, and, in regard to those who were not homesteaders, as our action in the western provinces was in cooperation with the provincial governments, and, as there was no co-operation with the Mr. OLIVER.
government of Ontario, the cases were not similar.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: I desire to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with regard to a matter which, so far as I know, has not been fully answered. Last Thursday, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked if Judge Cassels would soon commence his investigation, and if he was appointed to investigate any wrong-doing in any of the' departments. To this the right hon. gentleman answered that Judge Cassels had been appointed, but he did not know when the judge would commence his investigations. Another question was asked whether a departmental investigation was going on in the meantime, to which he replied that he could- not say. The same question was put the next day, Friday, at a time when the right hon. Prime Minister was not in the House, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said he would call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the matter when he came in. I cannot find any record showing that the matter was called to his attention or that he answered the question. Is any departmental investigation, under oath, going on in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I stated that I was investigating certain matters brought to my attention, but, of course, the investigation cannot be under oath because I have no authority to swear witnesses. I am making the investigation for my own satisfaction.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But there is an investigation going on ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am investigating for my own satisfaction, the facts which come to my knowledge every day.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company (Limited).-Mr. Mc-Craney.
Bill (No. 154) respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Sinclair.
Bill (No. 155) respecting the Pontiac Central Railway Company.-Air. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 156) respecting the Northern Bank and Crown Bank of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1 What contracts and for what mileage, and the price at which each have been let upon the eastern and western sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?
2.	What is the date of each contract, and the period set for completion?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the unlet portions?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Rail ways and Canals):: 1.	Contracts have been let on the eastern I


STATEMENT NO. l.-COMMISS IONERS-EASTERN DIVISION
[Stage Direction]
division of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, on schedule rates.
Mileage from Moncton.	Description.	No. of 1 Miles.	Amount of Estimate on which Contracts were let.	Date of	From	To	Contract.	Comple- tion.$ cts.	0 00	50 00	Moncton to near Chipman	50 00	989,895 90	Mar.14,'07	Sept. 1, '0850-00	58-55	Near Chipman easterly 8 '55 miles	8'55	289,190 62	Aug. 23,'07	Aug. 1, '0858-55	97 60	Near Chipman westerly to I.C.R. crossing.	39 05	767,434 95	Mar. 28, '08	Sept. 1, TO97 60	164 00	I.C.R. crossing to Mile 164	66 40	1,898,124 21	.1 28,'08	,i 1, TO164 00	195 80	Mile 164 to Grand Falls	31-80	1,646,253 65	„ 28,'08	„ 1, TO195-80	256 68	Grand Falls to New Brunswick boundary..	60 88	1,385,941 09	9,'07	„ 1, '08256 68	309 74	N.B. boundary to 150 miles east of Quebec	Bridge 	53 06	2,377,409 00	28,'08	1, TOfFrom Quebec BrHge 150 miles eastward.	148 89	4	309-74	459 74	-j Quebec Bridge link (not included in	) 5,011,346 50	« 9,'07	,i 1, '09111	J	459 74	509 74	Quebec Bridge westerly 50 miles	50 -00	1,489,537 92	May 15, '06	.. 1, '07509-74	609 74	50 miles west Quebec Bridge to 150 miles	west	100-00	3,807,719 54	15,'06	„ 1, '07609-74	654 74	150 miles west Quebec Bridge to near Way-	45 00	4	montachene	I 1,691,073 41	Mar. 14,'07	„ 1, '08654'74	656 07	To be included in this contract	1 33	j	656-07	877 75	Near Way montachene to near Harricanaw	River	221-68	Not l**t.	877-75	1,027 75	Near Harricanaw River to Junction T. &	N. O. Ry 	150 00	3,986,901 42	i. 14,'67	„ 1, '091,027-75	1,127 75	Junction T. & N. O. Ry. for 100 miles west	100 00	3,936,566 00	ii 28,'08	„ 1, TO1,12775	1,171-85	100 miles west of Junction T. & N. O. Ry.	to west end of District 'D'.. 	44 10	Not let.	1,171-85	1,334-35	West end of District 'D 5 westerly	162 50	1,33435	1,409 35	From 19i miles west of Mud River, easterly	75 00	2,101,499 88	28,'08	„ 1, TO1,409-35	1,429-76	ii ii n to west	end of District ' E '	20-41	Not let.	1,429-76	1,557-80	From westward District 'E' to Lake	Superior Junction	128-04	1,55780	1,804-66	From Lake Superior Junction to west bank	of Red River	246 86	13,010,398 92	May 15,'06	i. 1, '07
As to the portions not let; the estimated total cost is $19,030,173.
On the western division; contracts have been let as follows, on schedule rates.

[Stage Direction]
For grading the roadbed, building culverts and small bridges :-
Date of Contract.	Name of Contractor.	Location of Work.	Date set for Completion.June 22,1907..	Treat & Johnson, Brantford, Ont., or Winnipeg, Man.	Winnipeg to Portage la Prairie, 54 miles.	Nov. 1, 1907.Aug. ,28,11905 . HIM -A,' ~*|	McDonald & McMillan, Winnipeg, Man. Canadian White Co., Montreal, Que.	Portage la Prairie to Touchwood Hills, 275 miles.	Completed.Feb. 20, 1906 . .t'Vvwiw 	
r- r-1	W. line Sec. 6, Tp. 27, R. 13 W. 2nd Mer., to W. line Sec. 24, Tp. 36 R. C. W. 3rd Mer., 140 miles.	Completed.Feb. 20,1906..	Foley Bros., Larsen & Co., Battle-ford.	W. line Sec. 24, Tp. 36, R. 6 W. 3rd Mer., to a point near Edmonton, Alta., 316 miles.	Nov. 1, 1906.Jan. 4,1908..	Foley, Welch & Stewart, Kenora.	East line of Sec. 13, Tp. 53, R. 24 W. 4th Mer., to east bank of Wolf creek, 129 miles.	Nov. 30, 1908.Mar. 19,1908..	Foley, Welch & Stewart, Kenora.	Prince Rupert to Copper River, 100 miles.	Aug. 31, 1909.
The estimated total cost of the prairie section is $21,872,200.
A great many other contracts have been let by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, for which no information is available.
With reference to the mountain section of the western division: The Grand Trunk Pacific people have completed a preliminary survey to ascertain what grades can be secured; and are now engaged in revising and working out in detail the final location, from which, the quantities not being available, no estimate can be supplied.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
The department is advised that contracts have been awarded for the items mentioned hereunder, but no details are available at this date.
Concrete piers, pedestals and abutments of steel bridges.
Steel superstructure of large bridges.
Station buildings.
Engine houses and machine shops.
Water services.
Steel rails and fastenings, frogs, diamond crossings, &c.
Ties.
Fence posts.
Telegraph posts.

Mr. BOYER asked :: 1.	Does the government intend to rigorously enforce the law against' the adulteration of maple syrup and sugar?
2.	Has it had samples of that product of last year analysed?
3.	What was the result per district in the province of Quebec, as well as per province?
4.	Have proceedings, fines or penalties of any kind been taken against or imposed upon certain persons found in possession of adulterated syrup or sugar?
5.	If so, what are the names of such persons and the results of such proceedings?
6.	Has the government one or many special inspectors to superintend the sale of maple syrup and sugar?


Hon. WILLIAM TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: The law against the adulteration of maple syrup and sugar will be enforced and special instructions have already been given to that end.
Samples were collected last year with results as below :
Adulterated
Samples.
Nova Scotia	 6
Prince Edward Island	....	4
New Brunswick	 3
Quebec	 1
Ontario	 51
Manitoba	 6
Alberta and Saskatchewan..	6
British Columbia	 0
Mr. GRAHAM
The department has food inspectors who collect, throughout the Dominion, such samples as may be required.


CONCRETE PIPE FOR INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: Are tenders for concrete pipe asked for on the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton? If so, what are the dates of the last two tenders, to whom were they granted, the amount of goods purchased, and the cost of same?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes. June 6, 1907, and March G, 1908. The first contract was given to the Dominion Concrete Company of Kemptville, Ontario, for the following quantities and the price set opposite each :
June 6, 1907-
Lineal foot.
410 feet 18 inches round at	$	70350	"	21	"	
85742	"	24	"	1 10460	"	30	"	flat	bottom at. . . .	2 25130 "	36	"	"	.... 2 90
The second tender was awarded the Dominion Concrete Company, of Kemptville, Ontario, for the following quantities, and at tlie price set opposite each :
March 6, 1908-
748 fee	t 36	inches fiat bottom	Lineal foot at..$2 9034 "	30	<( (i	. . 2 25,500 "	27	" round	. . 1 30522 "	24	" "	. . 1 1025 "	IS	<[DOT] u	.. 70700 "	12	" "	.. 40
This last tender has only been awarded lately.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PROTESTS RE LANDS.
Mr. BARKER asked:: 1.	Has either the government or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission received from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or from any person on behalf of either such company, any protests or objections respecting the acquisition of lands for the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, or as to the cost thereof, or respecting any works of construction upon the said division, or as to the cost thereof ?
2.	What was the nature of such protests or objections, if any?
3.	Have all such protests or objections, if any, been finally disposed of and settled?
4.	If not disposed of and settled, has any and what arrangement been made to postpone or suspend the matters involved?


Hou. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: As to the first part of the question, no; or as to the cost thereof, no. As to the third part of the question no

dispute has arisen as to any work of construction. Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, by a letter dated October 7, 1907, objected to the classification, as to grading material on certain portions of the work in district ' B.' The matter was investigated by the chief engineer of the commissioners, who gave his ruling as to the interpretation of the clauses of the specifications relating io the classification; and Mr. Woods' objections were found not to be correct. Nothing further has been heard by the commissioners of such objections.


WRECK OF TUG ' CASTLE.'
Mr. BENNETT asked:: 1.	Were tenders invited for the removal of the wreck of the tug ' Castle/ sunk in the Detroit River?
2.	If invited, how many were received, and what were the figures of each?
3.	If more than one tender, was the lowest accepted?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Two. The Midland Towing and Wrecking Company, Midland, Ontario, $1,750; Eug. Lamontagne, Quebec, $8,750.
3.	Yes.


PIERS IN ST. FRANCIS RIVER, RICHMOND.
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 by contract or by public tender?


William Pugsley: Questions 10 and 11 relate to the same work. I am getting the information, and I will have it to-morrow. I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fifth part of question 11 :	' Was the work so
done let by contract or by public tender ? ' I am not quite sure what he means. Does he mean by days work or by public tender ?


Mr. BLAIN.: That is a misprint.


William Pugsley: What should it be ?


Richard Blain: "Was the work so done let after public tender.
211$


POSTMASTER AT RUSAGORNIS.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Does the government know that it is stated Mr. Albry Brass, postmaster at Rusagornis, Sunbury county, New Brunswick, was an active political partisan in the Dominion election, 1904, also in the late provincial election in New Brunswick; that he was a nominee of one of the candidates at the latter election, and that the post office is used for political meetings?
2.	If upon investigation it is found the above inquiries are substantiated, will the present incumbent be retained in office?
3.	What is the government policy in regard to postmasters engaging in the active work of political contests?


Ilou. R. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	No.
2.	If charges are made against the postmaster, they will be investigated and a decision come to on the facts.
3.	The government discourages postmasters engaging in active work of political contests ; if they do so, they are aware they do so at their own risk.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-STATION AT ALMA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Blain-asked :
Has any petition been received for the building of a station at Alma, on the Prince Edward Island Railway? If so, when, and what is the intention of the government i i regard thereto?
George Perry Graham: Yes, a petition was received by the Department of Railways in February last. The matter is now under consideration.


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	What number of provincial Acts in all tho provinces have been disallowed by the Dominion government since January, 1901, to January, 1908, and in what provinces, respectively ?
2.	What was the title and date of each enactment of each Bill?
3.	What were the reasons given for such disallowance ?
4.	What number of petitions have been received from British Columbia for or against the disallowance of provincial Bills enacted by .the above legislature, and by whom were such petitions presented?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1.	Five ; all Acts of British Columbia.

2.
Act.	Chapter.	Title.3 and 4 Edw. VII	26	An Act to regulate immigration into British Columbia. An Act to regulate im-5 Edw. VII...	67 or 28...	81 or 30... 85 or 36,., 18	migration into British Columbia. An Act relating to the employment on work carried on under franchises granted by Private Acts. An Act further to amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act	
An Act further to amend the Supreme Court Act..3.	The first four statutes were re-enactments of statutes which had been previously disallowed and were allowed for the same reasons as had been given for previous disallowances. See Reports on Legislation for years 1899-1900, pp. 135 and 144, Reports od Legislation, 1901-1903, pp. 80 and 88, and Reports on Legislation, 19041906, pp. 130 and 137.
The Act to amend the Supreme Court Act was disallowed because it purported to limit the scope for the selection of judges appointed by His Excellency the Governor General.
4.	Two petitions in connection with the disallowance of provincial Acts were received from British Columbia within the time stated ; one from the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company and one from the city of Vancouver. (Vide Reports on Provincial Legislation 1904-1906 pp. 120 and 126).


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	How many miles of the National Transcontinental Railway, Winnipeg to Moncton division, have been actually completed within the limits of the province of Quebec?
2.	Where are the said completed sections situated?
3.	How much has been expended to date on said completed sections?
4.	.Are there any parts of said completed sections in actual operation?
5.	Are there any parts of said National Transcontinental Railway, Winnipeg to Moncton division, within the limits of the province of Quebec, under contract for construction? If so, what parts?


George Perry Graham: 1,	2, 3 and 4. No portion of the Transcontinental Railway, within the limits of the Mr. AYLESWORTH
province of Quebec has been actually completed.
5.	That portion of the entire line within the limits of the province of Quebec, from a point known as Weymontachene, about 196:33 miles west of the Quebec bridge, easterly to the boundary between the province of Quebec and New Brunswick, is under contract.


REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LOBSTER FISHERY.
Mr.  A. A.@: McLEAN-by Mr. Blain- asked :
1.	Has the government received any communication from the Fishermen's Union of Nova Scotia, or from Mr. Bernard Cummings, Secretary of that union, containing suggestions or requests as to alterations in the regulations concerning the lobster fishery?
2.	What is the nature and purport of such requests or suggestions, and when were they received ?
3.	Has the government given any reply or come to any conclusion in respect to the suggestions or requests?
4.	What is the policy of the government in respect to the matters referred to in the above-mentioned communications ?
5.	Will the government lay copies of all the papers upon the table of the House?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	That the size limit for lobsters in Cape Breton be reduced, Mr. Cummings' letter is dated March 12, 1908.
3.	A reply was sent to Mr. Cummings on March 18.
4.	The whole question of the lobster fishery regulations is under consideration.
5.	Yes.


STATUTES OF THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN.
Mr. LAVERGNE asked :: (Translation).
1.	Is the government aware that Chapters 2 and 25 of the Statutes of the province of Saskatchewan, 1907, respectively, " An Act for raising money on the credit of General Revenue Fund of Saskatchewan ", and ' An Act to provide for the organization and maintenance of Secondary Educational Institutions ", contain provisions contrary to the Educational Clause of the Act establishing the province of Saskatchewan, 1907.
2.	Is the government aware that the delay for the disallowance of these Acts expires on the 22nd April next?
3.	Does the government intend disallowing
these Acts?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


PURCHASES OF LEE-ENFIELD RIFLES.
[Stage Direction]
iMr. WORTHINGTON asked :
1. How many Lee-Enfield rifles has the government?

2.	What are the dates of purchase of these lifies by this or any other government, and in what lots or from whom were they bought?
3.	What prices were paid?
4.	What was the cost of the bayonets for the Lee-Enfield rifle?
5.	In what lots were they bought, from whom, and on what dates?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 
CONSTRUCTION OF FORTIFICATIONS.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Are any fortifications in course of construction at or near Quebec or L4vis?
2.	What is the nature of these fortifications?
3.	Are they being constructed by the British or Canadian government?
4.	What is the estimated cost to be, and when will they be completed?
5.	Is the construction being done by contract or by day labour?
6.	If by contract, to whom has such contract been let?
7.	Who is in charge of construction?
8.	W ith what guns is it intended to arm these fortifications?
9.	What is the date of their purchase, their manufacture, their calibre, and their range?
10.	When were these guns bought?
11.	Bid any one act as purchasing agent for the government in the purchase of these? If so, who?


Hon.   S@: I hope this question will be dropped. It is not a question, I think, that would ever be put in any parliament in any country, certainly not in England or in the United States. If the leader of the opposition desires information as to the construction of fortifications that information will be given to him at any time.	-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Dropped.


MEDICAL OFFICER AT CANSO.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: Has the Port of Canso a special medical officer to look after infectious diseases? If so, who is the officer, when was he appointed, and what is his salary ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (for Minister of Agriculture).: Tlie Department of Agriculture, which has care of infectious diseases, states that there is no such officer at Canso.



SUPPLY-STATUTES OF THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['This debate will go on.']
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speaker, I desire to give notice to the government that upon the next day upon which the motion is made for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply I shall discuss the legislation of the province of Saskatchewan about which I have put a question to-day.



George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the government to the fact that some of their officers in the city of Halifax are taking undue and improper interest in an election to the neglect of the duties for which they are appointed and for which they are being paid by this country. It seems that at the present time there is a civic election going on in Halifax and that Dr. A. C. Hawkins is a candidate for mayor. This Dr. A. C. Hawkins is also the health officer at the port of Halifax, for which he receives a salary of $1,000 a year, together with a couple of very nice uniforms covered with gold lace, an overcoat and two or three hats and caps. He has also called to his assistance iu this civic campaign a number of other officers of the government, notably one E. M. Wilson, foreman of the car cleaners at the North street station, and one Albert Tobin, of the round house staff at Richmond. I would call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham! to this fact. There is also one Wm. Merlin, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Merwin ?


George William Fowler: Not Merwin, but Merlin, the enchanter. There is also one Geo. McNamara, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. These people are taking a very active interest in the election, and I believe that so intense is the devotion of Dr. Hawkins to his camnaign that a ship with a thousand immigrants has been held at quarantine-delayed-because this gentleman is canvassing for the position of mayor of the city of Halifax rather than attending to the duty for which he is paid. I think this is a matter of very great importance, and in view of the declarations that have been made by the various ministers in regard to public officials taking part in elections some severe examples should be made of these gentlemen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We should have some explanation from the Minister of Railways,


John Stanfield: particularly as a similar matter has been brought to his attention two or three times this session already. Surely the minister is going to take some action. Is he going to treat with contempt the circular which was issued by Mr. Fottinger and which said that employees of the Intercolonial Railway should not as a general thing run for municipal office.


Mr. EMMERSON.: That is different.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what respect?


George Perry Graham: There is no suggestion in this case that an Intercolonial Railway official is running for office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that some of these are Intercolonial Railway employees.


George Perry Graham: No. It is merely stated that he is calling to his aid some men to help him. These men are citizens and I suppose they have the right to vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are employees of the Intercolonial Railway who are doing partisan work in connection with municipal affairs .


William Stevens Fielding: What is there partisan about it?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is this : An employee of the Intercolonial Railway goes into the shops and threatens the men if they do not vote so and so. That is partisan work.


George Perry Graham: That never was suggested.


William Stevens Fielding: Who says that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member who took his seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my opinion he has a letter in his hand which specifies that.


William Stevens Fielding: He may, but he did not say so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this quarantine doctor to be allowed to employ his time, for which he is paid by the country, in canvassing for the position of mayor and leave a vessel detained outside the harbour with
1.000	immigrants and no one to attend to them. Has the Prime Minister nothing ttf say about that ? The Minister of Railways laughs as though it were an amusing thing.


George Perry Graham: It is, very.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is there amusing about it ?


George Perry Graham: The amusement is that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is lecturing me while he is discussing the acts of an official who does not belong to my department at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was speaking about employees of the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: They are not candidates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are canvassers, and partisan canvassers at that, and they are deliberately violating the rule laid down by the Prime Minister a few years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is this doctor a Grit or a Tory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never inquired, and I don't know anything about his politics. Recently I was told when I called attention to a similar case with regard to employees on the Intercolonial that I was pitching into a Tory. I don't care a straw about that, because if it is wrong in a Grit it is wrong in a Tory, and I have no standard by which I draw a distinction between the two in tiiese matters. No matter what party an official belongs to I say it is wrong.


John Stanfield: I understand the Minister of Railways to say that no charge has been made against officials of the Intercolonial taking part in elections, but I have a letter with regard to the same matter. Let me read this passage from the ' Gazette ' :
Not only did this terrible delay mean that the passengers were kept in confinement and without food for a. day, but everything at the immigration station during the doctor's absence was at a standstill. Four trains were delayed for six hours, and all the other immigration officials and the railway men were kept idle.
I think that should be looked luto.


George Perry Graham: That does not at all refer to any member of the Intercolonial staff being a candidate or being absent from liis employment.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: It is the medical officer.


George Perry Graham: It does not follow at all from the statements read by the hon. member that any employee of the Intercolonial Railway is a candidate in an election. Now, as to the general question and so far as the employees of the Intercolonial Railway are concerned, I may say that this matter is probably more strictly considered on that railway than on any other railway in Canada. In my own town the employees of the Grand Trunk are not only candidates themselves but they take an active part in municipal elections. Are you going to say to a brakesman or to any other employee of a railway: You are to be disfranchised, you must not say a word to your neighbour about municipal politics; you must not take any interest whatever in municipal affairs. Well, I believe the peo-p'e of Canada do not want that kind of thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Grank Trunk is not a government railway.


George Perry Graham: This is a thing that has to be considered from the point of view of common ordinary horse sense. I say that an employee of the Intercolonial Railway should not be offensive, and it is better he should not be a municipal candidate unless-there is some exceptional consideration, but to say that he must not take any part in the municipal government for which he is taxed is going to the length of absurdity, even if the railway is owned by the government.


William Stevens Fielding: There is only one point in the observations of bon. gentlemen opposite which really deserves consideration, and that is that a steamship with a large number of immigrants has been detained unduly by reason of the neglect of the medical officer. That is a matter which certainly well deserves consideration. But lion, gentlemen will see that the mere publication of a statement in a newspaper, and a newspaper which is noc supposed to be entirely beyond the suspicion of political bias, is hardly sufficient ground for the government to take action against the officer. If any hon. gentleman who has knowledge himself will send a statement to the proper minister that any officer of his department has neglected his business in the manner described, that would be a proper matter for investigation. Now as to the partisan side of it. My bon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says be does not know whether this candidate is a Grit or a Tory. I accept his statement, but if he does not know whether the man is a Grit or a Tory how does be bring the partisan element into the question at all ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The partisan element is that he threatened employees they would be dismissed if they did not do so and so.


William Stevens Fielding: We have bad no such statement made to tbe House. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule! lias imported that into the discussion. The hon. gentleman from King's and Albert did not make that statement, and it would appear that the bon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is giving away more of tbe game than was intended. However that may be, the only point worthy of consideration is as to whether this officer in Halifax has neglected his duty. There is a distinction between a municipal and a Dominion or provincial election. We were asked earlier in the session to lay down some rule with regard to municipal elections elsewhere, and it is a very difficult matter to do so. A rule may be laid down with respect to a Dominion election and probably with respect to a provincial election also, but it may be a question as to whether you would be justified, iu the case of a man who happens to be a citizen of a municipality and a Dominion official at the same time, in refusing him the right to take part in a municipal elec-

tion. But if in doing so he should neglect his public duties, then unquestionably that would be a proper matter for investigation, and I am sure that the minister in whose department such an officer is employed would feel it his duty to investgate any representations to that effect which might be properly made. _


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and the replies of gentlemen on this side of the House, I wish to call attention to the fact that Mr. Hawkins is receiving money from the government. He is medical officer at the port of Halifax under the Interior Department. I shall read an article in the Ottawa ' Journal ' of to-day, which gives a full description of the occurrences at Halifax. The article is as follows :
Halifax, Nova Scotia, April 13.-The immigration department at Halifax have furnished another subject for government investigation. Formal complaint has been made to the Ottawa government of what amounts to inhuman treatment of a large number of the 1,100 passengers who came by the Allan steamer
lunisian ' from Liverpool.
Ihe official who is charged in this complaint ls.-Dr* A. C. Hawkins, the chief medical officer, without whose certificate no passenger can leave the detention room at the immigration sheds. The passengers had breakfast on board the steamer, and many of them were kept without food till 11.30 that night, when the last of the crowd was passed.
Dr. Hawkins began his examination at 3 o clock in the afternoon, the people then tired out with the long waiting. He worked for three hours and stopped at six, then leaving the building not to return till 9.45 p.m., when the task was resumed on an almost famished assemblage of angry people. He got through shortly before midnight.
Not only did this terrible delay mean that the passengers were kept in confinement and without food for a day, but everything at the immigration station during the doctors absence was at a standstill. Four trains were delayed for six hours, and all the other immigration onicials and the railway men were kept idle. The half-starving passengers, as well as those who had got through and were waiting to get off, naturally made a great outcry and vowed vengeance.
The doctor is conducting an active election canvass, which may account for his absence, but this did not mitigate the condition of the nunareas of passengers, who were practical prisoners without food.
Under tlie circumstances I feel that members^ on this side of the House are thoroughly justified in bringing forward this question and demanding from the Minister of the Interior some explanation in regard to it.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have gone before me that when any formal complaint is made to the Minister of the Interior with regard to the conduct of any of his officers,
Mr. FIELDING
the minister should take formal notice of it. The very worst construction which my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) can place on the article he has read is that the fact of Dr. Hawkins being a candidate for the mayoralty may have accounted for his being absent from his duty in examining the ship. Is that not so?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I read the article, which I think is a sufficient explanation.


Alexander Johnston: In fact, the worst he can say is that this may have been the cause of the action comnlained of ; the hon. gentleman is not in a position to make a definite statement of fact.
Mi-. ARMSTRONG. I was addressing the Minister of the Interior. I cannot understand how the hon. gentleman comes in.


Alexander Johnston: I am addressing my hon. friend and pointing out to the House the absurd position in which he places himself, a position of which he should he ashamed. if he has any regard for the dignity of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Both hon. gentlemen will recollect that they must address the Chair.


Alexander Johnston: Through you, Mr. Sneaker, I addressed my hon. friend, and I was pointing out to him, through you, the very absurd position he occupies before the House and before you. If a charge is brought against this officer of the Department of the Interior I have no doubt the Minister of the Interior will look carefully into the matter. I am sure every hon. member on this side of the House will agree that this course should be taken.
However, we have here a question of much greater importance than the question of whether a certain official in Halifax is a candidate for tlie municipal elections. On the general question of the relation of government officials to municipal politics I hold the view that acceptance of office by any citizen of this country should not debar him from participating in municipal matters in the community in which lie lives.
I hope every member on this side will take the same view, and I wish the position taken by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to-day to be distinctly understood not only in this House, but in the country at large. Hon. gentlemen opposite have laid down a position which I am sure when It is understood by tlie people of Canada will not meet with their approval. It is that if a man accepts office at tlie hands of,the Dominion government, no matter how small or how great that office may be, from that time forward he is to take no part whatever in municipal matters in the town or city in which he resides. It means that government employees abandon all claims of citizenship where they reside. That is the position taken by the hon. member for

Grey (Mr. Sproule), who is leading the opposition at the moment, and who speaks as the leader of his party and lays down the policy of his party in this matter. It is to the effect that henceforth men occupying positions on any part of the Intercolonial Railway must not take any part in municipal matters. It is well for the people of the country generally to realize the position taken by these hon. gentlemen. I hold, as I have always held, the view expressed by the Minister of Railways this afternoon, that men employed on the Intercolonial Railway have a perfect right to assert themselves in municipal matters in the towns or villages in which they reside. I shall do all in my power to maintain that right for them. They are residents of the municipality ; they pay taxes, and why should they not participate in civic matters? Why should they not with me have the right to determine who is and who is not a fit person to represent them on a municipal board? Our lion, friends opposite will deny that right. We on this side are content to have our policy on this matter go to the country side by side with that of our friends opposite, who assert this afternoon that henceforth their policy is to be to deprive these men of all rights as citizens.
lion. II. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland). I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I entirely endorse every word uttered by the hon. member for Sydney (Mr. Johnston). If the government undertake to control the officials of the Interior Department or any government official with respect to the exercise of their civic rights, they might just as well undertake to say what fraternal societies their officials should join and what churches they should attend. It seems to me that the doctrine laid down by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Sproule) is entirely too absurd and will not be accepted by the citizenship of this country in any province.


Samuel Hughes: I am sure the House and the country will feel themselves deserving of congratulation on the permission that has been extended to the leader of the government by the hon. member for Sydney (Mr. Johnston) to exercise his functions in allowing these gentlemen to take part in elections. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) should feel complimented at the benediction pronounced by that hon. gentleman and the authority he has given them to exercise their functions in the premises. I must congratulate tire hon. gentleman himself on his promotion from the somewhat menial position he had a few years ago to the position of dictator of the party. I must also congratulate the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) on the stand he has taken. I would like to have an explanation of the circular which
I find dated 23rd of December, 1907. I forget whether or not he was at the time Minister of Railways. Possibly he had vacated the office at that time and was not responsible, or he will have to account for this circular to the present Minister of Railways. I would ask the present minister whether he repudiates the circular issued by him and his own general manager and which is directly at variance with the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and the ex-Minister of Railways. That circular is as follows
Office of the General Manager, Moncton, New Brunswick,
December 23, 1907.
Circular No. 381.
To employees-
The Minister of Railways

Not the ex-minister and not the hon. member for Cape Breton, but the Minister of Railways.
-having been requested to allow employees of the railway to offer themselves for candidates and to accept municipal offices, has carefully considered the matter-


Mr. HENDERSON.: That is quite a different thing.


Samuel Hughes: -and his conclusion is that it is not in the interest of the railway that this should be allowed and that only in such very exceptional cases as the minister may determine


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: -as the minister may determine the public interest can be served without the interest of the railway being prejudicially affected, shall employees be permitted to offer for and accept such office.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. SAM  IIT...@: -ending) :
This decision is based upon the usual policy of railways in such matters, such policy being considered on the whole as best adapted to serve the respective interests most concerned.
D. POTTtNGEE, General Manager.


Mr. TALBOT.: Where is the contradiction ?


Samuel Hughes: Through you Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Minister of Railways and Canals. And this circular is in the face of the statement made by the Minister of Railways a short time ago. However the matter is not worth discussing


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


Samuel Hughes: They can take whichever horn of the dilemma they choose. I am very much surprised that the present Minister of Railways should take a reprimand from the ex-Minister of Railways and

the bon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston). It is quite evident these two have placed their ban on the present Minister of Railways and he has had to bow down and collapse.


George Perry Graham: The circular read absolutely confirms what I said a few moments ago.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-ACCIDENTS ON CONSTRUCTION.
Richard Blain: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways, to a despatch which appeared in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' dated April 1st, 1008:
Fearful death record in work on National Railway.
In a period of one year from March 29, 1907, to March 31, 1908, the lives of fifty men have been sacrificed through negligence or carelessness on a hundred mile stretch of the National Transcontinental Railway between the Manitoba boundary and the east end of Canyon lake, a distance of a hundred miles. This does not include those who have been killed on the section east of Vermillion, nor does it take note of the scores of poor fellows who have lost eyes or limbs on those sections of the National Transcontinental.
Further the article says :
It is a weekly, often daily, affair to hear of the horrible deaths which men meet with, to say nothing of the hundreds who are brought to the hospital here mangled, maimed and dying, either to linger on through countless hours of agony, or to recover and go through life with the loss of a limb, an eye, or sometimes of both.
Further on the writer adds:
Jury asked for safeguards.
When death's harvest first began, some two years ago. a coroner's jury memorialized the Deoartment of Railways to take some action to safeguard the lives of the workers. How much notice was taken of the memorial may be judged by the fact that the act of that jury had to be repeated bv another, only a fortnight ago, and still Ottawa is silent.
And further on:
Over a man a mile.
It is freely stated in Kenora that on a section of Dutton & McArthur's work, stretching ten miles east of the Winnipeg river, the toll of human life expended was over a man a mile. Perhaps the fifteen miles on the south side of Canyon lake, north of Vermillion, will mark the deathbeds of more men than any other on the hundred mile stretch already alluded to and depicted on the accompanying map.
This newspaper gives the names of forty-eight who have been killed on this line of railway. It would take too long to read the list, but I am quite sure the attention of the minister has been directed to this and other articles referring to the same question. Two causes are given. One is criminal negligence in the use of low grade explosives, and the second is inexperienced workmen. These two points should receive Mr. SAM. nUGHES
special attention from the Minister of Railways. The minister should not permit his contractors to use cheap explosives or he must expect to have a heavy death rate. I am much surprised that after the grand jury had directed attention to this some time ago, it was necessary for another grand jury to make a second reference to it. We cannot afford, as a Canadian people, in the construction of our railways, to have hundreds of lives taken by carelessness, either on the part of the government or the contractors..


George Perry Graham: The question raised is one of considerable seriousness. The construction of the government portion of the Transcontinental is in the hands of a commission. That commission is responsible to the government and to parliament and has absolute control of the details. Accidents have taken place under the contractors ; my hon. friends say there are two causes, namely, carelessness and low grade explosives. I am not in a position to dispute this statement nor do I suppose he is in a position to confirm it. There may be low grade explosives and there may not. That is a statement made by a newspaper. And possibly neither he nor I know if it be true. One thing is certain and that is that the death rate caused by accidents is of sufficient seriousness to attract attention and investigation. It has not escaped my attention altogether. I have had several interviews with the cliairman-of the Transcontinental Commission. It is pointed out to me that men using explosives become so accustomed to their work that they become oblivious of the danger and it is to their own carelessness largely that these accidents are due. That may he partially the case or may not, but my bon. friend will remember that this is one of the difficulties in getting at the truth of these matters. The legal way to locate the blame is through a coroner's inquest. The holding of an inquest is supposed to be the modus operand! by which the Crown or the public will get at the cause of the accident and will ascertain whether there has been criminal negligence in the case. A few years ago, the Ontario legislature, not being satisfied with the results of coroners' investigations in cases of accident in the construction of great works, passed an amendment to the Act making it more stringent. One of the clauses provided, if I remember correctly-and I am speaking from memory,-that no coroner could hold an investigation who was the medical attendant upon the men for the railway companies, and that no coroner could take part in such an investigation who had an interest directly or indirectly in a contract with the company. There were other provisions, if I remember well, by which the Attorney General took special steps to see that the

investigation was carried on properly. I have asked this question recently of the chairman of the commission and expect to have an answer in a few days as to some of the particulars, if the spirit as well as the letter of the provincial law was being carried out in the holding of these inquests. If it be, there will be no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to the direct cause of these accidents. If carelessness on the part of the workmen be the cause the coroner and the representative of the Attorney General should be able to ascertain the facts. If the contractors are using low-grade explosives, there should be no difficulty in the coroner arriving at that fact.


Richard Blain: Why could not the government, through their commission, put a stipulation in the contract that no class of explosives could be used other than high-class explosives ? If that were done, it would settle the matter.


George Perry Graham: I think that if my hon. friend (Mr. Main) were a practical railway contractor, perhaps, he would not express himself in that way. It is a difficult thing to arrive at, for the examination of explosives might be a more difficult thing than was anticipated.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister's officers cannot ascertain these matters, how can he expect a country jury to ascertain them ? Does he expect them to take a crack at the explosive with a hammer V


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is a great joker. But this is too serious a matter to talk about lightly. My hon. friend will see that a coroner's jury empanelled under the law, with the coroner taking evidence under oath, can summon the contractor, the manufacturer of the explosive, the seller of it, the men who have used some of the same explosives, and every 9ody else who can give information. They have every facility under the law to arrive at a conclusion.


Samuel Hughes: Who pays the cost ol all these witnesses ?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman knows that every province has now the machinery for these cases, including providing for costs. The question of provincial rights would be raised at once if we attempted to interfere with the duties of the provinces in this respect. The law of this province and every other province provides machinery to find where the blame rests. But I am making inquiry along these lines and will be able to make a statement, if I can get the information, which will clear the air. I agree that this is a very serious matter, one well worthy the attention of the department. I agree that the government should inquire into the reasons for these
accidents in order to learn how this loss of life is to be prevented or reduced.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: A somewhat similar condition existed in connection with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway so far as the hospital provision for the labourers on that railway were concerned. A very bad condition of affairs was shown to exist. Some kind of action was taken by the government and the abuses were corrected.


Samuel Hughes: That was on the Crows Nest Pass ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. I am glad the minister says that he will intervene in this matter, because it is necessary that some high authority should intervene on behalf of these men. The contractors do not care for human life,-or that is too strong a way to put it ; I mean they have no financial interest other than burying these men who are killed. It would be a humane act on the part of the government to see to it that these men are surrounded with the necessary protection. If there is a reckless loss of life, the government should interfere and prevent it as far as possible.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (Norfolk).: If there is any truth in this report-and I apprehend there is, because this is not the first case ofi the kind of which we have read t-it is quite evident that something! is wrong. There are other public works going on, on the Canadian Pacific Railway and on the Grand Trunk, under Larsen and Foley, where explosives are much more extensively used and in which such a state of facts does not exist and cannot exist. The Minister of Railways speaks of the protection afforded by the coroner's inquest as a means of making known the facts in these cases, but it is evident that this machinery is deficient, because this loss of life goes on continually and increasingly, according to what we have heard to-day. I must say I had no idea of it before, and I do not believe the people of the country had any idea of it either, but it is an intolerable condition. AVe have the Minister of Railways and also the Railway Commission, and these are the people most blameworthy for allowing this condition to continue. I am glad to hear that the Minister of Railways has stirred up the commission, but apparently he has not stirred them up enough. But we have another department that boasts of what it has done, and that is peculiarly in charge of the interest of the working people. I refer to the Labour Department. I have not heard that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Le-mieux) and his department has taken any interest in this question. Yet the settlement of it is a simple matter. In the first place, only proper explosives should be used ; and, in the second place, they should

be handled only by experienced people. No contractor should employ an inexperienced man for the handling of explosives, and no government should allow such a thing to be done. There is no need for using poor explosives, because there are so many excellent kinds that I cannot believe the contractor would purchase the inferior. But the fact remains that we have two departments and a railway commission directly interested and directly responsible and yet this terrible loss of life seems to go on and to increase. I think it is time that parliament said something about it and that the minister-both ministers-should move in the matter. It is well enough to speak of coroner's inquests, but where do the jurors in these inquests come from ? They are probably interested, or prejudiced or indifferent. I would not insinuate that these men would wilfully render improper verdicts, but if these inquests are held in places where there are no people except the workmen of the contractors, with the boss over them, that is enough reason for saying that an examination should be made by one of these departments to find out whether there is negligence in these cases. It ought to have been done before this time and it cannot be gone about too soon.


Mr. JAMES CONMEE (Thunder Bay and Rainy River).: I think that the writer of the newspaper article which has been quoted here is not well posted as to how these accidents may possibly occur. They do not occur through the use of poor or bad explosives. I have had some experience in railway construction, and I am free to say that that has not been my experience. Speaking generally, it is admitted by all who have knowledge of the subject tha't the higher the explosive the more danger there is. Section B of the Canadian Pacific Railway parallels largely the poVtion of the Transcontinental Railway now under construction in the west for nearly 200 miles. In the construction of that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway glycerine oil was used, not dynamite, and accidents were more numerous. So when you come to add SO or 90 per cent of glycerine oil in dynamite, the danger is increased. Accidents occur under the most strict regulations, aud there are two or three causes for them. Carelessness is one great cause. But it is not always the inexperienced man who meets with an accident, it is very frequently the man of long experience who makes a mistake, notwithstanding that he ought to know better, and does know better, and ought to use more caution. But experienced men do make these mistakes. I think the history of railway construction will show that td be the case. I have had correspondence on this subject, having my attention lately drawn to it, and I took pains to make inquiry. I have written to a number of contractors whom I know and have received Mr. TISDALE.
some letters in reply. The hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) stated that the contractors didn't care. I do not think that statement was warranted, it is very much out of place. I think the contractors do care. I think perhaps they have just as much honour and just as much feeling as other people have. Besides, they are deeply interested; accidents cause great loss to the contractors. Most of the contractors insure their men. I think you will find on inquiry that all the men under Mr. McArthur, or any prominent contractor I know of. are insured. Such contractors take precaution to have their men insured, by means of a small subscription monthly from the men themselves, which is supplemented by the contractor himself. So he is more or less interested. It is not quite fair to assume that he is not deeply interested or does not take all the precautions possible to be taken. I know of cases where the most strict regulations were in force, where notices were up in all the camps instructing men how to use dynamite in winter, telling them of the proper method of thawing it, as provided in water jacket cans. Notwithstanding that these strict regulations were in force, enforced as thoroughly as it was possible for the contractor to enforce them, and notifying every foreman and walking boss that if the rules were not enforced he would lose his position-notwithstanding all that, accidents have occurred, for the reason that men disobey these rules, and sometimes they get careless. Notv the hon. member who spoke last said there were not as many accidents on the Foley contract as on the Transcontinental. I think he is mistaken. The work is not of the same magnitude. There have been a great many accidents on that work. I know of two young men residents of Port Arthur who met death upon that particular work only a few months ago. The cause in that case was that the charge did not go off, and the men went back, as men sometimes do, to recharge, and the accident occurred. That is a cause of a good many accidents. Men become a little careless when the charge does not go off. These men I refer to were not labourers, they were contractors themselves; they did not send their workmen to run the risk, but they went themselves and took the risk. So it is a very hard matter to determine where responsibility lies. I quite agree with the hon. member that anything that can be done should be done to lessen the number of accidents. But it is a mistake to assume that the article in the newspaper is altogether warranted. The hon. gentleman spoke about the form of contract. I have run my eye over the present form of contract drawn up by the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and it does place all responsibility upon the contractor. He is bound to employ only competent men. The engineer in charge has power to dismiss any men on the works

666a
who are not competent for the duty entrusted to them. There is a very strict condition in the contract under which the work is done in regard to hospital accommodation. The contractor is bound to furnish hospital accommodation and medical attendance for the employees. So far as these matters can be provided for by the ordinary form of contract, they are provided for in this case. I am not taking the ground that something more should not be done. I do not know whether that could be done best by the Minister of Railways, or some official in his department, or whether it could be done best by the provincial authorities. But if anything can be done, certainly an effort should be made to minimize as far as possible the number of these unfortunate accidents.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: The loss of life in the construction of the Transcontinental Railway, so far as it has gone, has become a very serious matter. I think the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has done a public duty in calling attention to it. The item he has read shows that 50 lives have been lost on one stretch of a hundred miles, or one on every two miles of that road, and it is not completed yet. I read a few weeks ago that eight men were killed by one explosion and several others injured upon that same stretch. We see that five men are dead and many others are mutilated for life by reason of these explosions that have taken place. They may have been premature, they may have been accidental, or they may have been the result of criminal carelessness. If the accidents were the result of any of these causes, certainly some one should be responsible. The country looks upon this railway, whether rightly or wrongly, as a government enterprise, a government work; the government are putting up the money to build the road, and the people look upon it as a government work. These contractors under the Transcontinental Railway Commission are certainly responsible to some one, and it should be the duty of the minister in the very near future to ascertain whether any precautions are being taken to preserve the lives of the men engaged on that arduous undertaking. We are too apt to say, Oh, they are only Italians, they are only navvies, they are no concern of ours. The ordinary feelings of humanity seem to be almost non-existent these days, because we read in almost every paper about the death of several workmen on some great work. Take the ' Evening Journal ' that has been quoted to-day, turn to page 7, there you will find a very sensible letter from an experienced contractor on this very point. I do not know who the writer is, I do not presume that he knew this question was coming up in the House to-day, or had anything to do with it. But he refers, not only to the death of these men in the west
upon this rock construction work, but also to the deaths that occurred on another branch of this Transcontinental Railway, that is the Quebec bridge. He makes the statement in that report that if ordinary precautions had been taken, if anybody with any experience had been on the spot, every life that was lost in the Quebec bridge accident could easily have been saved. He says that no man was justified in being on that work at least two or three days before the bridge fell and there was no one to warn the men on the bridge of the danger. There is another section which is responsible for the death of from SO to 90 persons-I forget the exact number, but it is not less than 80 and not more than 90. Up to this time the loss of life on this Transcontinental Railway has baffled all description in comparison with any other great work that has ever been undertaken in Canada. What is the reason of it? There must be some special reason. This article says that inexperienced men are employed. It said that in the old days when nitro-glycerine or dynamite was being used an experienced man was at the head of every gang and he was responsible. The writer says that they paid these men $4 or $5 a dav as bosses of these small gangs and every man acted like a soldier under the direction of the foreman in charge of the gang. A similar precaution should be taken in a case of this kind. Surely the government will not allow men to be sacrificed unnecessarily. We know that accidents will happen, we know that some lives will be lost in a great enterprise of this kind, but is it not unreasonable that fifty lives should be lost in the construction of 100 miles of rock road and that road is not completed yet. It certainly is out of proportion of the work done and if you take the Transcontinental Railway, 4,000 in length, I presume there will be 1,000 miles of hazardous work out of this 4,000. If they go on in the way that my hon. friend from Reel (Mr. Blain) has pointed out on that 1,000 miles you will have a loss of
1,000	or 2,000 lives before the road is completed, altogether too much of a sacrifice and not at all necessary. Where lives are lost and no one can prevent it we must view it as an act of Providence, but where men are ruthlessly slaughtered, as they are being to-day, we in this House have no right to keep silence on a point of that kind, and it is the duty of the government to see to it that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, or whoever are responsible, immediately do their duty and see that ordinary precautions are taken to preserve the lives of the workmen of Canada who are hazarding their lives in the building of this great national work. I trust that prompt action will be taken and that we will see a very large diminution in the future in the loss of life that we believe is unnecessarily taking place.


IMMIGRATION.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before tlie motion that you have put for the House to go into Committee of Supply is adopted, I desire to move an amendment on the lines that I announced some days ago, seconded by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Uriah Wilson). The motion I have just placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, is in the following terms:
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.
The total population of Canada, according to the last completed census, from information which 1 procured a day or two ago from the chief officer of statistics, Mr. Blue, is 5,371,315 souls. We are, therefore, Sir, considering the vast extent of our territory, a small community numerically and our country could, no doubt and will, 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. There is no immediate or urgent necessity for filling up the country. A few years more or less in the history of a young nation like ours are of very little account. In building up a nation and especially in merging large masses of foreign people, or even of elements not Canadian born, into the home population, I think that all of us will agree that too much precaution cannot be taken to secure the best elements, morally, mentally and physically to the end that what is imported into the nation will always be of the best, will readily conform to our customs and manners, and will arrive and be disseminated among our own people in such suitable proportions only as you can readily and without undue friction absorb. All this implies selection and the most careful selection. I think, we must admit. Face to face with the tendency to invade America, which is apparent to-day on all sides, from Europe, where an overcrowded population looks eagerly to this western hemisphere, as an Eldorado and a refuge, from the east, where a wave of Mongolians is beginning to surge towards our continent, the figures I will give will show that we will soon be overrun by an immigration which must become an element of large importance in our midst. If that element is not sound, if it does not conform to our recognized and wrell defined conditions our young nation will suffer great prejudice, and our advancement must be retarded by the arduous problems Mr. COCKSHOTT
which will be thrust upon us through our indifference and thoughtlessness.
The question is not a new one; it is a burning question in the United (States. We know that about twenty years ago it reached an acute stage in that cduntry. its immigration reports for the last few years show the truth of what I have just stated, that the question of immigration there presents to the people and to the consideration of the government one of the most formidable problems they have to deal with. It seems to me that in many respects the Americans have dealt with this question as a great nation face to face with this problem. Any one who reads the four last annual official reports of the United (States on immigration will very well realize the truth of what I have just stated: That they have allowed the tide of immigration to rise unduly and dangerously in their midst they themselves generally admit and it cannot be denied. They are seeking earnestly to-day to meet as best they can the serious national problems wdiich this has brought upon them. They have endeavoured to check and dam in a certain measure the rush of immigration to their shores. They have increased from time to time the head tax-a tax which is collected from each individual immigrant arriving in the country

they have forbidden for many years all and every aid to immigration in whatever shape, and they have set down restrictive conditions upon entry to their country. The federal government which, in the United States, is charged with the control of immigration, lias decided this year to send to Europe a commission, under section 39 of the law which was approved on February 20, 1907, still further restricting immigration. Niue of the most competent men to be found in the United States have been sent to travel in European countries whence immigration comes, and to acquire there all the information necessary for the United States to provide proper legislation with a view towards a solution of the problem which this question presents.
The motion of which 1 have given notice has been pending for some days and I have in the meantime collected from the official publications of the United .States government some figures which may interest the House. These figures I have procured with some trouble, and they are I believe absolutely reliable. I quote the following figures from the official report of the superintendent of immigration in the United States, showing the progress of the wave of immigration into that country :
Total immigration to United States for years mentioned.
Year ending June 30-
1904		  812,870
1905		 1,026,499
1906		 1,100,735
1907		 1,285,349
Total for four years	 4,225,453

Iu spite of the growing restrictive measures, and iu spite of the increased head tax on immigrants it will be seen that the immigration into the United States is increasing each successive year. The commissioner for immigration in the United States writes as follows in his last report for the year 1907, page 3, and which is the last report we have at hand :
An army of 1,285,349 souls that have come, drawn hither by the free institutions and the marvellous prosperity of our country; the chance here afforded for every honest toiler to gain a livelihood by the sweat of his brow or the exercise of his intelligence, surpassing in numbers the record of all preceding years. In the light of the past who can prophesy the future. The world can but view with wonder and awakening concern the facility with which we have absorbed the surplus millions of Europe and are now beginning to draw upon the reserve stock of some of these countries, and are even attempting to merge into our population some of the countless hordes of Asia.
I may say en passant that the United States immigration reports are far more ample and more detailed than a re the Canadian reports. It is impossible to go through any one of the United States reports for any given year without learning a multitude of very interesting facts, for which we look in vain in the Canadian reports; not only as to the increase in the number of immigrants, but what is far more important, as to their disposal when they reach the shores of the United States. I think our Department of Immigration could very well follow the example of the Immigration Department of the United States in the preparation of its immigration reports. And Sir. let me add that the 4.000.000 immigrants who came to the United States during the years 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1007, were brought to the United States without a single cent of expenditure by the American government, except that expense with regard to which there is no economy in the United States namely, the expense for inspection of immigrants and for the protection of the American people. There is inspection of the most minute character of all arriving in the United States and every precaution is taken to protect the nation from the influx of undesirables. So far ns I have been able to find not only from the official reports of the United States but from personal information sought by me in Montreal and in the United States itself, their inspection laws at present are well nigh perfect. Let me say also that this immigration has come to the United States in spite of the head tax upon the incoming immigrants which has produced in these four years the following results :
United States head tax on immigrants. Head tax collected on immigrants entering
the United States-
1904	$1,599,472 25
1905	 2,032,873 50
1906	 2,290,901 56
1907	 2,782,103 68
Total collected for four years	 8,755,350 94
This sum was more than ample to provide a perfect service of inspection and to leave a large balance at the end of each year to the credit of the American government. Now, as I have said, the law in the United States debarring immigrants is very strict and I may mention that the total number of debarred immigrants from the year 1892 to the year 1904, was 47,768. For the four years for which I have already given statistics the number of immigrants debarred from entering the United States was as follows :
Immigrants debarred from entering the United States.
1904		 7,994
1905		 11,879
1906		 12,432
1907		 13,034
These figures are taken from the official reports published by the United States Department of Commerce and Labour. Another feature of the question to which I would call the attention of the House and which is of deep interest to us at the present time, and which must daily become of greater moment, is that feature of the American law which obliges each immigrant landing iu the United States to be in possession of a certain sum of money. They consider it a safe provision to absolutely oblige the immigrants to be provided with sufficient funds to maintain themselves and their families upon their arrival in the Republic. Let us see the effect of this law-or regulation in the four years for which I have given the figures. Under the operation of this resolution, the following amounts of money were brought into the United States by immigrants, as certified by the officers of inspection.
1904		$20,894,383
1905		 25,159,012
1906		 25,109,413
1907		 25,599,893
That is, in those four years something like $100,000,000 of cash, apart from goods and effects, have been brought by immigrants into that country. This is an item of some importance because I feel that in this respect our law is not sufficient. It is true that under the stress from which we have suffered lately we have temporarily required that immigrants must have with them a certain sum of money, $50 I think during the winter, reduced on April 1, to $25 or entirely discontinued. It is evident that we must amend our regulations more in accordance with the American system if we are to secure in Canada a larger number of people than we are now securing who are able to support themselves after reach-

ing our shores, so that we shall avoid the experience of last winter.
I have deemed it important to place these figures before the House and their preparation has required some care and research. I shall now come to matters more directly affecting our own country. In the American reports we find valuable information as to the immigrants who have reached the United States from Europe through Canada.
In 1904, 30,374 immigrants entered the United States in this way. In that year 2,100 who attempted to enter the United States through Canada from Europe were debarred on account of the laws and regulations of the United States and therefore had to remain in Canada. Of these 762 were paupers, 582 were suffering from loathsome disease, and 293 were prostitutes.
in 1905 the total immigration to the United States through Canada amounted to 44.264, an increase of more than 14,000 over that of the preceding year. The United States, in 1905, finding that the immigrants coming through Canada were very numerous, and finding also, as appears by the four reports to which I have referred, that our own laws in respect to immigration were extremely defective, incomplete and lacking in regard to causes of exclusion and their application, adopted regulations providing the immigrants arriving in the United States through Canada into more than one class. Thus, in that year, we find the 44,264 arriving in the United States through Canada divided into three classes.
(a)	Those destined to the United States landed at Canadian ports.
(b)	Those arriving in Canada from Europe and proceeding to the United States within a year, and
(c)	Those destined for Canada who after the expiry of a year proceeded to the United States.
Of those arriving at Canadian ports with the avowed and declared intention of going to the United States there were 12,663 and 183 were debarred. What became of them when they were debarred at our Canadian ports I do not know, it is impossible to find any trace of their disposition. Were they sent back to Europe in the vessels in which they came to Canada ? I doubt it very much. If, on the contrary, they did land and proceeded without examination to one of the examining stations on the Canadian frontier and were there debarred, I doubt very much if they were deported back to Europe.
The second class are those destined to Canada and who have gone to the United States within a year after their arrival in this country. They have to submit to examination at one of the numerous examining stations which the United States government have established along the border, on the ground that we admitted a great many undesirables who found their way into the Mr. MONK.
United States. After having made representations to the Canadian government on that subject which to a large extent the American Commissioners admit have been carried out, still they have found it necessary to establish these posts of examination. In the second class of immigrants we find 8517 and 589 were debarred. I shall not go into the details of the causes of their exclusion from the United States, many were refused admission for those causes which were causes of exclusion from Canada and how they succeeded in entering Canada I do not know. Nor do I know what became of them when they were refused admission to the United States. It is impossible to trace the matter any further, but my own view is that they remained in Canada, and that we have to-day in Canada these immigrants who were deemed undesirables under the American law for pronounced and stated causes.
We have to-day in Canada these immigrants who are deemed undesirable under the American law and pronounced so from causes which no doubt really existed, judging by the thorough examination made by American officers. These undesirables we have in Canada. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) asks if we paid a bonus on these immigrants. No doubt we did. No doubt they came within the classes, so very extensive and comprehensive, upon which we pay bonuses. Where these people are to-day I do not know, but they were found absolutely unfit for admission into the United States. 8,000 of them were not refused entry into the United States. 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 a third class and that is those who were destined to Canada and who went to the United States after the expiry of a year. Here we have a still more doubtful case. After the year expired-how long after we do not know- they went to the United States. That is a very large class indeed. They numbered in 1905, according to the official report, 19,308, of which were debarred 749 ; and the remarks I made in connection with the second class apply with still greater force to this class.
I wish to anticipate an objection which will probably be made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). After it became evident that a very large number of these immigrants went off to the United States within the year or after the year had expired, the Department of the Interior, through the initiative of the American officers-that was when we were under the unfortunate and mysterious regime

of the North Atlantic Trading Company- arranged with the head office of the American Immigration and Inspection Department in Montreal, where all the returns from these border stations along the Canadian frontier are made before they are forwarded to Washington, to have returns made to the Department of the Interior of those immigrants who, after having come to Canada, went off to the United States. I presume the object of that-I think that was shown by one of the officers of the department under examination in the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization- was -to find out what percentage of these continental immigrants, upon whom we paid these very large sums as a bonus to the North Atlantic Trading Company, went to the United States. What resulted from that I do not know. I remember examining at some length an officer of the department in the committee, and he there said that these reports were sent to the Department of the Interior, and that before the accounts were settled with the North Atlantic Trading Company they had some means of tracing these immigrants forwarded through the instrumentality of that company and striking off those who went to the United States. Whether that was ever done I do not know. Whether that arrangement is continued to this day I do not know. Probably the Minister of the Interior can tell us, but I do not think it has been kept up, and I do not think we are in a position to say exactly what becomes of our bonused immigrants after they reach here and what proportion go to the United States. I do not think we have a system of proper cheek, and there must be an immense leakage, because the temptation of the immigrant is very great to go to the United States once he arrives here. And although the government, in face of the continued increasing tide of immigration, has improved the law or at least carried out more carefully the inspection, there is no doubt whatever that in Europe the impression prevails among booking agents and others interested and the migratory population in general, that it is much easier to get into Canada than into the United States. Therefore those who are objectionable are generally attracted towards Canada. If the House desired to go further into the question, I could quote extensively from the very able report of Inspector Braun, who was sent from the United States in 1903 to survey the whole field of immigration, and he gives, in regard to that tendency, very valuable information to his government. He says there are people from some of the easterly countries of Europe, doubtful, objectionable people, who are directed to the great ports of embarkation, and who are given signals which they carry with them, indicating that they are not likely to obtain entry into the United States and therefore are to be directed to Canada. That exist-212
ed to a very large extent until we made our laws more severe, but at the time Inspector Braun made his report, this abuse was very extensive.
Turning again to immigration, in 1905, 800 were debarred as likely to become public charges. I think they remained in Canada. I see no way whatever by which they could have been reconveyed, having been once admitted, to the sea-board and deported to Europe. Out of these 800 there were 492 ,who were debarred as suffering from trachoma. I have already had occasion to refer to that very dangerous disease which exists in a chronic state in the southern and eastern parts of Europe. It is, at certain stages, incurable and extremely infectious. Two or three years before there were 600 debarred from entering the United States through Canada on account of trachoma, and these have remained in Canada as well as the 492 first mentioned. The last time I spoke on this subject I snoke of the able report of one of our Montreal specialists, in which he gave the proof that trachoma had been treated at the Montreal General Hospital. The House knows we have a trachoma hospital at Quebec to which immigrants are taken who suffer from that disease. Too much care cannot be taken because once this disease has taken firm hold it will be practically impossible to eradicate it.
Let me give a few figures of the total immigration in 1906. The total emigration from Canada to the United States was 43,997. We have no detailed report as to the three classes to which I have referred. There were 486 debarred of which 331 are likely to become public charges.
In 1907 we have again an increase of immigration through Canada to the United
States :
By Atlantic ports	 18,671
Through border	statioji	 20,882
Pacific ports	 1,414
Total	 48,967
Out of which were debarred 2,273.
It is impossible to find in our own reports anything to even remotely indicate an answer to that very interesting question as to what becomes of these numerous people who were debarred from entering the United States after having come to Canada. In the American reports you will find answers to all these questions. You will find absolutely reliable information as to the number of people who leave the United States within the year. They give us comprehensive statements as to the immigration to the United States.
It must be evident that we require tint information. We require to know parti u-larly who are the people going out. What about the large numbers of people who come to our country and then go to the United States ? The question was put to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, and he was asked why we had not that in-


REV1SED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
formation. He answered because that concerned emigration and not immigration. It must be evident that our information regarding immigration is incomplete, in view of the bonuses and the money we spend on immigration. Our data are not sufficient unless we have what is given in the United States, and that is the amount of people who leave Canada after coming there.
Tlte total number for the year 1907 of the immigrants to United States through Canada was 48,967. Besides these 2,273 were debarred from entering the United States.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They may be in Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No doubt. There are no tables in the general report beyond those from which I have culled the information which I have just given the House, but the Canadian Commissioner for the United States, a very able man who was in charge of that branch and administered the whole Canadian service connected with immigration through Canada to the United States, says at page 85 of the United States Immigration Report for 1907 :
The tables above mentioned however contain other data however, upon which I am prompted to feel the bureau will not look with such satisfaction reference being had to the unusual increase of the number of aliens who originally giving Canadian destinations proceeded to the United States within one year from date of arrival in Canada. From 9,721 during fiscal year ended June 30, 1906, this class has increased to 15,677 for the year just closed. This lemarkable increase is partially explained by the fact that while less than -60 per cent of these manifested to the United States at time of embarkation are excluded more than 10-06 per cent of the year in Canada class, find it impossible to meet the requirements of our laws when examined.
Only -60 per cent of those manifested to the United States were excluded, but when we come to those who pass into the United States after being manifested through Canada, you find an immense increase in the proportion exclude namely 10-06 per cent. That strengthens the conviction that the immigrants are shipped, even to-day, to Canada direct when there is some doubt of their admissibility into the United States. I deemed it important to give these data to the House because the question of immigration is one which demands our immediate attention.
I have stated enough respecting the American immigration features which concern us, let me refer now to our own system. What are the causes of exclusion from Canada? They are to be found in chapter 93 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. These are the immigrants prohibited, under the provisions of this law, as it has since been amended, and amended a great deal on the representations made from time to time by the American authorities.


Mr. MONK.: 1.	Feeble-minded, idiotic, paralytic and insane persons. Deaf, dumb, blind or infirm persons, unless accompanied by family or persons to take care of them. This is under the amendment of the-law made by 6 Edward VII., chapter 19.
2.	Immigrants afflicted with loathsome contagious or infectious diseases which may be dangerous to public health or widely disseminated, unless curable within a reasonably short time.
3.	Paupers, vagrants, beggars or those likely to become a public charge may be deported if they become a public charge within two years of their arrival.
4.	Criminals, prostitutes and procurers.
There are boards of inquiry who hear appeals made from the decision of the inspector. This, I think, has been the case only since the law of last year or the year before. I think these boards of inquiry, which sit very frequently in the United States .have not been called upon to act here very often. I say that subject to correction by my hon. friend. There is also a final appeal to. the minister. There is one provision of the law that may usefully be pointed out and that is not generally known. It is that the immigrant who has been convicted of crime or has become a public charge within two years of his arrival here, may, upon a certificate notifying the minister to that effect from the clerk of the municipality where he has become a public charge or been convicted, may be ordered by the minister to deportation. I say that that clause is not familiar to the people of this country, for, within the last seven or eight months undoubtedly, a great many immigrants have become public charges in the municipalities of Canada. I can speak with certainty concerning the case of Montreal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How about the Douk-hobors ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That law' would not apply to them now', because when the Doukhobors came in this provision did not exist. But look at the number of immigrants w'ho have been convicted of offences, both petty and extremely grave, within the limits of Montreal alone and within the past year. They would come under this provision of the law as well as if they had become public charges on the fact being certified to the Minister of the Interior that he has pow'er to deport them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At w'hose expense?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a question I desire to refer to briefly. Suppose that an immigrant has reached the w-est, and is to be deported. He must be brought to the port of embarkation at the country's expense. He must be sent, and a man with him, at the expense of the country, and traces of these expenditures are found in our public accounts. He is taken to the port of embarkation, and only there is he handed over to the steamship company. And I find re-
6G73

' cords of moneys paid to steamship companies in connection with deportation-I do not know under what circumstances. But, under the law, the steamship company is obliged to take the immigrant back.
It would be very interesting-to come more close to the subject of the motion I have placed in your hands-to find out how the system of paying so much per head for immigrants .first started in this country. It was started very long ago. I believe that inquiry would unquestionably reveal the fact that this singular, this almost unheard-of, mode of recruiting for our national family was invented and urged upon the government by transportation companies, booking agents and employees connected with the department. It is impossible for me to think that a man having at heart the interests of the country, and totally dissociated from the interests to which I have referred-great, powerful and influential interests-could ever have believed that a scheme of paying so much a head per immigrant, was a suitable, feasible and wise method for a country to follow that was desirous of increasing the national family by the addition of good, suitable and carefully selected subjects.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is only within eleven years, is it not?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think this system dates further back than that. Of course, when our immigrants were very few, when we spent from $20,000 to $100,000 on immigration, though the bonusing system may have existed, 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 to find out who invented this method. If you wanted to increase a valuable herd of cattle, you would not adopt the sole principle of paying so much per head. When it is a question of the national family, and adding to it in the immense proportions which will appear in a moment, that principle seems to me a very bad one. Certain it is that it has existed for many years, but as I have stated, it has only been of large and alarming proportions since 1898, since which time it has become a subject of study. As I stated before, I do not think anybody would adopt such a principle even in an effort to increase a herd of animals. Remember, the party earning the bonus is bound by no strict rule. The rule that binds him is only that he gets his immigrant through the cursory examination that takes place upon the arrival of the immigrants here. If his immigrant is deported -though it is not so stated in any of the regulations I have seen-the presumption is be would not earn his bonus. But no code of stringent rules has been laid down for him. With respect to this, I may quote from a report brought down at the instance of file lion, member for Lennox (Mr. Uriah 2121
Wilson) by the Minister of the Interior oil Thursday, February 13, 1908, in which is to be found very valuable information in regard to this and other points. The agent is not called upon, for instance, to make any special examination. He is not called upon to make any special selection. He knows upon wThat immigrants we pay bonuses, and there is nothing in any of the regulations I have seen that obliges them to exercise careful, prudent discretion in the selection of immigrants. He is not bound to see who this gentleman is whose destination is Canada, and to be added to the Canadian national family. No duty is imposed upon him to look into the man's record. He may be a criminal. Of course if he is a convicted criminal, that is found out, but it is very difficult to find it out, but when found out it may prevent his landing. There is no duty imposed upon the booking agent, or the man who earns the bonus, to look into the history of the incoming immigrant. He is not called upon to procure any certificate to show that this man is not a scoundrel or a loafer, a class that every nation in Europe is anxious to get rid of. There is nothing in the regulations which binds the booking agent to guarantee that this man is an honest or a suitable man to be admitted to Canada.
An bon. MEMBER. The American law.
Mi-. MONK. Under the American law there is no bonus, there is no immigration agent, and never has been. They would not think of such a thing as paying a bonus on immigrants. I am pointing out the situation of this agent over in Europe who earns the bonus, and showing that he is not in any way responsible for the character of the immigrant. He has to pay no fine when he ships over to this country, as he often does, unsuitable and undesirable men. He is subject to no penalty, though the immigrant that he sends out here may be debarred as a pauper, a criminal, or likely to become a burden. As a matter of fact, this agent who earns the bonus can not be reached by us because he is not under our jurisdiction. I know as a matter of fact that the booking agents in Europe, and even in England, I know it from reliable information, frequently know nothing about Canada except what they may have picked up from circulars. Half of them do not know about the conditions of labour here. I am speaking of the booking agent, the man who gets ttie money. Let any man go to Europe and interview these men, and he will find that they know nothing about Canada, and as a matter of fact they care nothing about Canada, and have no interest in this country. They simply tell the immigrant, All you have to say, if you want to get into Canada, is that you are a farm hand or a railway navvy. Many times the immigrant does not know the language of the country, either French or English, but

he is carefully taught to say ' farm hand ' or ' railway hand ' when met by the inspecting officer. Frequently these people arrive in great numbers in port, and when an inspector has to pass a thousand of them, what is he going to do ? Look into the mouth of every one of them? Examine his conscience? He has to pass a thousand in an hour or two, the train is under steam waiting to take them west, and everybody is in a rush. Let any man go down and witness the arrival of these immigrants. Probably they could not understand you if you spoke to them in French or English. Now I have made a rather hazardous assertion, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this extraordinary policy of giving so much per head to immigrants, under the circumstances to which X have referred, has been initiated by the transportation companies.


Wilfrid Laurier: When ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the origin, probably. What my right hon. friend wishes me to say is that it was originated under the Conservative government.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not care about that.
Mr. ARMAND LAVERG-NE. Would that be a reason for us to change it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be a reason for us to change it, though I do not consider that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons beyond the third and fourth generation. But I find no trace of its origin anywhere else. You have the transportation companies pressing upon the government, and they are very influential, to adopt this scheme. It is to their interest. You have the booking agent who makes representations to our immigration staff, and the immigration staff itself, ns has been proved in relation to the North Atlantic Trading Company, was at one time at least deeply interested in immigration. But to-day you have, in addition, the influence of these large land owners in the Northwest who are greatly interested in increasing population. So you have three distinct interests. You have the interest of the transportation companies, which is immense. Let the House consider for a moment how a large transportation company makes money out of the immigrant, from the moment they get hold of him. The immigrant as a rule pays $27 to the company to take him across the Atlantic. I suppose 25 cents per day pays for his food and the space he occupies on board the steamer. The food is simple and bought in large quantities, and the immigrant is often seasick. At any rate, an investigation wlil establish that 15 or 20 cents a day will pay for his food, and 25 cents a day will pay for all the cost in bringing him across the Atlantic. He has paid the company $27. The moment he lands here the transportation company conveys him to the west. He arrives in the west, and gives value to the1


Frederick Debartzch Monk: land owned by these transportation companies. Sometimes he buys the land, at any rate, his mere arrival adds value to the land. Then on everything he buys in order to live, the transportation companies reap a profit; that is to say, the boots he wears, and the clothes on his back, and the food he eats are all freighted to the Northwest by these transportation companies.
I say that, with the immense profits this immigration gives to these companies, they are immensely interested in the maintenance of the status quo in regard to our law respecting immigration. Now Sir, in confirmation of that, let me say that it must strike the House as a rather singular fact that, after the disappearance of the North Atlantic Trading Company in 1906, by order in council of the 19th February, 1907, the bonus was fixed at ten shillings per adult and six shillings for children. That was on the 19th February, 1907, at a time when we had ceased to do business with the North Atlantic Trading Company, and it had been found absolutely necessary, I may say, in response to public opinion, to cancel that contract. On the Cth January, 1908, less than a year afterwards, the government increase and double that bonus. Why is the bonus on the territory covered by the North Atlantic Trading Company increased and doubled? It is impossible to understand why the order in council of this year doubling the continental bonus was passed. There is a pretext alleged in the order and it is that the bonus is found inadequate to induce immigration. That is the textual reason given in the order. Let us see if there is any foundation for that allegation which was the basis of that new order in council doubling the amount of the bonus. In the year ending the 30th June, 1906, we had 189,064 immigrants. In the year ending the 30th June, 1907, we had 252,038 immigrants. In the year in which we have 252,038 immigrants, with a very large increase in continental immigration, we increase and double the continental bonus. Let me give the precise amount of that increased continental immigration. For nine months to the 30th March, 1906, the number of continental immigration was 19,216. For the nine months to the 30th March, 1907, it was 34,217, an increase of 15,001, and in the following three months the increase was greater still. I see see no reason here for increasing and doubling the continental bonus. Although the North Atlantic Trading Company as such has disappeared, has dropped out of existence, I think that anybody who carefully examines our system of immigration and the way the propaganda is carried on at present will conclude that there exists several North Atlantic Trading Companies, combinations, I mean, of booking agents, of people interested in immigration and in getting the bonuses. There is not only one. It has been a fecund institution, it

was very prosperous and it produced numerous offspring. Let us look for a moment at the conditions which have surrounded our increase of population by immigration since 1898. After a careful examination of this
tabulated statement, compiled from absolutely reliable official sources, controlled by the officers of the department, the House will see clearly and exactly the trend of the wave of immigration since 1898.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA FROM JANUARY 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 31, 1907.
[Stage Direction]
-	British.	Continental, &c.	From the United States.	Totals.Calendar year 1898	11,173	11,608	9,119	31,900n 1899 	10,660	21,938	11,945	44,543First 6 months of 1900	5,141	10,211	8,543	23,895Fiscal year 1900 1901	11,810	19,352	17,987	49,149„ 1901-1902	17,259	23,782	26,388	67,3791902-1903 	41,792 50,374	37,099	49,473	128,364 *„ 1903-1904	34,728	45,229	130,331„ 1904-1905 	65,359	37,255	43,652	146,266„ 1905-1906	86,796	44,349	57,919	189,064Fractional fiscal year (9 months) 1906-1907....	55,791	34,217	34,659	124,6679 months of fiscal year 1907-1908 	111,238	77,165	46,925	235,328Totals	467,393	351,654	351,839	1,170,886Let us now see what we have expended in bonusing and what our immediate pros-	pect of expenditure is:

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year.	British. Total payment.	Continental, &c. Total payment.	United States. Total payment.§ cts.	§ cts.	$ cts.1897-98 	4,268 17	14,880 52	3,615 191898-99 	873 82	24,259 29	3,017 121899-1900	2,300 44	46,987 26	6,410 821900-01 	1,610 61	26,525 60	11,863 201901-02 	887 23	34,132 36	7,903 141902 03 	7,156 43	36,925 83	14,917 001903-04 	43,666 63	41,826 14	14,428 251904-05 	12,600 21	80,224 03	5,860 751905-06 	34,360 59	81,477 59	5,850 251906-07 (9 mos.)	60,010 94	24,952 75	4,743 001907-08 (9 mos.)	84,495 82	34,619 73	3,963 25252,230 89	446,811 10	82,571 97Total bonus paid to date	$ 781,613 96Total amount voted for immigration	
950,000 00
12 months to July 1, 1907-On estimates so far for next year-
Main estimates, §920,000; (supp. §125,000); total	 1,045,000 00
I may say that a large proportion of the bonuses for continental immigrants went to the North Atlantic Trading Company.
One word now to make clear what the present regime as to bonusing is under the regulations or orders in council at this moment in force. The bonuses paid at the present time are as follows:
United States.-Since 1897 a bonus has been paid to sub-agents of $3 on each man,
$2 on each woman and $1 on each child, of the farming class from the United States. In a few cases the commission is $2, $1 and 50 cents on men, women and children of specified classes.
British.-£1 sterling on adults, 10 shillings on those between 1 and 18 years of age who come to Canada to engage in farm work, railway work or, in the case of females, domestic service, who are British
[Stage Direction]
subjects by birth or naturalization and who have had at least one year's experience as farmers, farm labourers, gardeners, stablemen, carters, railway surfacemen, navvies or miners.
Iceland.-A bonus of £1 on full tickets and 10 shillings on half tickets is allowed to steamship companies on immigrants from Iceland, through an arrangement with the steamship companies that the rate or passage to immigrants is decreased by that amount.
Continental.-A bonus of £1 on adults and 10 shillings on those between 1 and 18 years of age is paid to certain selected booking agents in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Finland, France and Belgium on immigrants from those countries who come to Canada to engage in farm work and who, before coming to Canada, had at least one year's experience in one of the prescribed occupations. These are the same as in the case of the British immigrants.
In fact, after the description I have given to the House as to how the immigration is started on the other side by the agent, and how the immigrant is received here, I think it is evident that almost anybody can get in under these regulations, because we have no way of verifying the statement made by the immigrant to the inspector here. The immigrant is not required to produce any proof of any statement he may make, and he is allowed to pass into the country on his assertion that he is a farm hand, a railway navvy, a gardener or a stableman. And, to those who have witnessed large numbers of immigrants on their arrival here passing before the inspector it is impossible not to say that a great number of these immigrants have it written on their faces that they have never been farmers or railway navvies. The agent can do nothing to prevent them under the circumstances I have narrated; he has to take their statements. Under the order in council of January last (1908) the bonus was doubled from that which it was under the order in council of February, 1907, and that was done without any reason that I can see, the pretext given that there was a falling off in the immigration being absolutely unfounded as shown by the statistics I have given to the House. It is not out of place to remark that according to the answer given by the Minister of the Interior and reported in 1 Hansard ' of the 16th of March last, we have spent to date on immigrant hospitals a total sum of $208.420.63. I quote this in connection with the statement which is sometimes made that Immigration to this country is not assisted. T will refer to that later on, but in the meantime I will point out that we have spent over $200,000 in providing hospitals which are simply for immigrants only.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I had no idea when I began that the observations I had to make would take up so much time. Perhaps my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not wholly free from a responsibility for this, as when I first gave notice of this motion I expected to bring it up at an early date and since that notice was given, a great many people in my own province particularly, who take a deep interest in this question have sent me much of the information I am now giving to the House. I had determined to sift and prune that information as much as possible, but I found when proceeding with the expurgatorial work that it was more difficult than I had at first imagined. Most of these data I think are important in the examination of this or any other question connected with immigration.
When you left the chair at six o'clock I was stating that it was a question of very great interest whether or not we in Canada got the benefit of this bounty or bonus expenditure. Do we not pay for Immigrants who come to Canada and within a year or after a year proceed to the United States ? I expressed very serious doubts as to that and these doubts will be confirmed by what lam about to say to the House. Bonuses, as I understand, are paid monthly and once paid I doubt if we ever get them back. Is there any instance of a bonus, after once being paid, having been recovered because the immigrant, either within the year or after the year left for the United States or because he was deported after a certain time by reason of becoming a public charge? I do not think the minister can give any example of a refund having been made by the bonused agent of the bonus he has received. I do not think we would have any right to that refund. Once the immigrant has entered Canada and been accepted by the inspecting authorities, the bonus appears to me, by what I have seen of the regulations, to have been earned. The agent is entitled to it and it is impossible to recover it from him, whatever circumstances may afterwards supervene.
I find in one of our Quebec papers, the Richmond ' Guardian,' an article which I feel bound to give to the House, which affords ground for seriously doubting whether all this vast mass of immigration comes to Canada, whether they really go to people the Northwest or to improve our own population in, the older provinces. This article appears in the Richmond ' Guardian ' of February 21, 1908, and reads as follows :
The Interior Department gives out glowing reports of increased immigration. These statements are clearly false. About half the settlers reported can never be found after-

ward. This is proved by the Northwest census of 1906, which shows the population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to be
as follows:
1906	 808,863
1901	 419,512
Increase	 389,351
Returns of births and deaths make the natural increase of the population of 1901 41,951, leaving 347,400 to be supplied from outside, and by the natural increase of these immigrants. Now the number of homestead settlers in the Northwest from other provinces in the five years is represented by the department to be 27,625. The department counts two and a half persons for each homesteader, making 69,312 inhabitants from this source.
A much larger number from the older provinces settled on lands which they purchased, or in towns and villages, or were employed in the various works and industries of the country. This would leave less than 200,000 to be supplied by immigrants and their children.
Note now the number of immigrant settlers reported by the department as having located in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the five years preceding the June, 1906:
1901-	2.. .. 61,129 see Interior report, page 99.
1902-	3.. ..109,986 see Interior report, page 95.
1903-	4.. .. 75,308 'Hansard,' 1906-7, page 1053.
1904-	5.. .. 74,676 'Hansard,' 1906-7, page 1053.
1905-	6.. .. 90,652 'Hansard,' 1908-7, page 1053.
Total. .411,652
Here are more than twice as many immigrants reported to have settled in the west as could be found there by the census enumerators. The number of immigrant settlers reported from 1901 to 1906 is 22,301 more than the total increase of population from all sources.
What has become of the 200,000 or 250,000 lost people? This includes the 22,301 mentioned above, also the total natural increase of the oldest settlers, and of the immigrants, themselves, together with all that arrived from the older provinces and their descendants. Either these 200,000 never came or they came and went away. On how many of these imaginary immigrants did the country pay a bonus of $4 and $5 per head? On how many did the mysterious North Atlantic Trading Company draw $5 for each imaginary head? How many of them were travellers coming into the country and going out by another or the same gate? How many were Canadian travellers coming home? How many were picnickers from across the borders? How many were mere dead figures stuffed into the books to make glory for the Immigration Department, gain for the immigration contractors, and excuse for an annual immigration expenditure which has jumped from $120,000 to $950,000 since the change of government?
But, Sir. there are other figures that go to show that our Northwest lands, which we are so desirous of seeing settled by real bona fide farmers are not being settled in the way the immigration returns would lead us to expect. Let me give briefly a statement showing what proportion ofi 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.


STATEMENT SHOWING WHAT PROPORTION OF OUR IMMIGRANTS GO UPON THE FREE LANDS OF THE NORTHWEST.
[Stage Direction]
Y ear.	Homestead entries.	Total immi- gration.	Per- centage.1896	1,857	16,835	ii1897 	2,384	21,716	ii1898	4,848	31,900	151899	6,689	44,543	15*1909	7,426	23,895	311901	8,167	49,149	161902	14,673	67,379	221903	31,383	128,364	251904	26,073	130,381	201905	30,819	146,266	201900	41,869	189,064	211907 (9 mos. to Mar. 31,1907).	21,647 (9 mos.)	124,667	161907-08 (9 mos. to Jan. 1, 1908)..	25,281(9 mos.)	235,328	11
There is therefore grave reason to doubt that we are really getting in our Northwest Territories the benefit of Jill this bonus expenditure.
One word as to the incompleteness of the immigration report. There is nothing in it to show the movement through Canada into the United States of the Immigrants either on arrival or within the year or after the year. The reason given for that omission by the Minister of the Interior on the 16th of March last was that this exodus was emigration and not Immigration. Nevertheless although the United States do not bonus immigrants or aid immigration in any way, they give information in their report which shows the exodus of people from the United States, so that in this connection our report, as compared with the American report, is scanty to a degree.
I find that the reports from seaports in the British isles are no fuller, since the tide of immigration has increased, than they were before. The report from our Belgium agent is always couched in the same terms. It is almost identically the same every year. And from the continent we get no report at all. We get, of course* from the Superintendent General of Immigration some very general observations, but no details. That is a serious fault which the minister ought to try and remedy. In the United States we maintain agencies which cost us from $2,000 to $6,000 a year and even more. How is it that we do not find in the last report of the Department of the Interior any state-
[Stage Direction]
meut whatever from these agents? Surely when we pay them so much money, we ought to be informed in detail what each of these immigration agents is doing and what bonuses are paid them so that we may know that they are earning their money.
Before you left the Chair, Sir, I was pointing out that this immigration business is an extremely profitable one for the transportation companies, the booking agents, and those individuals and companies who are interested in large tracts of land in the Northwest. The transportation companies not only make a large profit out of the fares, not only do they afterwards draw profit from the immigrant when he lands, but they undergo no expense in putting the immigrant on board or in landing him. An immigrant is not like ordinary freight. He goes on board of his own accord, there is no machinery or labour required to put him on board, and when he reaches his destination there is no expense in putting him ashore, and he is then taken charge of by the government. Although it is said that we do not assist immigration, we have gone to great expense in building sheds and hospitals, in taking charge of the quarantine, in paying all the expenses of inspection, and in providing every description of necessaries for the immigrant when he lands. We feed him, we see to his safe transference in his destination, and incur considerable expense in that work. More-ever, we do the advertising for these transportation companies. We spend immense sums every year to advertise this country and to induce immigrants to come here. In fact, the transportation companies have no expense in connection with this branch of their business, though in every other they must incur large expenses.
One word as to the bonused agent himself. This agent receives a commission from the transportation company on the ticket he sells to the immigrant. That commission varies. As the immigrant must practically always go to some inland place away from the port of debarkation, the agent receives a further commission for his transportation. He probably gets a commission from parties who employ the immigrant on his coming to this country. I take it that the amount he makes on each immigrant, including the $5 of bonus which we give him, must amount to $10 or $12 at the very least. If he handles any considerable number of immigrants. his profits must be even abnormally large. Even if he were deprived of the bonus given by the Dominion government, the commissions to which I have referred and the salary he gets as booking agent would show a considerable profit for each immigrant he handles. As a rule the booking agents in the British islands and even elsewhere, are engaged in some general business, as dealing in coal or some other occupation. The agent, as a rule, is not well versed in the country to which he is Mr. MONK.
sending immigrants. That explains why so many immigrants have been left to public support during last winter. The agent will tell the immigrant, for instance, that he knows that farm-hands in Canada earn from $45 to $60 a month. That is not absolutely untrue, for I am told that in the west, during harvest time-and even in other provinces-large salaries are paid to good farm hands. But their employment at these rates lasts for only a short time. The immigrants, however, are not informed of that; and, frequently, when they arrive in Montreal, where many of them are stranded, they will not work except for a considerable salary, for they have been told not to accept work unless paid at about the rate I have stated.
In regard to the class of immigrants who arrive here, let me give to the House what Lord Stratheona says in this year's report of the Department of the Interior:
Another serious matter to which I have drawn the attention of the imperial authorities is that magistrates and others have repeatedly deferred passing judgment on transgressors against the law, on the condition of their being sent to Canada.
I have, from time to time, had direct correspondence with recorders, chairmen of sessions, and others, whenever a particular case of the kind came under my notice, formally and emphatically condemning such action. Attention has also been widely drawn to the views of your department on the matter in the press of this country, and I hoped, as a consequence, no further causes of complaint would arise.
In view, however, of the two further cases which you recently brought to my attention, I felt compelled to make official representations to His Majesty's government on the subject. These negotiations are still pending, but I hope they may lead to steps being taken which will put a stop altogether to countenance being given by magistrates and others concerned to the sending of persons convicted of crime to Canada.
I think that abuse has not ceased. And. to be perfectly frank, the general impression which exists in the British islands is that the people there do us a favour by sending out the unemployed and those who cannot get on in the old country. I do not speak against immigrants as a whole, for some are excellent and are a great acquisition. But the impression that I have spoken of exists in the British islands and they do not hesitate to state it. There is an impression that this is a country of enormous resources, immense areas of fertile lands that are given away, and that it is an advantage to pour out population into this country and that there will always be found something for newcomers to do; even though they may have been found incapable of getting on in the older countries. I am told that an eminent writer, recently in Canada, Mr. Rudyard Kipling, has written that we

must pump the Britishers into this country. We are glad to receive Britishers in Canada, for many of them make excellent immigrants. But we ought to accept only the best class, and there are undesirable classes in England as elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I think the magistrates of Montreal will bear me out when I say that, during the past seven or eight months, most of those who have been brought before our courts of justice for serious offences are not men of this country, but immigrants who have slipped in in one way or other. Judges who preside at our assizes, I think, would report to the government, if questioned, and the magistrates have repeatedly told me, that this is the condition of affairs in Montreal. As a matter of fact, to-day, it is almost impossible for our country people without danger to follow the custom which, for all time, has existed among them, of coming to the Montreal market during the night. Up to within two years ago, farmers-and not farmers only but their wives and even their children-would dome on their carts during the night to Montreal to be on the market early in the morning, without any thought of danger on the public highway leading into the city. In Montreal we preserve the peace with a very small proportion of police protection, but this has become impossible because of outrages committed on the public roads leading to Montreal. People have been held up, assaulted, wounded and left to die on the public highway. And there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that these outrages have not been committed by our own people; they are committed by immigrants who are stranded in Montreal. Cases of that kind have been discovered and the perpetrators belong to the foreign criminal classes undoubtedly. Let me read a paragraph from the last report of the inspector of hospitals for the province of Ontario:
There is marked evidence that public attention should be called to the large number of undesirable and unsuitable immigrants that are being induced to seek a shelter in Ontario. This has been found nowhere more noticeable than in the city of Toronto, where more than half of the indigent casuals, who have had to be provided for, belong to the immigrant class. In many instances, however, they prove quite incapable and, when winter comes on, they drift into the cities and are not slow to find the location of the charitable institutions. The whole fault for this condition must be placed where it belongs, namely, in the system that permits and encourages immigration without a proper discrimination. The present policy of Canadian emigration agents in Europe would seem to be to secure the number and pay no heed to the quality of persons urged to seek a haven in this country. The system of the Dominion government of bonusing agents to send out in an apparently indiscriminate raaner a class of people totally unfit to provide a livelihood for themselves is deplorable. During the past year it has cost the hospitals and public charities of Ontario thousands of dollars to provide for these people, who are homeless and friendless and quite incapable of earning a living in this country. More precautions are needed. ' Quality, not quantity/ should be a rule from which there should be no deviation. More than ever before Ontario has been made, during the past year, the dumping ground of a most undesirable class. Charity may suffer long and be kind, but this province cannot afford to permit the bonused and designing agent abroad to continue as he has been doing during the past year, and the manner in which some of our charities have been imposed upon fully justifies this protest.
This is true also of my own province. Then I find that on March 18. before the Irish Protestant Benevolent Society's banquet at Toronto, Lieutenant Governor Clark said this:
Our province is in a crucial stage at present. Influx of new population, of people who have had strange ideas about liberty and religion, is endangering our state. These people come here believing that liberty means license and as such are a menace to our institutions.
A class of people come here who call themselves English or Irish or Scotch. True, they are British born, but they are not British at heart. They are children of foreign parents, who came to the British Islands years before. The babies were born in the British Islands, but they were partakers of foreign dispositions. They are not bred to principles we know of and might at the ballot-box seriously injure us.
It is a most serious question with which we must grapple. The United States, our neighbours to the south, have had, no doubt, the same troubles, and have to some extent assimilated this objectionable element in their population. But you must have noticed how crime is on the increase in Canada-crime of an abominable character. Evil deeds are rife in this land which we never knew before. Our nation was a better one before these people came. I am glad, and we should all be glad, that our questions of state and our institutions have been so largely settled before these people came.
I find here a resolution .which is rather long, and I will not trouble' the House with reading it, exactly in the same sense, passed by the Associated Charities of Toronto. This condition of affairs in Toronto is exactly repeated in the province of Quebec. I see that the eminent authority I have just quoted speaks of the possibility of assimilation. Now in this connection let me say this : The population of the United States numbered
50.000.	000 souls before immigration into that country reached 300,000 per annum. We have in this country about 6,000,000, and we received last year over 250,000 immigrants. Now to meet the proportion between the number of immigrants that came this year into the United States and its present population of SO,000,000, we would have to have
20.000.	000. Those who visit the United States, men of the very highest authority in sociology, like Mr. H. J. Weis, Viscount D'Avenel
[Stage Direction]
who lias a European reputation, and Mr. Doumer, a French publicist, all agree that this immigration constitutes a grave peril to the United States. President Roosevelt himself said that this immigration is leading the nation to disaster. This year he has named, as I have already said, a commission of nine of the ablest experts to visit Europe and see what can be done to check the outflow of immigration to the United States. Other writers I have quoted say, and have made calculations to show, that in twenty-five years, at the present rate of immigration, we will have a population of 30,000,000, not 10,000,000 of which will be Canadian born. Now under these circumstances how can one explain the indifference that has existed in Canada up to at least the last six months, with regard to the immigration policy of this government ? I think it is difficult to explain. If these figures are correct, we will find ourselves in a few years in this position, that the destinies of this country, its march towards the future, will be decided, not by ourselves who are the descendants of those who have settled the country and have built it up, but it will be settled by an alien population who have invaded the country.
One word now in connection with the care we must take respecting immigrants. During the past year we have had a large influx of Italian immigrants, many of whom have settled down in our cities. The question of the influence of this tide upon labour I will leave to others to treat, because the labour element is well represented in this House. As a matter of fact, in my own constituency, I know a large industry which has during the last year dismissed a great many Canadian employees and replaced them by Italians, because they work cheaper, and can live on wages that Canadians cannot live on. We all know how these Italian labourers live. They live in masses, they are able to work at much lower wages than our own people can live on, and consequently they become very dangerous competitors to our own labouring men. I find that during the year ending June 30, 1907, we had 12,771 Italian immigrants admitted into Canada. 'Were any of them bonused? I do not know. Certain it is that under our present system it is possible they were bonused. I do not see any difficulty in Italians reaching certain European countries which are under the bonus system, and getting tickets from the agent to come to Canada, and in one way or another the agent gets the bonus. I see no obstacle to that, and I would be glad to hear the Minister of the Interior declare that it is impossible, or tell ns how they get here. But that class is not a dangerous class. I have lived in Montreal, and I know the Italians. There are excellent Italians, and there are some that are not so desirable. Let me quote to the House a high Italian authority who is thus Mr. MONK.
reported in the Montreal ' Star ' of February 28, with regard to Italian immigration :
I know for a fact that over sixty per cent of the Italians that come to this country are convicted criminals. When a man gets into trouble in Italy and is convicted, he generally leaves the country after having served his sentence, as he finds that he is not wanted at home. For years Canada has been the dumping ground of these criminals. It used to be the United States, but. owing to the enforcement of stricter laws the United States are not so popular with my countrymen as they used to be. Canada is now their goal because it is so easy of access. No questions are asked, no certificates are necessary. If you are in good health you can land in Canada without any money, regardless of the fact that you may be a hardened criminal.
And believe me, the majority of the Italians do not come out here without good reason. Their own country has grown too warm for them and Canada offers ample shelter. If the Canadian government knew its business it would have immigration agents in Italy whose duty it would be to inquire into the characters of intending emigrants.
The American authorities have done that.
Until some action of this kind is taken, the trouble that the respectable citizens of the city and the Dominion are now suffering from will never be eradicated. Almost without1 exception the men Italians found carrying^ arms are criminals and ex-convicts, who don't feel safe without a gun or stiletto. They come out here because they are too well known in their own country. Their actions here cast discredit upon the land of their birth.
I have no doubt that everybody here labours under the impression that in Italy every man goes about armed and that murders and stabbing cases are of hourly occurrence. Let me tell you that this is far from being the case. When a man is found carrying concealed weapons in Italy he does not get the chance of paying a fine. Instead he gets a long term of imprisonment. They don't believe, in fines for that sort of thing over there. But as a matter of fact the people there are not in the habit of going about armed with revolvers and razors and such like things. Thev are for the most part respectable, law-abiding citizens, who are particularly fortunate in that their criminals leave them in peace and emigrate to Canada, or some other country.
Murders are no more frequent in Italy than in any other country. There is more crime committed in Montreal in a week
[Stage Direction]
I presume he is speaking of last winter :
[Stage Direction]
than there is in a month in an Italian
city. The Italians here-I mean the most of them-are desperate men and the law will require to be strengthened in order to deal with them.
I just wish to revert, in connection with the wholesale manner in which we are getting immigrants out here, to the kind of contract that is made with the prospective emigrant to Canada. I will quote an agreement that has been invariably used

by tlie James A. Smart Company Limited and from this agreement and the conclusion which I draw from it the House will be able to see how it is that we have been obliged, in our large cities, to do very much, during the past winter particularly, for the immigrant classes who have been left on our hands for support and help. The James A. Smart Company is a company that was founded, I presume,-in fact I have no doubt,

by Mr. Smart who was formerly deputy Minister of the Interior, who was subsequently connected with the North Atlantic Trading Company and finally became the agent of that company. When that company disappeared I suppose he founded this company. The agreement is as follows :
Received on account:
Agreement.
In consideration of the promise of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the company, to give or procure for ine employment on the construction of its railway line, and for which I shall he paid at the rate of at least $2 per day (eight shillings and four pence) and to furnish board at p rate not to exceed $4.50 per week (eighteen shillings and nine pence) I hereby agree as follows:
I will work as a labourer for the company, or for any contractor or sub-contractor with whom the company secure work for me for a period of at least six months, or for such period as the company or the contractors or the sub-contractors may require my services or until I am discharged by the company or contractors or sub-contractors, in which latter case I shall simply be entitled to wages earned up to the time of my discharge. My service shall be as a labourer or in any other capacity my employers may desire at the same rate of wages as is paid to other persons similarly employed.
My employment, and the relation of master and servant between the company and me, is to commence immediately upon my signing this agreement and I am to be subject to the orders and commands of the company from time to time thereafter but wages are to be paid me from the time only when I begin work or the construction of the railway and not during transportation.
The company reserve the right to discharge me at any time without notice in case I shall fail to perform my duties to the satisfaction of the company or the foreman in charge of the work.
In further consideration of the advance to me of transportation from the seaport from which I embark, or other place, to the point in Canada where 1 am to be employed, or to the railway station from which men are transported for work, for medical examination, premium for insurance, and advance made under this agreement, and for incidental expenses connected with this agreement amounting in all to $	, I solemnly acknowledge as a just and legal debt for which I have received full value and for the repayment of which I regard myself as legally and in honour bound to repay, I hereby assign and transfer to James Smart the whole of the
balance which may become due to me or wages from time to time, from the said company or other contractor or sub-contractor for whom I may be working on their contract, after deducting the charge for board as above, and the medical fee usually charged workmen in such cases, as security for the repayment of the said. (	.	.	.	.	);
and I hereby irrevocably appoint the said James Allan Smart my true and lawful attorney to receive all my said wages which may from time to time be earned by me in respect of the said employment, and I hereby authorize the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and every contractor or sub contractor or other person by whom I may be employed upon the said work or other work, to deduct the said amount from my first earnings on the said work, less board and medical fee as above and to pay over such amounts as may become due me from time to time to the said James Allan Smart, until the said sum of $
(	) has been completely repaid.
I further agree to pay the charge of not exceeding $4.50 per week for board and also medical attendance or any other reasonable charge which the company, contractors or subcontractors may be put to while I am in his cv their employ, and such amount to be deducted from any wage due me.
My real name is	
My age is	
My present address is	
I am (married or single)	
This agreement has been signed on the .. ..
day of .. .. 190.. In the presence of	
Witness	
The possession of the triplicate copy of this agreement signed by James Allan Smart or his authorized agent will identify the person to be employed.
JAMES A. SMART Co., Ltd.
This is rather a long agreement, but it is a hard and fast agreement and one which places the immigrant almost entirely in tin; power of this Mr. Smart. But, let us look at how it turns out. The advance for the cost of transportation is the moderate amount of $55 for the man and his family to the point where he is to be employed. He will pay $4.50 a week for board to (lie Grand Trunk Pacific or any other company for six months which will make $120. For medical attendance he will pay $6. That is the payment, I have been informed, that is generally made. Deed of contract is $5 and the incidentals mentioned in the contract will amount to $15. All these are extremely moderate charges and they would very easily be increased. These make a total of $201 to his debit. Give him six months or about 125 days at $2 a day and he earns $250. After deducting his expenses he has at the end of six months $49 to himself. Is it surprising that these men are wandering back to the large cities and becoming a charge on the community ?
One word as regards these societies which of late have entered, particularly in England, into the field of immigration. For my part I state frankly that I would have more confidence in these societies even en-
[Stage Direction]
tering the flelcl of immigration than I would have in the booking agents to whom I have already referred, from all the information I have regarding the natural and easily understood inclination and interest of the booking agents. The Salvation Army, in particular, does excellent work. I am speaking generally and outside of that phase of its work which has to do with immigration. It has done an immense amount of good in England and it is doing a great deal of good in this country. I am always happy if I can assist this work, because, as was very properly said by Cardinal Manning, speaking in London, the Salvation Army reaches a class of unfortunates that no other organized religion can possibly reach. That is true and it is doing a great deal of good, but still, when you consider it as entering the field of immigration and receiving a bonus you are obliged to consider the classes among which it works. Many of this class are reclaimed, are redeemed and many, I have no doubt, make good immigrants. We are dealing with conscientious men when we are dealing with the soldiers of the Salvation Army, the Church Army, the East End Church Army and these religious organizations. But let us be perfectly frank and say that the immigrants they recruit- not all, but a good many-are recruited among people who are dependent in England uppn public charity. They are men who have not succeeded in life, who have been assistant painters or assistant plumbers, who have not been able to succeed in their trades, who have large families, who are on the poor rates and it has been the habit of the guardians of the poor to confide a large number of these people to the Salvation Army, giving them a certain amount to take charge of these poor people, and they have all the necessary machinery to ship them to Canada. These are not in all cases the immigrants who are desired and I think it would be necessary for us, before paying bonuses in such cases, if we are to continue the bonusing system at all, to exercise the very greatest surveillance and to see that the unfortunate classes among whom these organizations work are not the classes that are sent out here.
There is an impression in England that all these undesirable people may be safely sent out here because they believe this to be a land flowing with milk and honey where there is always something to do even for the least qualified. It is the same in Calabria and the Neapolitan districts whence the most dangerous class of immigrants come, they find it cheaper to pay for the transportation of these dangerous and criminal classes from Naples to America than to keep them in jail, and that is why so many of these sinister malefactors from Italy land in Canada. Therefore, with regard to the immigration by religious societies we cannot be too careful. Many Mr. MONK.
of these undesirable people, as was stated by the Italian whom I have quoted come from the United States. Indeed we should be very careful in granting bonuses on immigrants wrho come from the United States and who are not of that excellent farming class in the western states who settle on our cheaper and better land. The immigrants who come from the New England States, particularly the aliens, are dangerous. In support of that view I quote a letter received in Montreal by a friend of mine, from a very reliable authority, who says:
An estimate based on information from several sources places the number of unemployed men in this city (New York) at 40 per cent of the total; the wages of many still employed are being reduced. The employment bureaus are crowded as they have not been for years. The savings banks are being drawn upon heavily. The beneficial and insurance societies are feeling the effects of the times by lapsed membership and heavy borrowings on policies. Public charities are besieged for help. Our city magistrates states that their courts and prisons are crowded with men who have committeed no crime, but who have come to the extremity of their resources.
In view of such conditions in the United States I would warn the government that next summer we may expect a large influx of such people to Canada, and we cannot be too careful. I stated this afternoon that such had been the prosperity attendant on the operation of that mysterious Northern Atlantic Trading Company, the names of whose directors the Prime Minister was careful not to divulge on account of the danger of their committing suicide-that company made a great deal of money, and following their example, a great many other such combinations have been formed for the purpose of reaping profit out of this bonus system. In the city of Montreal we have a society called ' Ua Society de placement et d'immigration,' which is composed, if I am well informed, of many influential members of the Liberal party who expect to get a bonus on immigrants from France. They have received a bonus of $2,090 from the provincial government, and the Minister of the Interior will correct me if I am wrong when I say, they have received or are going to receive, $5,000 from the Dominion government. I was told in reply to a question put by me in the House the other day, that they had not yet received any money, but my information is that they are to receive $5,000 from the Dominion government. Judging by their advertisement they have made arrangements to bring out farm hands and domestic servants. They will get a bonus from those with whom they make arrangements to bring out these people, and furthermore they are entitled to the large bonus which is paid on English immigrants. I think there is a danger in this. Societies of this kind are started

without any capital and they rely on the bonus for their income and for tlieir profit, and I think there is a danger in that. The truth is that we can obtain excellent immigrants from France, but in regard to France as well as in regard to every other country we should apply the rule that we must select the immigrants and be careful in the selection. Last year 17,000 French emigration from the Basque provinces went to the Argentine Republic. They are excellent settlers, and they left France from Bordeaux, Acachon and surrounding ports. But when immigrants get to the Argentine Republic they want to know who they are and they exact a certificate from each one of them, and in France every man carries a livret which gives his full record and which states whether he is really a farm hand, what lias been his business, what reputation he enjoyed in his own country* what is his record. We should impose a condition on all immigrants coming to Canada that they should have their livret which would show us their record.
Now, there is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the government. Sometimes on these steamers from continental European ports there are as many as 2,000 immigrants and taking into account the crew and other passengers there sometimes are 2,400 persons on one of these steamers which will carry only perhaps 30 boats. That of course, would be impossible from a British port, but in the case of a vessel sailing from a continental European port the number of life boats is inadequate to save the passengers should the vessel meet with an accident which would necessitate those on board taking to the boats. I would suggest to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he should take this matter into his consideration, for should any frightful loss of life occur under such circumstances the government would be held responsible because of its failure to provide safeguarding legislation.
Now, Sir, as a practical conclusion I would say this: We should first nnd foremost have the examination of immigrants conducted on the other side before they leave for Canada. This is done largely by the United States authorities and we should follow the example. When a man and his family arrive here it is very difficult to deport the mother or the father or some of the children nnd let the others remain here. Very often a family of immigrants has sold all their belongings in the country whence they came, and it might be cruel to deport them except in very extreme cases indeed. We are the masters as to whom we shall admit to Canada, and it ought be possible for us to provide on the other side for an examination into the physical, mental, and moral condition of tne immigrants, and to admit nobody into the Canadian family who is not thought fit to form part of it. The bonus system should be abolished altogther.
I think I have stated enough with regard to the bonus to show that it is time there should be an end put to that antiquated form of encouraging immigration. I venture to predict that if it is abolished we will receive the same number of immigrants, and we will most assuredly get a better class. But if we must have a bonus system I submit to the consideration of the House and the government that we should give the bonus to the immigrants themselves. Once we have found a man courageous enough to come with his family to this country, to give up his home in the old country, to settle down here and become a respectable and a valuable citizen, why not give the bonus to that man so that it may help him on his new career in this country. Under these circumstances, if we are to give some encouragement we could not give it in any better shape than a payment to the immigrant himself. I know my own opinions on the question of immigration are advanced. My own belief is that before long we will be obliged to adopt sterner measures, we will have to adopt the head tax. We know that in the United States they began with a head tax of $1, then they raised that by degrees to $4, and unquestionably they will still further increase the head tax in the United States. If we had a reasonable head tax we would immediately cover all this vast expense of over $1,000,000, we would secure better immigrants and we would receive as many as we are now receiving. Strange as it may appear, I am sure that if we had a head tax we would not diminish the number of immigrants. It has not diminished it in the United States. We would cover the whole $1,000,000 by means of the head tax and would provide a perfect system of inspection so that the immigrants would be in better shape than they are at present, and the $1,000,000 which is absolutely lost to us under the present conditions, could be devoted to more useful purposes.
I feel that in talking to the Minister of the Interior, who is charged more particularly with the Department of Immigration, I am, in a sense, speaking to a convert. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior when he was an ordinary member of this House, gave to the House the benefit of his experience as a long resident in the North west. He has expressed to this House in far stronger and more eloquent words than I could, exactly the opinions which I expressed this afternoon. Time and again I have heard my hon, friend before he reached the high position which he occupies today, explain and uphold the views I have expressed. I shall not quote at length, because he never varied in his opinions until the change which took him from the seat lie occupied then, which was the seat of sincerity and truthfulness, to the ministerial position in which his views underwent, I
[Stage Direction]
regret to say, a very serious change. Xu 3899 the minister among other things said at page 8523 of ' Hansard ' :
It is said: Look at the example of the United States. There is a country which has grown great by reason of opening its doors wide to the world. Well, let us see. The United States had a population of over 30,000,000 before the general influx of European population began. We, in Canada, have a population of possibly
5,000,000. There was no possibility of the original population of the United States being overwhelmed by the influx of foreigners from Europe. But there is every possibility of the population of northwestern Canada being overwhelmed. We must not forget the difference in out situations; and we must not forget that, after an experience of many years of the open door to the world-wide immigration, the United States years ago saw their mistake, and to a very great extent, shut the door. Now, if the example of the United States was good at one time, why is it not good now? Surely, the more mature judgment of the United States is as valuable to us as the less mature. If a nation of sixty or seventy millions finds it necessary to shut the door to indiscriminate [DOT] immigration, is it not more necessary for a country of five millions, especially when the part of the country affected, in which these eople will have almost sovereign powers, num-ers only half a million, or scarcely that.
Elsewhere my lion, friend said :
I give you the actual facts which speak for themselves. People have left their places because the Galicians came in and settled near them. These other people are the pioneers and not the Galicians. The latter came in and had the advantage of the experience of the others, and they settled in places which would be considered desirable for settlement by other people were it not for the fact that these Galicians came there. It is not necessary that they should occupy every quarter-section in order to keep other people out, because they have taken up a tract of country about 25 miles in length and there no other settlers will go, although the Galicians have not occupied every other quarter-section. On the face of it, it is plain that- this is a very serious question. While we have not suffered any very serious loss so far, I would not be doing justice to the district I represent were I not to place before this House and government the fact that there is danger, very serious, to the settlement of the Northwest, and particularly that part of the country, from the influence of thesa Galicians.
Further on he said :
You ask where are we to get people to fill up the Northwest? I looked over the United States census a few minutes ago and I found that in 1896 there were in the United States 980,938 natives born Canadians. Of these 678,442 were English and 302,496 French. There were of Canadian descent in the United States at that time 1,700,943 people. If it is true that there were in 1890 about 1,000,000 native born Canadians in the United States, if my calculation is good for anything, it means that there has been an overflow of population from Canada to the United States of not less than 30,000 people a year for 30 years. Where, then, can we find a better field for immigration to Mr. MONK.
the Noi'thwest than right in Canada itself, right in the older provinces? I know that that was contrary to the policy of the late government, as it is the policy of the present government, but is it not worth trying to get some of that 30,000 a year to go to the Northwest?
I cordially endorse, Mr. Speaker, these and many other statements made at that time by my hon. friend when he was completely' independent. Let ns reflect for a moment that the Doukhobors about whom we have heard a great deal lately, cost us to bring out here according to an answer given to a question in this House about $7.07 each. We expended over $40,000 at that time and they have cost us a great deal since then by reason of their being undesirable. Would not this House agree that the sum of $100,000 almost that we have spent on this class of people, clearly not the best, clearly not what we want in this country, could have been far better spent in the repatriation of this million and more of our fellow citizens in the United States, many of whom are anxious to get back to Canada, many of whom have never taken the oath of allegiance to the United States ? There is a valuable asset lying ready to return to this country and could we not better have spent all our money on these people, than on adding an undesirable element to our population? The Minister of the Interior expressed these and far stronger views at the time. I have only given, the House a sample of them. How changed he is today. What is it that has brought about this change? The contact with the gentlemen whom he met when he entered the cabinet ? When he was a private member of this House the Minister of the Interior was the knight errant of what I would call the noble and proper principle for Canadian immigration ; but bold knights vanish very quickly under such influences as seem to have been brought to bear on him since he entered the cabinet.
I feel confident that the time has arrived when we must not only look most carefully ihto this subject but must study the whole subject of immigration, and I venture to say that our whole system will have to be completely remodelled. We are a young country, we are at present the cynosure of the eyes of all Europe and the world generally. Canada is an immense country, a young country, full of resources, and the trend of the tide of immigration from all over the world is towards these shores. This is the hour for us to bring to bear all necessary precautions, a certain pride, a certain prudence, which should be our characteristic as a young nation ; we should see that only the very best elements enter this country and we, the older men, the descendants of those who were the pioneers of this country, who settled it, should make it our principal solicitude to have in Canada only those who are fit to be associated
[Stage Direction]
with us in the grand work of building up here a great commonwealth.
Frank Oliver: With a great deal of what my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has placed before the House I can most cordially and heartily agree. He has not said one word too much with regard to the importance of immigration and its character. iBut I am sorry that he has moved a resolution in amendment to the motion to go into Supply in the terms lie did and that in supporting that motion he took the ground and made the speech he did. He . declares in his resolution that an aggressive immigration policy is desirable, but in his speech declares that the methods by which our immigration policy has been made successful are undesirable. My bon. friend is in the position of a successful business man who has achieved success by following certain methods and who then having achieved success decides to discard the methods which brought about that success. He admits that we have been successful in our immigration efforts, but regarding one very important part of that effort the bonusing of booking1 agents he has everything lie could to disparage it. While admitting that our immigration policy has been successful he has said everything he could to disparage every effort put forth by the government to encourage immigration and has been particularly desirous of discrediting this particular form of effort 1 cannot follow him-and I do not think that that would be desirable or in the interests of debate-in all the positions he has taken.
In the beginning of his remarks he spoke of Canada ns a country of five and a half million people with a very large territory to develop and very great opportunities and responsibilities. He then spoke of the United States a country of 80,0000 people, and of the splendid development which lias there taken place. And he undertook to draw a parallel with regard to immigration policies between the two countries. He undertook to show that because a certain line of action was particularly desirable in the United States, a country of 80000,000, that same line of action was equally desirable in Canada, a country of five and a half million people, but with an area equal to that of the United States. I have only to state the position to show how absurd bis contention is. My bon. friend did not remind the House that 125 years ago, at the time the United States became an independent country, it had about the population which the Dominion of Canada has to-day. The United States has been 125 years from that date arriving at the position it now occupies. Yet my hon. friend undertakes to say that the policy of Canada should be the same as that of the United states after 125 years successful effort. Ikat is sufficient to show how unwarranted were my bon. friend's comparisons. I do
not wish to make any reflections upon his remarks; but I notice that although no one in this House has greater ability in expressing himself correctly and concisely and in transferring his thoughts to the pages of ' Hansard ' without special assistance, he was careful to-day not to trust to his memory or the inspiration of the moment, but to- read carefully his matured conclusions with regard to this important subject. I assume that the importance of the question was part of the warrant for this unnecessary and unusual caution on his part. I assume that another reason was the importance of the position he occupies on this subject. I take it for granted that he voices the opinion of his party on this question, that his leader left this charge upon him when he left the House, and I have every confidence that he discharged his duty as well as his leader could have done or perhaps better. But it seemed to me that there was something more than all this in the necessity for the special care he took in the expressions that were to be used. It seemed to me that my hon. friend had one eye on the effect of his remarks upon those who are particularly interested against an overplus of labour in this country, while he had another eye just as wide open to the possible effect of his remarks on the financial manufacturing and transportation interests of this country. He was evidently travelling on a very narrow road and it was necessary he should not step off it on either side. Every one will admit that if immigration is a good thing, if it is a necessity for this country in its present condition-and T have my hon. friend's word that it is-it must be upheld by methods of business of one kind or another. Something must be done if the good result aimed at is to be achieved ; and when my hon. friend had been at such pains, as he was to-day, to discredit this important feature of the government's immigration policy and as far as he could, discredit all its methods, he must be satisfied to rank himself and his party against the principle of immigration to this country or against the principle of active effort on behalf of immigration. If that is tile position of my hon. friend and his policy, we are very glad to take issue with him. We believe that in a country of the limited population and the vast area 6f Canada to-day, immigration is necessary to its progress, prosperity and general well-being. We believe that a great part of the,prosperity and success which Canada enjoys to-day is due to the success of its immigration policy. My hon. friend read a great many figures which have more or less bearing on the question at issue, but he did not make what I think would have been a very illuminating statement. That would be a parallel between the flow of immigration and the increase of trade and general prosperity in Canada. He will find that the flow of immigration and the increase in the

volume of trade and general prosperity of the country absolutely inarch together from year to year.
My hon. friend has heard, or knows, that there are people out of employment in Canada-they were out of employment during the past winter. Did he ever hear, or does he remember, whether there were people out of employment in 1896 or the years preceding? He has heard of crime in Canada within the last few months. Was Canada free from crime previous to 1896? Is it a fact that there are fewer people out of employment than there were in 1896? It is a fact and my hon. friend knows that it is a fact. Notwithstanding the vast flow of immigration in the years between, notwithstanding the sudden change in financial conditions, only a few months ago, it is a fact to-day, that there are a less number of people out of employment in this Dominion of Canada than there were eleven years ago. That means, and can only mean, that Canada needed the people who came in the intervening years-that Canada needed these people, that these people have found a place in the well-being of Canada and that we have had the benefit of their coming. My hon. friend was eloquent on the desirability of keeping Canada for the Canadians, for those of us who were born here. Well, we want Canada for ourselves. But we cannot have something and at the same time give it away; we cannot keep Canada for ourselves without keeping it to work in for ourselves. If we are going to have other people In this country to help to develop the country and make money for us, we have to give them their share in the country. We could keep Canada for ourselves-our hon. friends opposite kept Canada for us very well, they were most successful in that policy. But I do not believe that even they themselves were satisfied with it; at any rate, the country was not. If we are to have that success in the development of the country that we look forward to, that we expect, that we plan for and work for, we can only have it by an increase in the number of workers in the country; and we can get that increase in the number of workers by bringing people from other countries to help us develop this country.
In regard to this particular question of bonus, I think it is just as well that we should deal with that matter at some length. I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) dealt with it, because I believe there is a very widespread wrong impression in regard to it. And, just in passing, I must thank my hon. friend for having read to this House the remarks which I made some years ago. I would like to say to him that what I said then seemed to me just as good as it seemed to him, and it seems to me just as good to-day as it did then, and expresses my opinion and my policy-so far as I may speak of my policy-to-day, as it did then. I will not remind the House, however, that Mr. OLIVER.
when I gave expression to-these views, I had not a solitary endorser on that side of the House.


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give me the name of one.


Samuel Hughes: These gentlemen had not votes at that time-possibly that is the reason.	'	.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is alluding to, and I do not know whether he knows himself or not. I repeat that the views I expressed in regard to indiscriminate immigration I hold to-day as strongly as I held then. The policy of the government to-day is to carry out these views-let there be no mistake on that point. And the system of bonuses, as it is at present administered, is distinctly a system of selected immigration -so intended, so carried out, and successful in being carried out. Because bonuses are given, it does not follow that they are an inducement to indiscriminate immigration. Advertising may be necessary in carrying on a certain business, but the advertising may be one kind or it mcly be of another kind. Your canvasser may put forward one kind of argument or he may put forward another. So the system of offering bonuses may be put forward in one way or it may be put forward in another way. And to-day the matter does not admit of question that the system of bonuses as now administered is distinctly and specially a system looking toward selected, not toward indiscriminate, immigration.
My hon. friend was very much perturbed about the possibility of our paying bonuses on people, who, having come to Canada, pass on to the United States. He did not know how we avoid paying these bonuses, or how, if we paid them, we could possibly get the'money back. I am afraid he did not study his own remarks before he made them as well as he should have done. He told the House that the United States keeps a most careful check upon all immigrants passing from Canada into the United States. He told the House what this check at the hands of the United States government rereveal to him, He had every faith that it was a complete check, that it w-as absolute and correct. He must know that, if this information was abialable to him, it is just as available to the officers of the Canadian Immigration Department, and that, by co-operation with the officials of the United States immigration service, it is possible for us to have the same advantage of an absolute check upon the immigrants passing through Canada to the United States-check in which the hon. gentleman reposes the most implicit confidence. Therefore, we do know, as a matter of fact, from the returns of the United States government, exactly how many, and exactly

who, of the immigrants who have come to Canada have passed to the United States ; and if, upon any of these, bonus has been paid, that amount is deducted from the next amount due that booking agent on bonus account. Nothing could be simpler, nothing could be easier, and nothing could be more satisfactory it seems to me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why have we no report of that?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will agree with me that there are more things in heaven and earth than are covered by the reports made to this House. It seems to me that the reports made to the House, not excluding the numerous returns asked for from time to time, receive very little attention from the House or country, judging from the discussions that take place on this floor. However, if this has not been reported before, I hope the hon. gentleman will consider that it has been reported now, and that he is aware how this payment of bonus is checked by the Canadian Immigration Department.
My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) enlarged greatly upon the enormous amount that had been paid in bonuses, aud the stupendous danger of paying money upon undesirables. He spoke of our receiving 100,000 immigrants from European countries and suggested to the House, so that it might be reported to the country, that there was a probability, a reasonable probability, that bonus had been paid on every one of these immigrants. Now, he knew perfectly well that there was no foundation for that statement-pardon me, I should not say that; but the figures in his hand which he read to the House showed that there was no foundation for the statement. Just to recall some of those figures, he gave the House something like this: From the United States there was an immigration in a certain year of 30,000 of
40,000	people, and on that immigration there was some $3,000 paid in bonuses. In regard to general immigration there was in 1904-5, 146,266 immigrants arriving, and bonuses were paid on 28,836, or a little less than one in five of all those that arrived in that year. In 1905-6, 189,000 arrived, and a bonus was paid on 33,608. In 1906-7, nine months, 124,667 arrived, and a bonus was paid on 14,094; that is about one in nine. In 1907-8, nine months, 235,328 immigrants arrived and a bonus was paid on 20,492, that is about one in twelve.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are still unsettled accounts.


Frank Oliver: I have given my hon. friend four years ; so while it is quite true that some accounts are yet unsettled, I think they will balance each other. At any rate, we are not paying on a greater proportion of the total arrivals than I have just indicated. Now what do these figures 213


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
show ? They show first that we are not paying a bonus on all immigrants who arrive ; they show that the number on which we are paying is from one in five to one in twelve of all those who arrive. That shows that our officers are exercising due diligence in carrying out our regulations and that they are exercising proper care in the payment of bonuses that my hon. friend was very careful not to give them credit for in his remarks. He gave the idea to the House that there was collusion between the officers of the department and these immigration companies. If there was collusion, certainly the moderation of these people is wonderful. If there is an improper agreement between these companies and the officers of the government, and if having that free hand my hon. friend has suggested, they only paid bonuses on one in five or one in twelve that came over, certainly they are a very moderate minded people. But in point of fact, the hon. gentleman's figures disprove his contention ; they prove absolutely that the regulations regarding the payment of bonuses are effective, and that they are honestly administered. Now, if they are effective and honestly administered, and if the bonus figures are as I have just stated them, the conclusion is irresistible that the bonuses are paid with discrimination, and are not paid indiscriminately. If we pay on only one in five, or one in ten, or one in twelve, we must pay on that small percentage for some reason, there must be some basis on which we make the payment. Now why did we pay on that small number ? Because they are the classes of people that are satisfactory to us, the kind of people that my hon. friend himself will not dare to say should not be admitted to this country, or should not even be encouraged to come here. The figures I repeat are proof absolute that the policy of the government is a policy of discrimination in regard to immigration, and that the payment of bonuses made in pursuance of that policy is effective in carrying out the policy.
My hon. friend was worried about the North Atlantic Trading Company, and he thought the North Atlantic Trading Company had numerous successors who, I suppose, he wished us to understand were even worse than the North Atlantic Trading Company, more secretive and| more ravenous. He knows that the agreement with the North Atlantic Trading Company was terminated on the 30th of November,
1906.	From that time forward no bonuses were paid on continental immigrants until the order in council that was passed in
1907,	and then a bonus of ten shillings was paid on adults to selected booking agents in certain European countries. Under that system, during the months from March. 1907, to February, 1908, bonus was paid to these selected booking agents for immi-

[Stage Direction]
grunts of the classes described coming from certain countries of Europe, to the number of 1,211 men, 390 women, 555 children, or £930 in all. That is all the bonuses paid on continental immigrants under the system which the hon. gentleman has been pleased to term a system of indiscriminate bonusing of immigrants coming from the continent of Europe. He has been good enough to say that in all probability the bonus has been paid on Italians, and he seems to have a very strong objection to such a thing. Now for good or bad reasons the government has not paid any bonuses on people coming from Italy since some time I think in 1902. Italy was one of the countries where a bonus was paid on immigrants to the North Atlantic Trading Company, I think in the first year of its operation. But the bonus was withdrawn as regards Italy and several other southern European countries, and since then no bonus has been paid on immigrants from Italy. The total number of immigrants coming from Italy on whom bonuses were paid, were I think in all 72, and that was five or six years ago. So that whatever may be charged against the bonus system, certainly the objections which my hon. friend has expressed to the Italian residents of this country are not chargeable to that system. In order to make it perfectly plain that the policy of the government is one of discrimination, it is only necessary to read the provisions of the immigration law, to which my hon. friend gave his assent in the session of 1906. Let me remind him and others of my hon. friends on the other side that their assent was not by any means a cordial assent to the provisions of the Act. They had a great deal of fault to find with a good many of its provisions, nearly as much fault as they have to find with the provisions of the regulations regarding bonuses. But, remember that Act was passed and it is in force and it is being enforced. Nothing can be plainer than the intent of the government and of parliament at that time was that while there should be an active and energetic effort made to secure a good and desirable class of immigrants for this country' it should be a part of that policy, a very necessary part of it, that there should be accompanying these aggressive measures to bring immigrants, parallel energetic and effective measures to exclude undesirable immigrants. That was the mandate of parliament expressed in the session of 1906, embodied in the provisions of the Immigration Act and has been the policy that the government has carried out ever since. My hon. friend has been pathetic as to the woes of the municipalities, especially in Ontario and Quebec brought about by reason of the presence of undesirable immigrants. The city of Montreal, it seems, has been plagued with them, and the city of To-Mr. OLIVER.
ronto has been plagued with them. I do not know but that a great many other places may have been plagued with them. I notice that the city of Montreal is very glad to publish from time to time the statement, blazoned as largely as possible, that the population of Montreal has increased over a previous period and that the city of Toronto is doing likewise. These municipalities are glad to announce that their population has increased, but you cannot have an increase of population without having an increase of people and if you have an increase of people you can hardly have it without having an increase of the disabilities and disadvantages that go with ordinary people in this country. If the city of Montreal, or the city of Toronto, or any other municipality has suffered in the way my hon. friend has said then it is the fault of Montreal, the fault of Toronto, the fault of the other municipality and not the fault of this government or of its Act or its administration. Section 32 of the Immigration law says :
All railway or transportation companies or other persons bringing immigrants from any country into Canada shall, on the demand of the Superintendent of Immigration, deport to the country whence he was brought, any immigrant prohibited by this Act, or bv any order in council or regulation made thereunder, from being landed in Canada, who was brought by such railway, transportation company or other person into Canada within a period of two years prior to the date of such demand.
Section 33 says :
Whenever in Canada an immigrant has, within two years of his landing in Canada, committed a crime involving moral turpitude, or become an inmate of a gaol or hospital or other charitable institution, it shall be the duty of the clerk or secretary of the municipality to forthwith notify the minister thereof, giving full particulars.
2. On receipt of such information the minister may, on investigating the facts, order the deportation of such immigrant at the cost and charges of such immigrant if he is able to pay, and if not then at the cost of the municipality wherein he has last been regularly resident, if so ordered by the minister, and if he is a vagrant or tramp, or there is no such municipality, then at the cost of the Department of the Interior.
That is the law. That was the law passed by parliament. That is the law under which the government is working and I say that under the provisions of that law, if any municipality complains as my hon. friend says they complain, it has no ground to complain of the Immigration Department or of this Liberal government, because in every case, where representations were made by a municipality deportation has been carried out.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Do I understand that deportation can take place at the cost of the municipality ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but it can also be made at the cost of the government, but the point I wish to emphasise is that if a municipality wants an immigrant deported the provisions of the law are there and under these provisions he can be deported. If he is not deported it is not the flault of the law and it is not the fault of this government. I agree with what my hon. friend has said that it is a tremendous hardship to deport people. It is a must unfortunate thing when deportation has to be carried out. I quite appreciate the consideration of the municipalities in not asking for deportation of unfortunates who are within their limits. It is to the credit of the municipalities that they should have such a large feeling of charity, but there is the law and if they do not want to take advantage of its provisions I submit that they have no right to complain of the government which does not carry out the law except upon their demand, and especially there is no cause of complaint from our hon. friends opposite who are a party as much as we are to the provisions of this law. My. hon. friend also found fault with us because we allowed the people to get into the country that should be kept out. He said that the hurry and rush of landing passengers made it impossible to preserve an absolute check upon them on their arrival. Admitting the truth of that there is still the provision for the deportation of any undesirable who comes in. If he is discovered within two years he may be sent out. But in regard to the actual conduct of the examination at the port of landing, it is not the mere formal affair that the hon. gentleman suggests. It is true that a large number of people have to be landed in a very short time, but it is also true that on the slightest suspicion that anything is wrong with any of these people they may be taken aside from the general rush and held for examination. That is done and there is a very large number checked at the port of landing and returned from that port. He says that the provisions of the United States at these ports of landing are more efficient than ours. Possibly they are, but I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that to-day in the House and in the papers of this country there was blazoned abroad a complaint that the medical officer of the Immigration Department at the port of Halifax had delayed unduly a steamship load of immigrants. The same gentlemen who are demanding greater delay in the landing of immigrants, who are demanding that there shall be more particular examination, which means certainly either a very much greater expense to this country or a much greater delay to passengers, are complaining because they 2131
say that a load of passengers was unduly delayed.


Samuel Hughes: Was not the complaint that the officer at Halifax was not at his business, that he was up town canvassing and that he allowed the passengers to remain on the ship ?


Frank Oliver: No, the complaint as stated on the floor of the House is as my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has stated it, but the complaint as read from the newspaper was distinctly not as my hon. friend has stated it. The newspapers did not say that the doctor was canvassing when he should be attending to his duties.


Samuel Hughes: He did not come until three o(clock in the afternoon.


Frank Oliver: The newspaper was careful not to say that he was not attending to his duties as he should, but it said there was a delay of the passengers and I submit that the hours mentioned did not show there was an undue delay, but quite the contrary. It shows that this statement was sent broadcast through the country just as a thousand other slanders have been sent broadcast through the country, and with just as little justification. The United States is at present pursuing a policy of exclusion of immigrants; it has no policy of bringing in immigrants. If we are to take the policy of the United States then we know exactly what to do and we can do as they are doing. I hope that if we ever have to undertake such a policy we will be more successful than they are, because, with their efforts at exclusion they received last year over one million immigrants and of that one million from 45 per cent to 50 per cent were of the very class which our friends on the other side of the House consider as being undesirable for Canada. The immigration situation in the United States differs materially from our situation. Their climatic and other conditions are attractive to a certain class of people that our country is not attractive to. Certain phases of the immigration question loom large to them where they loom small to us because of different conditions. Their attitude is one specially of exclusion but ours is not an attitude of exclusion. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) did not dare-I use the word without offence-did not dare to put upon the records of parliament a motion declaring for an exclusion policy; he did not dare to say that he was against a policy of active immigration. And as long as this country is to have a policy of attraction for immigrants it cannot handle its immigrants as they come at the ports of landing as would a country which has a distinctly exclusion policy. We must give facilities for our immigrants to land with the least possible discomfort. We must so conduct our business at the ports that we shall not exclude those whom we desire to

come here. In the United States they can exclude everybody, that is their law, that is their policy, that is their business. But it is not ours, and we cannot carry on our business at our ports ns they carry on their business at theirs. I am bound to say that after all, although we do not have nearly as large a staff at our ports as they have at theirs, although we do not take up nearly as much time as they do, in the last result we have just about as effective inspection of immigrants as they have. They have, by agreement with ' the Canadian government, an inspection of immigrants bound for the United States, at Halifax, Montreal, Quebec and St. John, where they handle their immigrants just the same as if they were landing at United States ports. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) was terribly worried about what became of immigrants excluded at Canadian ports by United States officials. I can tell him what becomes of them. If a passenger ticketed for the United States is excluded by a United States official at a Canadian port he goes back on the steamship he came on. The same rule prevails at New York ; if an immigrant arrives at New York ticketed for Canada and if our officer there says he is to be excluded the United States authorities see that he goes back on the steamer he came on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have we an examining officer at Ellis Island ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is he ?


Frank Oliver: Doctor Elliot.


Samuel Hughes: The minister said that the newspaper did not state that this doctor at Halifax was not charged with being absent from his post.	.


Frank Oliver: I said that the newspaper did not charge he was canvassing when he should be at his post.


Samuel Hughes: I don't care whether he was canvassing or anything else, lie was not attending to his business, and I will read what the newspaper says if the minister will permit me.


Frank Oliver: I don't think that has anything to do with the question I am dealing with now.


Samuel Hughes: The newspaper says the doctor did not come there from early morning till three o'clock in the afternoon.


Frank Oliver: We are inquiring into the matter, and I hope to be able to lay before the House a statement with regard to it. I can assure the House that if the doctor at Halifax was not attending to his duties when he should have been, we will probably be able to get along without his valuable services. This question of dealing with immigrants on their arrival is a serious question, it is a difficult question, it is an im-Mr OLIVER,
portant question. I beg to assure my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that the government appreciates just as highly as he does the importance of excluding undesirables from this country and has taken all active measures that can be taken to achieve that end. But it is one thing to take the position that we are there simply for the purpose of excluding, and another thing to take the position that we are there principally for the purpose of bringing into our country those whom we desire to assist us in building our country up. That is the difficulty that confronts the Dominion government in dealing with this question of immigration, and we certainly think we are entitled to a fair consideration from our friends on the other side of the House in our efforts 'to deal wi|th that question, rather than that we should be met by what I consider to be unfair criticism of details of the policy in regard to difficulties which cannot be avoided and which are inseparable from the carrying out of the dual policy of aggressive immigration effort on the one hand and exclusion of undesirables on the other. That I take it is the policy of this government. Let there be no mistake about it. And, one part of it is just as important as the other. It is just as important that we should use our efforts and spend our money to bring desirable immigrants to Canada as it is that we should keep out undesirable immigrants. Our friends opposite have during several sessions assumed, and their press throughout the country has assumed, that the government's policy was a policy of indiscriminate immigration, and yet there was a law on the statute-book and there was enforcement of the law at every port. My hon. friends opposite have no warrant for the position they took, and if they had ever a warrant for that position they have no warrant from this time onward. It is not long ago since in an effort to make it possible to carry out our understanding and to compel the fulfilment of our obligations, there was before the House a little amendment to the Immigration Act; a trifling little matter of some four or five lines. It was an absolute necessity to the intelligent and effective enforcement of certain provisions of the law. We have to face an immigration question on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic. It is different on the Pacific from what it is on the Atlantic. The immigration differs at every point of the compass. It was necessary to adopt a restrictive policy on the Pacific coast. Different measures were suggested in regard to that restrictive policy but it was thought well in the interest of the country, in the interest of the empire, that a conciliatory rather than an aggressive policy should be adopted in connection with the immigration from one country at any rate. In pursuance of that idea an amicable arrangement was arrived at with that country, and it is hoped that a

similar arrangement can be arrived at -with another country that is in a somewhat similar position in regard to immigration. _ But an agreement with Japan as to the .restriction of immigrants from Japan to~Canada, or an agreement with the government of India as to the restriction of immigrants from India to Canada was of no value without the provision we asked this House to pass the other night. It was absolutely of no effect.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Did the minister say that the regulations passed by the House were above the treaty ?


Frank Oliver: No I did not say anything about the treaty. The gentleman who should be my hon. friend's leader took occasion to state his opinion to the House on that subject, but I do not think he maintained it, I think he was very glad to drop it before he got very far. However, my hon. friend will have an opportunity to maintain that same position at a later stage of this debate. My statement was that the agreement we arrived at with Japan and the agreement we hoped to arrive at with the government of India, agreements which are' absolutely necessary in pursuance of our immigration policy and our trade policy on the Pacific coast, did not receive enthusiastic endorsation from our friends on the other side. I was surprised to see that. After the question had been threshed out for an hour, and the amendment had been twisted in every direction, when it was explained to our hon. friends that it was a matter of urgency to have this little amendment to the immigration law passed that evening, the Prime Minister was refused that courtesy, he was told it could not be passed, although our friends opposite had been informed that the date of its going into effect might be deferred for three or four weeks, and that as a consequence very serious complications might have arisen. I was glad to see when the House met the next day that our friends had experienced a change of heart ; there was nothing wrong with the little amendment to the Immigration Act and it went through without change.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister should be fair enough to admit that it was the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that prevented it going through the first night. He was not here the next night and in his absence it went through ; that was the only cause of delay the first night.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has a great deal to answer for on that side of the House, but I do not think he was entirely responsible in this case.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I was wholly and entirely responsible for holding back
the Bill, and if it had been held back for ten minutes longer the next evening it would have been delayed still more.
Mr. OLIVER, I am not here to argue. I merely, state the facts. I instance this to show that the government's policy is well defined, that it is a continuous policy, and that it does not receive that support from our friends on the other side that their remarks from time to time would indicate it should receive at their hands. VVe have not only the provisions of this Immigration Act which I have already mentioned to the House, but have found it necessary on account of the changed conditions in this country during the last few months to make certain changes in the administration of the law such as we are empowered to make by the provisions of the Act ; because my friends will notice that while the Immigration Act contains certain very definite provisions, it also recognizes that new conditions may arise at any time and that it is necessary that the government should have the power to meet these new conditions as they arise. Provision is made in the Act for the passing of regulations by order in council to meet such conditions as may arise from time to time. Taking advantage of that provision in the Act, last fall when there was a change in the condition of the country that seemed to make it very desirable, we provided that there should be a money qualification in certain circumstances on the part of immigrants arriving in this country. That I hope my hon. friends will consider is not an indication of a policy of unrestricted immigration. On representations made by our agent in Great Britain, Mr. Bruce Walker who was then assistant superintendent of Immigration in London, in regard to the work of the charitable associations in Great Britain and its effect upon the immigration situation in Canada, we passed on the 25th of February another regulation which provided that persons coming to Canada by assisted passage could be excluded unless they were approved before they left their homes by our agent in that country. This is surely not an indication of a policy of unrestricted immigration. Surely these regulations bear out my statement that the avowed policy of this government is a policy of selected immigration, is a policy of restricted immigration if you like, while at the same time, it is a policy of aggressive immigration.
In order that there may be no mistake about the attitude the government assumes the government aware of its responsibilities, aware of the requirements of the country and carrying out its policy of selected immigration makes announcement in large type on the first page of its latest publications, the following :


IMPORTANT.
[Stage Direction]
Farmers, farm labourers, railway construction men and female domestic servants are
[Stage Direction]
the only people the Canadian Immigration Department advise to emigrate to Canada. All others should get definite assurance of ern-loyment in Canada before leaving home and ave money enough to support them for a time in case of disappointment.
That is an expression of the immigration policy of the government of Canada to-day as set out in the printed representations they make to the people whom they desire to come to the country. How, in the face of that, can my hon. friend suggest that our policy is a policy of unrestricted or indiscriminate immigration ? We cannot be held responsible for the efforts of charitable associations. We cannot be held responsible for the movement, of free citizens of other countries who choose to come to this country. We can only be held responsible for the efforts we make, and we make those efforts only to secure the classes of people that I mention. No one in this House, even at this time, will suggest that this is not desirable, that it is not in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada that reasonable efforts should be made to induce these classes of people to come to this country.
What was the condition a year ago in Canada? At that time, from one end of Canada to the other, there was a demand for unskilled labour. The demand was loud and insistent from every part of the country. It was proclaimed in the newspapers that railway construction was being held back because there were not sufficient people to work on the railway; that the factories could not fill their orders because they could not get operatives; that the farmers could not work their land because they could not get the farm help they required. And at the same time the broad fields in the Northwest were waiting settlement. What policy, in such circumstances, could be suggested for a progressive government but a policy of aggressive immigration? It is not so very long since we had a session of parliament here. The intervals between sessions seem to be getting shorter as the country gets older. It is just about a year ago to-day, or a little over, that we had a discussion in this House on the question of immigration, and some of our friends opposite then relieved their minds on this question. At that time there seemed to have been a rather strong-sentiment in favour of immigration. My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. La-vergne) had some thing to say. I fancy he will follow the lead of my hon. friends on the other side and declare against immigration to-day. A year ago my hon. friend from Montmagny said:
There is another feature of the immigration policy of this government which I desire to call to the attention of this House and the country in general. It is the most unjust way i j which French immigration and the province cf Quebec has been treated.
Mr. OLIV FT?
Armand Renaud La Vergne: I did not say that. The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Frank Oliver: He did not say It ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I did not mean it either.


Frank Oliver: He did not say anything in the whole course of his remarks.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Why then this reference?


Frank Oliver: In my opinion he did not say anything, but this is as near as he came to saying anything, and what I gather from it was that he was dissatisfied because the government had not used greater endeavours in order to secure more people for the province of Quebec.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. gentleman is again mistaken, but no doubt that is as near as he can come to understanding what I said.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is absolutely correct. That is as near as I can claim to an understanding of his remarks. I submit them, as they appear in * Hansard ' to the House for special consideration. He said further :
I could also give figures to show that the French immigrant has cost less to this country than the British, and I only mention this to show that if the Department of the Interior were not so savagely opposed to it, it would be easy to bring French emigrants to this country.
We had an hon. member in this House at that time, who, we are pleased to see, is not among us now. I refer to the hon. member for Labelle.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: He discussed the question of immigration. He said:
My views are these. Because the fathers of confederation decided, and decided cvisely, that this should be a dual country-French in its origin, British by assimilation, taking from both races and both civilizations its best moral, social and political characteristics-I maintain that the equilibrium between the two should be maintained, and it is in the interests of all British citizens in Canada that Frenchspeaking population should be developed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend to-day is in favour of more immigration.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hear, hear. The hon. gentleman ought to remember too that we favoured interior immigration from one province to another which the government opposed then and opposes still.


Frank Oliver: I shall have something to say on that later on. Our friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-after a considerable amount of remarks which I think were as difficult to bring to a conclusion as the re-

marks of my liou. friend from Montmagny (Sir. Lavergue)-also said:
But I claim that you can get from Scotland from Ireland, from England, from Belgium, from the north end of France, from Brittany, from Auvergne, from Franche Comte a most desirable class of immigrants. You can get from these mountains a hardy race of men who would come to our eastern provinces and take up small farms because any of them have a small capital at their disposal of $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 and as much as $10,000, who will go into the older provinces as some of them have done without any inducement whatever from the government without any literature being distributed amongst them, having come of their own will because they happened to learn something about Canada. ... I claim that we have room for a large number-perhaps not for hundreds of thousands.
I think the House will admit that the then hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) was advocating an increase of French Immigration to Quebec, and my hon. friend from Montmagny will not say that that occasion was the only one, in the course of his parliamentary experience, on which, when my hon. friend from Labelle said * yes ' that my hon. friend from Montmagny did not say: ' Me too.'


Mr. A. LAYERGNE.: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer ?


Frank Oliver: No, I am satisfied. But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) also had something to say on that occasion. He was rather strongly in favour of immigration at that time. He did not have so many faults to find with the policy of the government. He said:
Let us look at the present situation in France, and let us ask what the Canadian government has done to induce French settlers to come to Canada. . . . Nothing has been done by the government to induce such people to settle in Canada. . .
There are at present in France perhaps, ten millions of people who would be prepared if, in the proper way, the advantages of this country were shown to them, to consider emi-giation to Canada, large numbers of whom would come to this country-eligible people who would make excellent settlers and would quickly become accustomed not only to our pclitical institutions but to our national life in every sense.
To-night he has found serious fault with this government because it has spread its efforts in regard to immigration to the extent of paying a bonus to booking agents on settlers coming from France, and because having offered that bonus and continued it for the year at ten shillings, they increased it to $5* per head at the beginning of this year. He has experienced a change of heart or else he would not have found fault with the government for using reasonable endeavours to secure a desirable class of immigrants from France to Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because you are not taking the proper means.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend said that we should not give bonuses to booking ageuts, but that we ought possibly to pay bonuses to the immigrants themselves. Well, that policy was adopted by his friends when they were in power and it was a failure. It was found not desirable and, was abandoned by them. This government has not seen fit to revive it. Such a policy would be the policy of assisted immigration, and assisted immigration is distinctly contrary to the immigration policy of this government. Let that be distinctly understood.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You assisted a great deal too much I think.


Frank Oliver: Except In the case of the Icelanders, in which a bonus is paid the shipping company, thus reducing the fare to that extent-and no one will question the propriety of using reasonable endeavours to get Icelandic immigration-with that exception this government has not spent any money in assisting immigration or with regard to assisted immigration. And I want to impress on the House that we have taken the position that assisted immigration is not desirable as a rule. We have taken power to absolutely exclude it unless it is first approved by our own officers in the country from which it starts. That makes our position on the subject of assisted immigration perfectly and absolutely clear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You assisted the Doukhobor -paid $50,000 for that purpose.


Frank Oliver: We did assist the Doukho-bors. I think that what was done in regard to these people was that some concession was made, the same that was made in the case of the Icelanders-the bonus was used as a part payment on the transportation. There was some exception made-I am not now clear exactly what it was-to the rule in the case of the Doukhobors. But, as I had occasion to say to the House a little while ago, when this question was up before, what was done in regard to the Doukhobors was not done in the dark, but in the full light of day, and, with one or two exceptions, on which I need not dwell, the action of the government received the absolute assent of this House and of the press and the people of Canada. I say it is too late in the day to call in question the policy of the government in regard to the Doukhobors.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman: but what does he say regarding a trachomatous immigrant who is kept for six months in the hospital?


Frank Oliver: A trachoma patient is required to pay his own expenses in the hospital, and, if he does not pay, the steamship company must pay or he goes back-that is

all there is in regard to that. I want to make it perfectly clear that the hospital treatment of trachoma is at the cost of the immigrant or of the shipping company. The immigrant arrives suffering from a 'disease which renders him undersirable. But it is a curable disease. Under our law. he is liable to exclusion and to be sent back on the steamship, and unless the steamship company is willing to pay the charges necessary to bring about his cure, back he goes and that is all there is about it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not the law.
facturers an this country are handicapped very much by shortness of female help, particularly the canners. I would like the minister to consider whether it would not be well to encourage women to come over, and give a bonus on bringing them as well as the men.
And another hon. gentleman on that side, whom I see in his place, said :
I will ask the government to make a more intelligent and more active propaganda in 1 ranee where we have but two agencies. I should think that our efforts should be directed especially towards securing emigrants in provinces.


Frank Oliver: Well, it is the practice. And if there is no law for it, I hope he will not be one to raise a question as to the system under which we are acting. It seems a reasonable and proper system and one that exactly meets the views he expresses. So far as the Pacific coast is concerned we have there, in view of our present attitude in regard to immigration, ceased to give treatment in these hospitals; so, when a trachoma patient arrives on the Pacific coast, he is sent back on the ship on which he came. Another hon. member of the House had something to say on the occasion of that debate ;
dliis shows that the policy of the Immigration Department is to direct these immigrants to the western lands


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) say that they are not going to the United States yet?


Frank Oliver: I say there is not one of our native Canadian population going to the United States for ten that went fifteen years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The United States report of last year says that in 1907, there were 19,918 Canadians went to the United States.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the same as ever-there is no change.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has more faith in the United States returns than I have. I think I can produce evidence that is better than any return. Previous to 1896, there was in some of the New England cities an absolute preponderance of French Canadians. At the same time there was not in the Canadian Northwest any appreciable increase of Canadian population. These facts are within the knowledge of every man in this House, and they do not need to be supported by reports of immigration officers or by census returns. That there are a million and more of Canadians in the States, any person who travels in the States will know. Go to any of the large cities in the United States and you will find a Canadian club ; go into any legislature of the western States and you will find Canadians occupying positions of more or less prominence. In every part of the United States are our people to be found. They went there instead of going to populate our own country, but to-day our country is being populated by our own people. We are getting people from other countries, it is true, but the most satisfactory feature about it is that our own people are going to our own Canadian Northwest, so that notwithstanding the inrush of people from Europe and the United States, to-day Canadians are the dominating influence through the four western provinces. That result has been achieved under the present immigration policy that my hon. friend deplores as one likely to de-Canadianize this country. It was the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite that de-Canadianized Canada, and that Canadian-ized every one of the northern States. This country cannot stand still, it must either go forward or backward. The immigration policy of this government is a policy of going forward ; the policy of my hon. friends whin they were in office was a policy of going backward. To-day the hon. gentleman. seeing a little change in the financial condition of the country, thinks he sees an opportunity to secure a party advantage at the expense of the country, and he proceeds to take it, and no doubt will have able assistance from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We have confidence in the intelligence of the Canadian people and their ability to understand the situation. We deny absolutely the accusation that the policy of this country is one of indiscriminate immigration. It is a policy of discriminating immigration, a policy that only looks to getting the best and excluding those that are not the best, so far as that is possible. On that line we are working and on the results achieved we desire to be judged.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think I can congratulate the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in having deserved the compliments of the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has been able to speak of French immigration without being accused by the Minister of the Interior of raising racial prejudices, and creed questions in this House. Last year when the debate on immigration took place, to which the minister referred, my hon. friend stated that I had the honour of occupying a unique position in this House. I am sure he has found out to-night that I do not occupy a unique position in this House, and if he goes out into the country he will find that I do not occupy a unique position. Evidently the hon. gentleman has kept in his mind the debate of last year, but he has not answered the arguments made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to-day, or the arguments made last year by Mr. Bourassa and myself. For instance, we stated last year that although the government had cancelled its agreement with the North Atlantic Trading Company, they were still paying bonuses to booking agents ; the minister has not contradicted that. We stated last year that the policy of the North Atlantic Trading Company had been a failure, and the minister has not contradicted that to-night, nor did he last year. We stated last year that the system of paying bonuses to bring immigrants into this country had the effect of bringing people into this country of an undesirable character, and the minister has not contradicted that. We stated last year that the system of bonuses was still in existence ; the minister contradicted that last year, but he did not contradict it to-night. We stated last year that they were bringing all kinds of people to this country under the present system ; the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stated that to-night, and the minister has not dared to contradict it.


Frank Oliver: If I did not deny it before, I certainly take the opportunity of denying it now. But with my limited knowledge of English, I am under the impression that I did deny it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am glad the hon. gentleman denies it now. I will

prove that the present immigration policy of the government is a dangerous one, and will have the result of breaking up confederation ; I will prove it by the words of the minister himself when he had no portfolio to safeguard. Take the common-sense point of view. Is there an hon. member in this House, including the minister himself, who will say that the paying of bonuses to booking agents who have nothing in common with this country, who do not know any thing about this country, has not the result of bringing to Canada a mass of immigrants without any regard to quality ? As the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stated this afternoon, there is no man in this country who would adopt the same policy for a herd of animals ; there is no man who would pay a bonus to an agent in Europe to send him a number of animals without paying any regard to their quality. But let us see what the minister said himself when he was plain Frank Oliver. In 1902 he used these words :
Let me say further that it appears to me to have been a mistake in the past to have spent so much money as we have in paying bonuses to steamship companies for the conveyance of immigrants, and for this reason:	We made
the steamship companies by that means our immigration agencies

Where is the difference this year ? If we are not making the steamship companies our immigration agents, we are making the men who sell tickets on those ships our booking agents.
-and it did not make any difference to the steamship companies what the character of the immigrant was, or where he was from so long as they got the bonus. It seems to me, from my point of view, that this is a most undesirable system and a most undesirable expense, and I would ask that it be not continued. . . . To depend on the steamship companies is to put a premium upon the worst rather than upon the better.
That is what I said a year ago, and what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier said to-night. The minister spoke thus also: I
I would like to say still further and to urge upon the House at large, upon hon. members who come from all parts of this Dominion, that the immigrant who is of the most benefit to this country in every way is the man of our own blood, namely, the native born Canadian, who, finding it necessary to shift his ground, must go either to the United States or to the Canadian Northwest.
I will prove that this government has been directing immigration from other countries, and opposing the movement from our own east to the west. But the minister, when he was still plain Frank Oliver, in 1903, said this :
Something has been said, I understand, about the paying of bounties or commissions to induce immigration. To my mind, if ever there was need for that system, that need has passed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The payment of bounties and commissions has a tendency to bring the less desirable rather than the more desirable class of people. The work of introducing immigration is carried on in many different ways. Some are better than others; and I would take the liberty of suggesting to the House that there is a certain system being carried on to day which is in every way desirable, a system which is producing the best possible results and which may very well be enlarged so as to continue these results.
But the boil, minister, before he accepted a portfolio, said that the payment of bounties had the result of bringing a less desirable class of immigrants into the country. I could go on and quote statements of the minister extending over a series of years. Even since he has been a minister he has expressed himself on this subject and notably when the North Atlantic Trading Company contract was announced. The reason given by the minister for the contract was because the government did not want to pay bounties and bonuses to individual booking agents. This is what the minister said in scoring a point against the Conservatives:
Now, to whom did our hon. friends on the other side pay the bonuses? They paid them to individual booking agents-so their letters show. To whom did this government pay in the years preceding the contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company? They paid to individual booking agents.
To whom do they pay now? Not to any individual booking agents but to the North Atlantic Trading Company, a collective interest of booking agents. And do they get value for their payments? Judged by the standard laid down in the letter of Sir Charles Tupper they do. And any man of common sense, not wrapped by political bias, will agree that that is the main question.
Since the contract has been denounced I want to ask the minister if the government pay bonuses to individual booking agents. The reason given for entering into the contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company was a false reason, or, if it were not false, how is it that the government has denounced this contract and has gone back to the system of paying bounties and bonuses to individual booking agents? The minister has been meditating on this question for twelve years and he has not given us an answer yet.
We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that, with the class of people we are getting, assimilation would not be possible. The minister says that in the Northwest there is everywhere the stamp of Canadian civilization. Let us open the report of the Department of the Interior and read a list of the immigrants arriving for one month. It is as follows:
African, south; Australian, Austrian, N.E.
S.; Bohemian, Buokowinian, Croatian, Galician, Hungarian, N.E.S.; Slovak, Belgian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, N.

E.S.; Alsace-Lorraine, Prussian, English, Welsh, Scotch, Irish, West Indian, Jamaican, Greek, Hebrew, N.E.S.; Hebrew, Russian; Hebrew, Polish; Hebrew, Austrian; Hebrew, German; Italian, Japanese, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Portuguese, Poles, N.E.S.; Poles, Austrian; Poles, German; Poles Russian; Persian, Roumanian, Russian, N.E.S.; Finns, Spanish, Swiss, Servian, Danish, Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian, Turks, Armenians, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabians, U.S.A. Citizens, India.
This is the stamp of Canadian civilization that is being put upon the Northwest. We find in a total of 109,000 immigrants, no less than 9,OuO returned Canadians. Let us go a little further. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier pointed out this afternoon that there had been a movement started in the United States against immigration, but let us see the proportion of immigrants who come into this country and the proportion of immigrants who go to the United States. Let me point out to this House, that a man who knows something about immigration, an economist of world-wide celebrity, P. Leroy-Beaulieu, says that the immigration is greater than the natural increase of the Canadian born population. What was the population of the United States when they were receiving about the same proportion of immigrants that we are now receiving? As my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier says then they had fifty million of a population. To-day the Americans, with a population of eighty-seven million cannot assimilate one million immigrants a year; that is 115 immigrants for every 10,000 of the population. Canada, with a population of only six million received 215,000 immigrants in 1905-6. Last year we received about 300,000, or 360 to every 10,000 of the population and next year it will probably increase to 400,000 or 500,000. We have received in six years 736,000 immigrants. I see by ' Hansard ' that the unit of representation was, in 1903, 25,736. We have received enough people to supply 29 new counties in Canada. In four years at that rate we will have received enough to make 60 new counties, or 5 less than there are in Quebec, and still we are giving to the Northwest the stamp of Canadian civilization and we are assimilating this new population. The immigration which comes from the British isles has been proved to be the least desirable class in the Northwest, and this is attributable to the bonus system because it has prevented us from getting the best immigration which we could receive and that is immigration from the British isles. I am reluctant to weary the House with figures, but I desire to make a comparison between' the position of the United States and that of Canada with respect to immigration. The following table will show the proportion of immigration to population of the United States from 1790 onward:
Year.	Population.	Periods.	Total immigration.1790	3,929,214	1790-1800	$ about 75,0001800... .	5,308,423	1800-1810	75,0001810. .. .	7,239,881	1810-1820	75,0001820	9,638,453	1820-1830	151,8241830	12,866.020	1830-1840	599,1251840	17,069,453	1840-1850	1,713,2511850	23,191,876	1850-1860	2,598,2101800	31,443,321	1860-1870	2,491,4511870	38,558,371	1870-1880	2,812,1911880	50,155,783	1880-1899	5,246,6131890	62,622,250	1890-1900	3,687,564
The United States never received immigration exceeding 11 per cent of the population, while according to the figures of the Department of the Interior in Canada, from 1901 to 1911, Canada will receive foreign-born immigrants to the extent of 37 per cent of the population. When the United States had fifty million of a population they did not receive more than 300,000 immigrants per year. President Roosevelt and the scientists and economists of that country arc alarmed and are doing what they can to exclude immigrants. I could quote more figures to show the House that since 1850 in tue United States the foreign-born population was never more than 15 per cent of the total population. In Canada the foreign-born population is 12-7 per cent of the total population. The total population of Canada was at the last census, I believe, 5,371,315, and the foreign-born population is a little more than 684,000. In four years, according to the estimate of the Department of the Interior, the total population of Canada will probably be about eight million and the foreign-born population will be about two and a half million; that is 30 per cent of foreign-born population. But, as to this assimilation, let us hear a voice from the west; let us hear a man who ought to know something about assimilation of population in the Northwest, and here is what was said by Mr. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, speaking at Pictou on June the 10th, 1907:
To show that I am not mistaken in my conclusions upon this point, allow me to point out this fact-that in the last ten years, according to the figures compiled by the Immigra-gration Department of the Dominion, there have come into Canada, in round figures,
900,000	souls. Of these, only 350,000 were British born, the balance (550,000) are either Americans-citizens of the United States to the South of us-or people from continental Europe. I may say that, according to the same authority, a larger proportion of those who came to us who were not British born, covering this period, came from the United States, than came from Europe.
Now, it is only a logical conclusion to say that the same ratio at least will be maintained in the future as has obtained in the

past. It is a reasonable statement, therefore, to say that a country of eighty millions of people immediately adjoining, who have no more free lands to offer to their people, will naturally, by virtue of the natural increase of population, continue in much larger percentage to emigrate to our ' last west,' as it is called. The same with continental Europe. They have 400,000,000 of people to draw from, and they are coming from every nation, while we have only about 40,000,000 to draw from in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
Foreigners will control.
Without any doubt whatever, it is only a matter of five, certainly not more than ten, years with the same ratio of immigration that has characterized the last five years, when the foreign-born citizens of western Canada can, if they choose, take all matters of government absolutely into their own hands.
That speech was published in the press all over the Dominion ; it was read by the people of the west and I am told that the popularity of the Premier of Manitoba has not suffered thereby. Even the Minister of the Interior himself speaking of the North Atlantic Trading Company said that this system of paying bonuses to individual booking agents cannot be checked. More than that, we have in the old country, hypnotized immigrants to come to Canada and I do not want any better proof of that than the statement of Mr. Bruce Walker contained at page G6 of the report of the Department of the Interior for 1907, where he says :
Since I have been in charge of the propaganda here, under your Lordship, I have sought to impose a higher standard upon those classes of emigrants over which we have control particularly, and over all emigrants generally. I disapprove strongly of efforts to paint Canada as a ' land flowing with milk and honey/ or a place providing an easy existence for those who readily tired of work. The greatest attraction of our country is the ready results that follow energy, ambition and determination.
Here, according to the report of an officer of the department, Canada has been represented as a land flowing with milk and honey. We have been told by the Minister of the Interior that we do not pay bonuses for immigrants to come to this country, and that the bonus to the booking agent is simply for advertising Canada. Does the minister pretend that the advertising of Canada in the old country is read only by farm labourers or railway navvies and those of the classes we desire to bring here ? Does he not know that the advertising of Canada reaches every class of the population there and that it brings to our country the disabled and degenerate. Such representation have even a more decided effect on a population of destitutes. I say that the immigration agents have brought immigrants to this country under false pretenses and I further say that when the government paid these bonuses they had no proof that they were paid on account of farm la-Mr. A. LAVERGNE.
bourers or navvies, or those whom the regulations prescribed it should be paid on. I want no better evidence of that than that which is given by Mr. Scott, superintendent of immigration, before the Committee on Colonization and Agriculture, and which I quote :
By Dr. Sproule:
Q. As I understand it you merely ask immigrants whether they contemplate following agricultural pursuits when they come here? -A. We do at the ocean ports.
Q. That is all the information you have as to the classes to which they belong?-A. Yes, they are questioned as to their age and occupation.
Q. What occupation they have been following?-A. What occupation they have been following in the old country and the manifest is prepared by the purser of the ship who is not a government officer and certified to by the master of the vessel.
Therefore, the certificate of the occupation of the man who comes to this country is prepared by the very people who have an interest in bringing him here and receiving the bonus, as is proven by the evidence of an officer of the department. I quote further from the evidence of Mr. Scott :
I should have thought a government officer would look after that work and see that nobody but certain classes were sent out?-A. Anybody who has the money can buy a ticket.
Q. But if he has the money will he get the bonus?-A. No, but I say any one can buy a ticket in the old country.
Q. The reason I ask is because I know of several men who came out here; I was told they were farm labourers and had come out to follow farming and I took the trouble to inquire and in the case of six or seven there was not a single man who was on a farm in his life?-A. That might be quite true.
Here is the superintendent of immigration saying that bonuses might be paid on men who were brought out as farm labourers and who never had worked on a farm in their lives. The examination of Mr. Scott continued :
Q. And yet they were sent out and called farm hands?-A. No, not called farpi hands. They were sent out here to follow agricultural pursuits and on an English farm the labourer receives as good money as he' receives here and in addition he gets work all the year round instead of only seven or eight months.
if. Tt seems to me that is not the question; it is whether we were misled or not in reference to the class of people coming out?-A. I do not think so. The manifest shows the evidence.
Q. What manifest?-A. The manifest signed by the purser of the ship.
Q. Do you not pay the booking agent?-A. Only if they are agriculturists or intend to follow that occupation in this country.
Therefore a man can buy his ticket from a booking agent and the booking agent does not care about Canada, he cares only, about

the bonus he is going to get and the commission on the ticket and he says to the man: Just say that you are a farm labourer or that you want to work on a railway and you will get into Canada. The examination of Mr. Scott continued:
By Mr. Wilson:
Q. If they say they intend it ?-A. Yes.
By Mr. Ross:
Q. Do I understand they make a declaration to that effect?-A. They answer questions at the port.
Q With reference to the Salvation Army do you insist upon the same class that you pay the bonus on?-A. The same class.
Q. Or do you pay the bonus on all they bring f-A. No, on the same class.
Q. What was the percentage they bring?- A. I think possibly their percentage has been a little higher than some of the others.
I want the House to remember well what has been said about the Salvation Army because when we come to consider the ports [DOT]of Canada we will see the acts of the Salvation Army.
Q. Has the arrangement been completed with reference to the land they get in the Northwest?-A. I know nothing about the land.
Q. Will that not come under your office to some extent?-A. No, we have nothing to dro with the land in the west.
Q. You have nothing to do with where they shall be sent?-A. No.
Q. Who does that?-A. The land branch, I suppose.
Here is the Superintendent of Immigration who does not know' where the immigrant goes in this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hear, hear.
Mr. ARMAND LA VEItG-NE. But we are told by the Minister of the Interior that the bonus is paid on the immigrant, not to the Immigrant. As I have said we have been advertising Canada as a patent medicine Is advertised and what has been the result ? The result has been, as with any patent medicine, that the diseased have been coming to this country. I care not what kind of disease they are suffering from, mental, physical or moral, it is certain that they have been coming to Canada. As the minister himself said when he was a plain member of this House, the best advertisement we can have for this country is a contented settler and as the minister has proven to-night by trying to show that we do not pay a bonus on the greater part of the immigrants we receive. Stopping the bonus will not stop immigration coming to this country but we will have the quality instead of having the quantity sent to us by different booking agents to secure the bonus paid by our country. To-night, as last year when the immigration question was threshed out in this House, the minister tried to prove that we were not paying bonuses on many of these immigrants sent out by organizations but later when the subsidies came down it
was seen that the immigration agents of the government, such as the Church Army, were asking in England for such immigrants as these, tramps, loafers, ex-convicts, drunkards hooligans. That is the kind of immigration we have been receiving in this country, and these immigrants have been canvassed by the very agents of this government. Has this government disallowed the Church Army? I have searched in every record of the government, in every record of the Department of the Interior, and I have not seen that the Church Army has been disallowed, except that this year a certain number of their immigrants were sent back. Why ? Because last year we denounced this policy of the government and were called little Canadians by that broad, that immense Canadian, the present Minister of the Interior.
The Salvation Army is still an immigration agent of this department and what have we seen in Quebec? I have no hesitation in saying and I dare the minister to contradict me, that nine-tenths of the immigration which has been sent out by the Salvation Army is bad, and I want no other evidence than that of the doctors who receive the immigrants at the port of Quebec. And I say this too, that there has been some collusion between the Salvation Army and the officers at Quebec.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has asked me to deny a statement he has made and I do not want his statement to go on record without my denial.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then I defy the minister to have an inquiry into the Salvation Army and the immigrants it has brought into Quebec, and to ask the doctors at Quebec to give their evidence; but I hope this time the government will not stop the mouths of the witnesses who give evidence. There has been collusion between the officers at Quebec and the Salvation Army, and I have it from the very officers who receive the immigrants at Quebec that before they pass the medical examination of the officers of his department the immigrants of the Salvation Army go to the barracks and get the password of the Salvation Army at Quebec and then go back and answer the doctor. The minister cannot contradict that if he looks at the correspondence produced.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member is making a great many statements which he puts forward as statements of fact. The statement he has made just now that members of the Salvation Army or immigrants coming out under the auspices of the Salvation Army are treated any differently from any other immigrants who come out, so far as my knowledge goes, is absolutely incorrect; and if I can by any means demonstrate that it is the fact we will have a change in the immigration service at Quebec immediately.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I accept the personal denial of the minister but you will notice that it is not an official denial and I repeat it officially


Frank Oliver: We will make this as official as we can. If my hon. friend will give me name, place and date, I will make it official inside of twenty-four hours.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All last summer, the immigrants brought out by the Salvation Army were sent to the barracks and there they got the password from the Salvation Army officers to answer the doctors of the Immigration Department. Not only that but a report was made to the Interior Department here and after that report was made, it was understood by Mr. Doyle and the immigration doctors at Quebec, I think Dr. Nadeau and Dr. Potvin, that if there were one hundred Salvation Army immigrants they would pass before the doctor first but if less they would go to the barracks first. That is the statement I have to make and on it I would like the department to throw more light.


Frank Oliver: I will guarantee all the light that is possible and if the statement is true I will consider myself under very serious obligations to my hon. friend for making it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I knew the minister would be under obligations. Last year we made statements and he made changes, and this year he will make more. If he will have an investigation of the methods at Quebec he will learn many things that will enlighten him and he will be still more grateful to me.
But the minister has told us that if the immigrant was not satisfactory he would be deported. If he came here in transit through Canada to the United States he would be deported, and was generally deported, and no immigrant who was brought into this country and was found undesirable was not deported. Let us look at the statement. First of all we see no report of the immigrants refused by the United States who have been deported by this government and more than that we see that the very immigrants coming to this country who should have been deported have not always been deported. We have had to-night the first declaration of the minister on this subject. We see certainly that some have been deported at the port of entry for certain reasons, but there are some in Montreal who come under section 33 of the Immigration Act who have not been deported. The minister says that no complaint has been made.
I understand that quite well. Suppose a city like Montreal or Toronto would make a complaint, do you know what the minister would answer? Yes, they will be deported, but you pay the cost. That is the regulation of the Immigration Department. I say that with the number of immigrants coming


Frank Oliver: to this country it would be impossible for a city to do this, it would ruin the budget of any city to have to deport the immigrants received who are not desirable.


Frank Oliver: It may be that my hon. friend is not anxious to adhere strictly to the facts but he should get a little closer to them. The Act says that the immigrant is to be deported at the cost of the transportation company bringing him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Or those making the complaint.


Frank Oliver: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I asked the minister and he said yes.


Frank Oliver: If the transportation company is not known then at the cost of the person making the complaint.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Have we not seen that the transportation company is not known? We have seen from the evidence of Mr. Scott that they do not know the immigrants or where they are, and how would it be possible to know what transportation company brought them? Therefore, you would fall back on a city like Montreal or Toronto. And what do we see in those cities in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario which have received those immigrants? We see that criminality there has increased to such an extent that the public press of this country deem it advisable to publish articles on its alarming increase. Let the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) ask any judge of the assizes in Montreal or any other city, or any police magistrate, if nine-tenths of those who are convicted before them are not foreigners brought to this country at so much per head, or, if no bonus was paid on them, brought by the false pretenses of immigration agents who paint Canada as a land of promise with a view of getting the bonus on a certain number. And because of these glowing descriptions, you will always find that a good many of the abandoned and destitute in the old world will be tempted to seek better fortune in the new. There is something else. In Montreal already we have had to face the social question which until to-day was there practically unknown. Last year we had a socialistic parade and we are to have another this year. I knew the Minister of the Interior was a Liberal, but I could not know, he was a Liberal to such an extent that he wanted the red flag raised in the city of Montreal.


Mr. MEDRIC MARTIN (St. Mary, Montreal).: My hon. friend states that last year there was an anarchists parade ; I may say that three-fourths of those people were from New York, and were visiting in Montreal for the occasion. One or two women were among the paraders. The demonstration was stopped by the civic authorities and it will be stopped again this year.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend (Mr. Mederie Martin) says that last year the parade was stopped and will be stopped again this year and that most of those who took part in it came from the United States. But if the l*on. gentlemen on this side of the House are true Liberals, it seems to me that, having brought out those immigrants under false pretenses, the least they could do, if they have brought out socialists, is to let them parade. You must respect the opinion of the immigrants who enter this country. And I must say also- even if I have to contradict my hon. friend from St. Marys (Mr. Mederie Martin) for whom I have the greatest respect-that while the parade may have been composed to a certain extent of a certain foreign element. it was composed mainly of a foreign population brought to this country through the immigration policy of the government. Is it not true that in Toronto last winter there were about 15,000 people without work and that 500 poor little children of immigrants died of starvation in that city? If that be the result of the bonus which the government pays, are we not justified in denouncing it? And if the Minister of the Interior will go to Vancouver, he will find there racial riots, which though they may not be the result of bonused immigration, are the result of throwing the door open to all kinds of immigrants. There is this exception, namely, the government put a head tax on the Chinese. But they do not put it on the Japanese. I would like the Minister of the Interior to explain the difference, from a racial or national point of view, between the Chinese and the Japanese. If there is a yellow peril, it is just as yellow with the Japanese as with the Chinese. There is this difference between the two that you will not find the Chinese despising every other nation as do the Japanese and the immigration regulations passed by the department are not above the Japanese treaty.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Would you keep a man out of this country because he declares himself a socialist ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly not, but what I say is that the socialistic movement is found among the destitute of the old world and previous to these destitutes coming out here we had not any socialists in this country.


Ralph Smith: Perfect nonsense.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is very easy to say, but if you go to the old country you will find two classes of people fighting against organized society and these are the socialists and one degree further down the anarchists.
iMr. RALPH SMITH. You will find socialists in the House of Commons in England.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sure of one thing and that is that if my hon. friend were in the House of Commons in England, where his talents ought to bring him, he would not be sitting on the socialist side.


Ralph Smith: I would not exclude a man because he declared himself a socialist.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I never said I would either; but what I say is that the propaganda of the government has had the result of penetrating to the socialistic centres and bringing out the destitute to this country. If socialism means anything, it means an appeal to the destitute and the poor on the ground that they should have their share in the wealth of those who are rich.


Ralph Smith: Good doctrine.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But there is one doctrine superior to socialism, and my hon. friend has heard about it, I am sure, and that is the Christian doctrine. If you look into the report of the Department of the Interior-and here I crave your indulgence because I am going to start on dangerous ground, I am going to speak of the Belgian and French immigration. And I tell the minister of the Interior that I am going to raise all the racial appeal and appeals to prejudice that I raised last year, and will add another argument to which he may find an answer. 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.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman define hooligans?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Let the hon. minister look for the definition in his own department because it is his department that are bringing them out. As the old French proverb says:
Dis-moi qui tu hantes,
Je te dirai qui tu es.
Tell me whom you go with and I will tell you who you are.
Mr. OLIVER, Does the hon. gentleman say that the Department of the Interior directly or indirectly suggested the immigration of people such as he described?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly, and I am going to prove it. Is the Church Army or is it not an immigration agent of the government.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend has not looked into his own report, because he will find in it a whole page about the Church Army,


Frank Oliver: That does not prove that the Church Army is an agent of the government or that the government is in any way responsible.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the Church Army not carrying on a propaganda ? Has it ever been disallowed by the government ? Is there a fine against such propaganda? Every police magistrate in England is an immigration agent for this country.


Frank Oliver: I am not responsible.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly, and in this way. The government has opened the door to that kind of immigration, and I am not quite sure that their agents have not said to the Salvation Army to send out more.' More than that, the Salvation Army is paid a special bonus by this government. Is that true or is it not.


Frank Oliver: It is.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Therefore there is no use in the hon. minister contradicting it. Take what Mr. Speers says, in the report of the Department of the Interior, about the Belgian immigration:
The great majority of the French and Belgian immigrants are farmers and have taken up land. Most of the Belgians and French Canadian immigrants and settlers have gone to Lake Monroe, Jack Fish, Moo-ejaw, Trampink lake, and southwest of Moosejaw >n Saskatchewan and in Manitoba some have gone east of Lake Manitoba, to Toulon and to Makinak. In Alberta these settlers have gone to the districts east of Stetler Daysland and on the Battle river, and a number have settled east and west of Red Deer and north of Morim-bille. Indications will show that possibly 150 families will be located north and east of Wood Mountain on the Canadian Pacific railway during this season.
And he says that these settlers are very successful and thrifty. And that, no doubt, is why we have just one immigration agent in Belgium. But there is more than that: when the famous North Atlantic Trading Company were in operation, when its members not known and were not in danger of being sent to prison or of being driven to suicide, why was it that this company did not operate in France or Belgium ? We were told then that the French government had the greatest objection to canvassing for emigrants and the French laws forbade it, and also that the Belgian government was very much opposed to canvassing for emigrants within that kingdom. We were told that, I think, by the minister himself.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, my memory is, that the reasons given were the direct opposite.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Oh, no, do


Frank Oliver: Well, I have expressed the opinion and I may explain. The North


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Atlantic Trading Company did not cover France and Belgium in its operations, because it was considered that in those countries it was possible to carry on an open propaganda for emigration, and so it was being carriecUon by a resident and duly accredited cotmtry agent in both countries. It was in other European countries that the North Atlantic Company operated because in those countries it was not possible to carry on an open propaganda.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I expected that answer from the Minister of the Interior, but he is caught there. Why is it that the North Atlantic Trading Company was operating in all the rest of continental Europe while there was no immigration agency or propaganda going on. in France or Belguim ?


Frank Oliver: The only reason is that there was a propaganda going on in France and Belgium.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There was one man who used to be a professor of elocution in this country, M. Wialiard, and another man who was lame, M. Foursin Es-candre. That was the propaganda. And we were told by the minister-I remember it well-that the French government would not permit any more active propaganda, Well, perhaps he would say that as the propaganda went on, some men would be driven to suicide or would be sent to prison because the French laws would not permit an active propaganda.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armand Lavergne) deny that the laws of France do not permit an active propaganda ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do deny it.


Frank Oliver: Then I am afraid the hon. gentleman is not well acquainted with the laws of France.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have the law of France here and I will read it.


Médéric Martin: From a newspaper.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes. I do not believe in newspapers very much, perhaps, but I believe that this is a correct reprint of the law of France. Here is the title:
' Loi Francaise sur l'emigration.'


Médéric Martin: What date ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: '18 juillet, I860.' It has not been changed since.


Mr. BUREAU.: What paper ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The best paper in Canada-' Le Nationaliste. Here is what the law says.
Article 1. Nul ne peut entreprendre les operations d'engagement on de transport des emigrants sans l'autorisation du ministre de

^agriculture, du commerce et des travaux publics.
That is the whole and sole prohibition in the French law of an emigration propaganda. I will translate it for the benefit of the Minister of the Interior.
No person shall undertake the operation of engaging or transporting emigrants without the authorization of the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Public Works.
And why is this ? It is explained in the rest of the statute-it is to safeguard the emigrants from suffering during transportation. And that is the whole and sole law in France prohibiting a propaganda in favour of emigration. I suppose the minister will be satisfied with this. Now, let us turn to the case of Belgium. In Belgium, not only does the government not prohibit canvassing for emigrants, but there is no emigration that the government of that country favours so much as emigration to Canada. Belgium is a very prosperous country. But it has too large a population for its superfices, and, as it has no colonies, it likes to send its surplus population to Canada. Thus, there was not only no prohibition. but there is actually encouragement in Belgium for emigration to Canada. But there was no active propaganda to encourage emigration. More than that, there was only one emigration agent, M. Treau de Coeli, who might do much better work if lie had better help. And. at the same time, this emigration, as shown by this very report of the Department of the Interior, is the best that can come to this country, as these people are farmers and succeed very well. And not only that, but, as I stated last year, when the Belgian exposition was held at Liege all the propaganda that was made for the older provinces amongst the Belgians in the form of pamphlets to encourage the Belgians to come to this country and these pamplets, by order of the commissioner of this government, were put in the cellar of the Canadian pavilion and ordered to be left there until the exposition should be over.


Frank Oliver: Does the bon. gentleman (Mr. Arinand Lavergne) object to the payment of a bonus to Belgian booking agents?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I object to paying a bonus to booking agents in any country. My position is clear, if the minister did not understand it last year. I hope he will understand it this year. He has put enough questions to ascertain it, but he may put as many as he likes and I shall be glad to answer them. I object to bonuses to booking agents in any country-France, Belgium, Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland or even the Russian countries that are the greatest friends of the Department of the Interior. As I have said before,-I cannot give it in the eloquent language of the hon.
minister, though it is practically the same idea-the result of the bonus system is quantity not quality and it tends to bring the undesirable instead of the desirable. This is the opinion that was expressed by the minister himself.


Samuel Hughes: He was not minister then.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I^o,-he
was a Little Canadian. We are told that the French do not emigrate-we have been told that many times. Certainly the French do not emigrate to this country as the British people do or as those of other continental countries do. But there is good reason for that. In France and Belgium the same propaganda is not carried on as is carried on in other countries. But I want to contradict the general statement. The French do emigrate. One proof is that there are 100,000 Frenchmen in the Argentine Republic. There are 50,000 French people in the United States.


Médéric Martin: What is the population of the United States ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My recollection is that it is about 80,000.000.


Médéric Martin: The French immigration is not a large proportion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Perhaps not, but it is enough to prove that the French do emigrate. If you look up the report of the Department of the Interior of France, for the year before last, you will find that 92,000 people left France in that year. I may be contradicted by some figures published in this country but the figures given by the French government are good enough evidence for me. I say that this bonusing of immigration can have two excuses-I will not say that it can have any justification. The excuse is either that the government wants to see the land speculators in the Northwest sell their lands or. as Mr. Smart, one of the government agents, said in Liverpool-and the Minister of the Interior cannot contradict me-to prevent this country from being Frenchified. The Minister of the Interior knows that Mr. Smart said that in Liverpool.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that, he may have said it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will read it to him again, I read it last year.
Tile ' Northern Express/ Liverpool,, February 10, 1902.-British blood is needed.


The Hon.  J. A.@: Smart, Deputy Minister of the Interior of Canada, and Mr. W. T. R. Preston, immigration agent general for the Dominion, arrived in Liverpool to-day from London and Glasgow to arrange a gigantic system of British immigration to Canada.
Mr. Smart said this :
More British blood is also needed to be infused if the views of the Dominion of Canada



is not to be Frenchified by the rapid growth of the French population.
Is that the reason of the present immigration policy of this government, to prevent this country from being Frenchified ? I thought the spirit of this country was that we should cease talking about these questions. I am glad to take the same view that the member for Strathcona (Mr. McIntyre) did last year. I do not think I am raising any racial question, or any creed question, when I say that I see no reason why the deputy minister of this country should go to England and tell the people that they must prevent Canada from being Frenchified.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that Mr. Smart said that.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have just read what he said.


Frank Oliver: I know what the hon. gentleman has read, but I do not believe that Mr. Smart ever said it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, I believe that Mr. Smart did say it, not only do I believe it, but I am sure of it. I read it last year, and I asked the Minister of the Interior to contradict it. If he could have contradicted it he would have done so, but he has not contradicted it. The Minister of the Interior knows that the province of Quebec counts for something in the majority of this House, and that these words of Mr. Smart will not help the government in the next election ; therefore he would have contradicted these words if he could. Mr. Smart has not contradicted them, and he cannot contradict them. The minister said that the best immigration we could have into this country was not people from foreign countries, but our own Canadians, and that the best immigration policy was to prevent Canadians going to the United States, and send them to the Northwest. But what do we see ? We see that it costs less to bring an immigrant from the continent of Europe to the Northwest, than it does to take a man from the province of Quebec to the Northwest. This cannot be contradicted. If the government wants an immigration policy, why dont they adopt the policy of sending people from the older provinces to settle in the Northwest ? That is not what is being done, that is not what this government is encouraging, but that is what this government is opposing.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: I understood the hon. gentleman to say, or to intimate, a short time ago that too many foreigners were being infused into the population of Montreal and the province of Quebec. Now he puts forward the idea that the government is making no effort whatever to settle the older provinces.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I did not say that, I said that the bonus system of Mr. A. LAVERGNE.
immigration adopted by this government 'had the result of bringing to this country, not farm labourers, but men who are criminals in their own country, according to the declaration of the Italian consul in Montreal, men who come to this country under false pretenses, and who are swarming into our cities because they do not know how to work. If you abandon the bonus system you will improve the quality of immigrants a hundred per cent, because they will not be attracted to this country by the false representations of booking agents, but by the contented settlers who have preceded them in this country. The new comers will settle in the older provinces instead of going to the Northwest. I have asked this government why it was that under the present system, a young man of the older provinces had to pay more for a transportation ticket to go to the Northwest than the foreign born European or the citizen of the British Isles. That is what I complain of.


Wilbert McIntyre: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he thinks it should form any part of our immigration policy to move population from one part of Canada to the other.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do think so, because that is the way that western Canada lias been settled. If the hon. gentleman will study the history of our country lie will see that the people of the old provinces have been gradually spreading out west, and the settlers that go from eastern Canada are no worse than those who come from foreign countries ; I think they are much better, because they are Canadians. That is my policy ; but the policy of this government seems to be to bring in masses of people without regard to quality, to fill up the western country and help speculators sell their lands in the west. They are trying to get every kind of immigration except French speaking immigration. Every right is denied to the French speaking element except the right of paying. But the Douk-hobors can run around naked from place to place. Sir, I think the policy of this government will lead to the political murder of our country. As has been well said by many economists, we are laying the foundation for a mongrel nation in Canada. According to the report of the Department of the Interior itself, we are laying the foundations of a mongrel nation. I say that is political murder, and I say that from a French Canadian point of view it is not only political murder but it is suicide. as it has been well pointed out by one of the greatest economists in the world, Mr. Louis Arnould, in 'La Revue des Deux Mondes.' Some hon. members of this House may have no objection to committing suicide, but I have, and I will never be an ac-

above the imports. I think, as a matter of fact, they are a little below-far below. The prosperity they' bring is that of crime, disease and idiocy. Therefore, if this is all the prosperity that these immigrants bring in to our country we have no need for prosperity of that kind, and the minister ought to remember that prosperity does not mean the bringing about of a greater amount of criminality or an increase in the number of lunatics in our country. If we compare our prosperity with that of the United States we must come to the conclusion that the United States has to-day the worst immigration problem of any country in the world to face. To-day they have a restrictive policy. They have to face the whole question and it will be remembered that one president of the United States has been assassinated by anarchists. If that is the future prosperity that immigrants are going to bring to our country, we may well expect in the very near future that the Canadian-born population will be at the mercy of the foreign-born population and will become an insignificant minority. Therefore, for these considerations, if I have to take a stand against my political party on this question, it is because I place above party the future of my country and if, on this question as on many others, I have to choose between my party and the future happiness of my country, I choose my country.
On motion ot Mr. Verville, the debate was adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this debate go on to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: This debate will go on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 14, 1908.