Mr. PUGSLEY:

I had that in mind. Ii it had, not been for that I would have thought that the vote should be reduced by half.

Mt. ROCHE:

If I had reduced the Estimate to $650,000 for this year the hon. member would have stated that it should be cut in half. I do not think he has sized up the situation in a sufficiently accurate manner. He has, of course, given his opinion, and the House is entitled to pay every respect to it; but the officials who

Mr. RGOHE:

We paid it out of immigration expenditure and afterwards had it by Governor General's warrant. We utilized about $120,000 of our immigration expenditure that year, before we drew upon Governor General's warrants.

Mr. PTJG-SLEY: Does not the minister

see that he does -not improve the case by what he says? What business had he to take the money that Parliament had voted for immigration -and use it to purchase seed grain? He had no business to do that. It was only done as -a temporary expedient, -awaiting the issue of -the Governor General's warrant, which should -have been issued in the -first instance, rather than misapply a vote of Parliament. Application should have been made at once for a Governor General's warrant to meet the emergency.

Now, the hon. gentlemen says he does not spend money in 'Canada for advertising? Did I understand him correctly?

Mr. ROCHE:

I stated that our policy

was not to spend money in Canada for advertising, but we have certain expenses.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

If hon. gentlemen refer to page K-62 of the Auditor General's Report, they will see what patronage the minister has extended to friendly newspapers.

I find here the following items: Belleville Intelligencer, $1,088 for pamphlets; Berlin, Canada Kalendar, advertising, $30; Berlin News Record, printing, $1,626.30. In Halifax, advertising matter, " Evidences of the Industrial A-soendancy of Nlova Sootia," $1,000; Halifax Herald, $3,705. Evidently my hon. friend must be distributing printing among friendly newspapers, as well as advertising. I find also the following items: Kingston, Jackson Press, $2,036; Kingston Standard, $1,003; London, Farmers' Advocate, advertising, one page, $310.

Mr. ROCHE:

That was a Christmas number for distribution in the United States.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

And some other expenditure will probably be accounted for by a holiday. It is advertising, just the same, and shows that my hon. friend did not mean exactly what he said.

Mr. ROCHE:

My hon. friend is mistaken in the meaning he attaches to the word advertising.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

My hon. friend said that he did not advertise in Canada for the Immigration Department. What he meant was that he did so under peculiar circumstances. That must be what he did mean, because that department evidently does a good deal of advertising. I find some more items here: London, Vanderhoof Gunn Co., advertising in Canada Monthly, $246; Montreal, International Railway Publishing Co., $90; Montreal Gazette, printing Atlas of Canada, $37,206; Montreal, Imperial Year Book, full page advertisement; Journal de la Chamkre de Commerce, half page advertisement; McGill Daily, full page advertisement; National Central Trades and Labour Council, full page advertisement; Montreal Star, advertising farm labourers.

Mr. ROCHE:

How much are these

amounts? I notice that my hon. friend skips the -small amounts

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Montreal, McGill Daily, $300. It is true that my hon. friend did not 'spend as much money upon printing matter in Canada as he did in the United States . He is like the Minister of Militia; he prefers to go to the United States for certain goods. He spent in Chicago: Chas. H. Touzalin agency, $53,755. A good deal of that was for advertising. Another item

of advertising in Chicago amounts to $60,000. In Toronto my hon. friend paid but $150 for advertising, in Vancouver $337, in Winnipeg $275 and. $50 and $70. I am not criticising the expenditure; I am criticising the statement of my hon. friend that he does not spend any money for immigration advertising in Canada. A glance at these items of printing, advertising, maps, and pamphlets, which run up to an amount between $100,000 and $200,000 will show that during the coming year to incur a similar expenditure under present conditions would be a waste of money. I would press very earnestly on the minister to reduce this vote by at least $250,000. This suggestion ought to be supported by economical gentlemen on the other side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Peel, who some years ago always raised his voice in *strong and earnest tones against unnecessary expenditure. I would move that this amount be reduced by $250,000.

Mr. OLIVER:

I have listened to the

Minister of the Interior explaining the reasons for the different items mentioned by the hon. member for St. John and setting forth why they were of the amounts appearing in the list that was read. It is a remarkable fact that under the Administration of my hon. friend, while settlement on the land has decreased by one-half, the expenditure to secure that settlement has a little more than doubled since my hon. friend's Government took office. The only reason that can be given for that state of affairs is that the Government has administered the department extravagantly and without regard to the results achieved. In 1911 there were 44,000 homestead entries, and the Estimate for immigration was, I think, $915,000. While settlement on the land has decreased year by year, until this year there will not be more than 20,000 homestead entries, the expenditure for the purposes of immigration increased from less than $1,000,000 to over $2,000,000. Last year it was a little less than $2,000,000, and this year it is somewhat more than a million and a half. That is to say, with only half the number of homesteads taken in this 'year, when there is no possibility of securing immigrants from Europe, and when there is every reason for every measure of economy that can be instituted, the minister's Estimates of this year is 50 per cent larger than it was in the year 1911. With settlement 50 per cent less, his expenditure is 50 per cent more. There is no way to meet

such a condition, except by motion to strike out. [DOT]

We do not wish to hamper immigration effort, but we certainly expect that immigration effort shall be well directed, and that reasonable economy shall be used. The expenditure, on the one hand, and the results on the other, show that there has not been economy or efficiency. It is true that the returns show that a large number of immigrants came into the country during a number of years, but the minister will not say, nor will any member of the Government say, that the money spent on immigration was spent for the purpose of bringing into this country persons other than those who would, directly or indirectly, settle upon the land. He will certainly not say that the money was spent for the purpose of bringing in labourers or artisans to compete with the labourers and artisans who are taxpayers of Canada. He will say, as he has already said, that the purpose of the expenditure on immigration is to bring in people who will either settle on land of their own, or work on land held by other people. Judged by that standard, his immigration effort must be considered a failure.

In regard to farm help, we have it on the authority of the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that it was absolutely impossible to get farm help in the province of Ontario. The immigrants brought out were not farm help, and the results of homesteading in the West show that they were not homesteaders. Therefore, instead of claiming credit for bringing out such a large number of immigrants, my hon. friend will have to explain to the country why those immigrants came when they were not required in the process of developing the country. In regard to the matter of extravagant expenditure, a return was tabled last session, in response to an inquiry as to the number of employees of several departments who had been appointed or dismissed, and the return showed that in the Department of the Interior 309 dismissals had taken place, that 374 officials of the department had resigned, and that 1,651 had been appointed, making a net increase of 968 officials in the Interior Department since my hon. friend's friends took office.

I have given figures which prove that the results achieved under the smaller expenditure were more in the interest of the country and bended more greatly to its development, than the results achieved under my hon. friend's larger expenditure. I have shown that, while this occurred, he has enormously increased the number of

officials in the service of the department. Therefore, I claim that the charge of extravagance and inefficiency against the administration of this department is maintained, and that the motion of my hon. friend from. St. John to strike out some part of this expenditure is well warranted.

Motion of Mir. Pugsley negatived: yeas, 9; nays, 22.

Administration of Chinese immigration-salaries, $28,000.

Mr. PTJGSLEY:

Will the minister explain where these Chinese are situated?

Mr. R'OCHE: This expenditure is largely in Victoria and Vancouver. It is to provide for expenditure in connection with the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act, such as travelling expenses of officers, carrying on investigations of Chinese eases; expenses of inspection of boats, carrying Chinese crews; expenses in connection with the prosecution and deportation of Chinese; for uniforms of Chinese inspectors and officers; printing and stationery, and temporary assistance and general contingencies at the offices of controllers of Chinese immigration at Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal.

Mr. OLIVER:

What number of Chinese came into the country during the current year, so far as returns have been received? How does it compare with the previous year's return?

Mr. ROCHE:

During the ten months of the current year there were 63 merchants and their families, and twelye who paid the head tax.

Mr. OLIVER:

The merchants do not pay the head tax?

Mr. ROCHE:

No.

Mr. PUGSLEY :

[DOT] What proportion of the head tax is paid into the Dominion treasury, and what proportion to the provinces?

Mr. ROCHE:

Fifty per cent of the receipts, minus the expenditure.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Fifty per cent of the net proceeds? *