Mr. ARTHURS:

In representing one department of this government as more inefficient than another, I cite the Department of Immigration. I have no desire to attack any particular officials of that department; individually they are hard working men. But without proper direction, and without any settled plan or policy, they are helpless and the results are most deplorable. The people of Canada are aware of this and are demanding some real results from the large expenditure on immigration.

This year's estimates provide, in this connection, for $5,162,900, apportioned as follows: Immigration, $3,462,900; Land Settlement Board, $1,400,000; health branch in connection with immigration, $300,000. This does not include upkeep or rental of offices and buildings or of quarantine, or what may be in the supplementary estimates, nor does it include the very large sums spent annually by the Canadian National Railways and by the Canadian Pacific Railway, amounting to approximately $1,500,000; neither does it refer to the amount expended by certain of our provinces who maintain their own immigration officials. It does not cover the cost to and the labour of various charitable and religious organizations which have operated so successfully in past years.

The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) claims credit for every immigrant brought over to this country or coming of his own accord. Let us see what the situation is. According to the government report, from 1910 to 1920, which included four war years, our immigration was as follows:

British.. .. United States European. . .

687,215

821.490

466,738

Total 1,975,443

Average per year 197,544

During the next period, from 1920-21 to

1924-25, our immigration was as follows:

British

United States European.. .

273,887

135,750

161,648

Total

571.285

Thus it will be seen that during this period approximately one-half the immigrants entering Canada were British. During the following year, 1925-26, the immigration was as follows:

British 37,030

United States 18,778

European 40,256

Total 96,064

In other words, the immigration from European countries was much greater than

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs

the British immigration, for the first time. During the following year, 1926-27, the immigration was as follows:

British 49,784

United States 21,025

European 73,182

Total 143,991

During that year the immigration from European countries was greater than the combined British and United States immigration. Then we take the last year for which we have a record, 1927-2S, and we find the following figures:

British 50,872

United States 25,007

European 75,718

Total '.. .. 151,597

Again the European immigration is equal to the combined British and United States immigration. We must also remember that the immigration to Canada from the United States is not composed1 entirely of Americans; the great majority of the people coming to this country from the United States are classed as aliens in that country. The United States Labour department returns 'for 1928 show that of the 25,007 people who left the United States for Canada 14,797 were aliens passing through the United States to this country. Thus we see that although we have spent millions of dollars more each year we are getting less immigrants and a lower proportion of British and United States citizens.

According to the returns of the United States Labour department 673,683 Canadians entered that country as immigrants during the last six years, and our returns show that over the same period we brought into Canada from all countries approximately the same number. The United States returns are for native Canadians, born in this country, fit physically and not criminals, so really we are expending over $5,000,000 a year in immigration in order to substitute for an average of 110,000 good Canadians an equal number of immigrants most of whom do not speak our language or understand our laws. I have nothing to say against any immigrant who comes to Canada to make a home for himself, but no matter how good he may be he cannot be as valuable to this country as one of our own young men, thousands of whom are still leaving our land through lack of employment caused by the neglect of this government. What this country needs is a policy which will tend to have our raw materials manufactured at home; we should keep our

home markets for Canadian farm products and natural manufactures, thus giving employment to Canadians in Canada and making room for the proper class of immigrants from other countries, especially from Great Britain.

A few days ago I read a very illuminating editorial in the leading Liberal newspaper of Ontario, the Toronto Globe. This editorial deals with immigration. I am not going to weary the house by reading it all, since it occupies over a column of space, but I would like to read' just a couple of short sentences:

If Hon. Robert Forke's speech in the House of Commons on Friday is to be regarded as a major attempt at placing the immigration situation before the public, it must be considered as an unqualified disappointment. It carried too many alibi earmarks, found too many excuses and obstacles for which no solutions were offered, while it lacked the ' clear, ringing note in behalf of British immigration which the country has a right to look for, in view of the many professions of recent months that Canada wanted British blood and was prepared to use every effort to get it.

Further on the editorial continues:

Has the trepidation of government supporters, depending upon the foreign vote for their seats, caused the minister to waver? His own loyalty to the British principle has not been questioned. Something must have happened to cause him to weigh the subject as he did with such evident desire to placate discontented interests.

That editorial appears in the Toronto Globe of March IS, 1929. This government has had over seven years in which to forward the policy which I have enunciated, that of manufacturing our own goods at home, but they have utterly failed in their task and conditions in Canada are worse so far as the working man or the farmer is concerned.

There is a motion on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Rose.town (Mr. Evans), and although we cannot discuss it at present I wish to read it to the house:

Whereas the Board of Grain Commissioners have failed in the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and particularly the so-called Campbell amendment; and, .

Whereas as a consequence there is widespread distrust of this body among the farmers of the western provinces;

Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the members of the present board should be dismissed forthwith and a new board appointed.

If we substitute the words "government of Canada" for the words "Board of Grain Commissioners" and make a few corresponding changes, the resolution then would read as follows:

Whereas the government of Canada have failed in the administration of Canada; and,

The Budget-Mr. McMillan

Whereas as a consequence there is widespread distrust of this body among the farmers and working men of the provinces;

Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the members of the present government should be dismissed forthwith and a new government substituted therefor.

I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that this amended resolution would receive the approval of the great majority of the electors of this country.

Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron) :

Mr. Speaker, -in view of ifhe fact that the leaders of the Conservative party have once more -pinned th-eir faith to a policy of high protection, and in view of the further fact that when my time was -called on the evening of March 11 I had just entered into a discussion of the conditions prevailing in Canada during (the latter part of 1920, as they related to sugar, I propose to continue my argument at this -time.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I hope the hon. member

will confine his remarks to the subamendment.

Mjr. McMILLAN:

I intend to speak on

the subamendment. In view of all -that has been said, -and in view -of the fact that they have been preaching their policy of high protection, I propose to show just what effect high protection had upon the price of sugar during the year 1920. At that time the refiners, evidently believing that the price of sugar would continue high for many months, -made large purchases of raw sugar with the expectation of further profits. But for once they were mistaken. American sugar took a sudden drop and it began to flow into Canada at greatly reduced prices. The refiners became alarmed, they appealed to the government for assistance, and the members of the cabinet evidently decided that an avalanche of cheaper sugar coming into the homes of the Canadian people must be prevented at all costs. They became alarmed lest perchance some of our boys and girls might- get a teaspoonful of cheap sugar and, in Scottish parlance, it might "push-ion" them, so they at once invoked the dumping clause of the customs tariff, which had been devised for a very different purpose. Penalties were levied upon several consignments -of imported sugar, but still the inflow of sugar con, tinued. The government brought the board of -commerce, which they had appointed, into operation. It made the amazing order of entirely prohibiting the importation of American sugar for the time being, and set a price of 21 cents per -pound for Canada when sugar was selling at 12 cents per pound in the city of Detroit. Does anyone think that

that board of -paid civil servants would have m-ad-e any such order had they no-t been coached -by someone higher up, someone in sympathy with the refineries? But tremendous protests arose, in which even the government press joined, the government itself took fright, suspended the order, attempted to disavow all-1 previous knowledge of it, laid the entire responsibility upon the hapless board of commerce, and set October 20, 1920, as a date for hearing the appeals of those who had appealed against that particular order. What were the fa-ots? If we consult the press reports of that day we will find that-

Mr. BENNETT:

It is perfectly obvious

that the remarks of the hon. member have nothing to do with -the subam-endment.

Mr. CAHILL:

The remarks of the previous speaker had nothing to do with the subamendment.

Mr. BENNETT:

He spoke on the main

motion.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already ruled that where an amendment is moved to a main mot-ion, and then a su-bam-endment is moved, hon. members are entitled' (to speak on each separate amendment as if it were a distinct m-otion by -itself. In fact, -all the authorities say that it is a motion by itself, but they also state -that when an -hon. member speaks for the second time on one of the amendments he must speak on th-at *very -amendment and not refer to any other -matter. The main motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is:

That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go (into committee of ways and means.

Mr. Guthrie, seconded by Sir George Perley, moved -an amendment thereto. Then Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Irvine, moved an amendment to the amendment as follows:

That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:

"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."

The hon. member spoke upon the amendment. He is now speaking for the second time, upon the subamendment, and his remarks should be confined to that particular subject.

Mr. DUNNING:

The phrase "as a step

towards freer trade relations" appears in the sub-amendment, and I would gather from the remarks of the hon. member that he is advocating that freer trade.

The Budget-Mr. McMillan

Mr. MeMILLAN: I assure Your Honour

that I will respect your ruling, as I must do, but I desire to make it very plain that the subamendment moved by ithe hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) is in the direction of freer trade relations and has a very particular bearing upon the requirements of household life. Sugar is one of the things which is used in every household, and before continuing my argument along this line I will address myself particularly to the subamendment.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

The hon. member for

South Huron (Mr. McMillan) must obey the ruling of the Chair. The only question which he has discussed since commencing his remarks has been the importation of sugar from the United States. The sufoamendment deals with the enlargement or the increase of the British preference; he has not discussed that at all. The hon. member is simply playing with a ruling of the Chair, and he should be stopped.

Mr. CANNON:

Without discussing the

ruling which His Honour has just given, in fairness to all members of the house I would point out that if a strict interpretation of the rules of the house is given it should apply not only now, but later on in this debate when the subamendment is disposed of. I understand that the members who have not spoken already will be allowed to speak on the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment. W'hait position will they be in when the subamendment is disposed of and they are allowed to speak again?

Mr. BENNETT:

They must be limited.

Mr. CANNON:

If they have not spoken

on the main motion and the amendment, what position will they be in when the subamendment has been disposed of?

Mr. BENNETT:

They can no longer speak.