the Lake navigation and the compensating works necessary on three routes: 1. Great Lakes via Welland Canal and Oswego to Hudson River. 2. Same route with additional canal cut around Niagara Falls on United 3. Great Lakes to Montreal via Welland Canal and St. Lawrence River. The estimated cost of these routes was respectively $506,000,000, $631,000,000 and $198,000,000. The depth to be provided was 30 feet in permanent structures, and 25 feet draft in canals. As to operation, it was estimated that the cost of haulage would be on the all-United States route, $2.06 per ton of estimated freight; on the Lake Ontario Hudson route, $1.64 per ton; and on the St. Lawrence route, 43 cents per ton. The latter route had largely the advantage in a minimum of retarded navigation, in less lockage and fewer bridges, whilst its distance between Lake ports and northern European ports was less by 625 miles than the Ontario and Hudson New York route. The time required for construction of the St. Lawrence route was from 7 to 8 years and the cost was estimated at from 123 to 198 millions of dollars, exclusive of water power installation. This cost was to be borne by Canada and the United States in proportions to be agreed upon, and Canada was to receive repayment in consideration of the work already done in the canalization of the route between the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. It was estimated that the water power developed in the construction of the St. Lawrence would reach a maximum of from 2,000,000 to 2,250,000 horse power. The Report of the U.S. Commission was made public on Jan. 3, 1927. It was immediately pointed out at Ottawa (Canadian Press despatch, Jan. 4, 1927) that the organization in Canada corresponding to the U.S. Commission, the Canadian National Advisory Committee, had not yet considered the Report of the Joint Engineering Board and as yet a meeting had not been called. The Committee at this time consisted of Rt. Hon. George P. Graham; Thomas Ahearn, Ottawa; Hon. W. E. Foster, Saint John; Beaudry Leman, Montreal; E. D. Martin, Winnipeg; Sir Clifford Sifton, Toronto; Major-General J. W. Stewart, Vancouver; Hon. A. Turgeon, Quebec, with G. W. Yates, Ottawa, Secretary. Graham was Chairman, though his resignation had been submitted following his appointment as Chairman of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation. Mr. There followed on Jan. 29, 1927, publication, as a state paper by the United States Department of Commerce, of a Report made by the Transportation Division of the Bureau of Commerce on the St. Lawrence project. No less a saving than from 36.4 to 54.5 per cent. of the present lowest combination of rates was predicted for grain haulage from Duluth to Liverpool through a proposed improved St. Lawrence with minimum depth of 27 feet. (The Report recommended 27 ft. instead of 25 ft. as suggested by the Joint Engineering Board). Given this standard there was estimated, as possible, a saving of from 5.8 to 9 cents per bushel on grains shipped to Liverpool, compared with a present rate of 17 cents. The question of power development on the St. Lawrence River was made the subject of a conference between the State Water Power Commission of New York and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario in Toronto on July 7-9, 1926. The New York State delegation comprised Roy G. Finch, State Engineer (Chairman); Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General; Joseph A. McGinnis, Speaker of the Assembly; Randall Leboeuf, Jr., Deputy AttorneyGeneral; F. Williams, Secretary to the Commission; Judge Ferris, counsel, and John P. Newton, Assistant State Engineer. Ontario was represented by Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Premier; C. A. Magrath (Chairman); Hon. J. R. Cooke and C. A. Maguire, Commissioners; F. A. Gaby, Chief Engineer; T. H. Hogg, Hydraulic Engineer and Arthur V. White, Consulting Engineer of the HydroElectric Power Commission. Following the Conference on July 7, Premier Ferguson expressed satisfaction with the outcome. Both Ontario and New York, he said, recognized that they had a tremendously valuable asset in international waters and both were desirous of developing them to the greatest advantage of both parties. The discussion had demonstrated that there was a determination on the part of both parties to reach common ground on the broad principles of the development of international waters. Roy G. Finch, on behalf of the visitors, said that he felt their deliberations were bound to lead to an agreement by which development on the St. Lawrence could be carried forward to the greatest benefit of the Province of Ontario and New York State. The New York delegation visited Niagara Falls on July 8 and on July 9, Messrs, Finch, Leboeuf, Newton and Williams went into conference again with Ontario officials in Toronto. A joint statement was issued after the Conference which said in part: The applications and plans which have been fyled with the New York State Water Power Commission, covering both single and two-stage developments on the St. Lawrence River, were discussed in detail. . . . It was agreed that all plans and estimates of cost covering all suggested developments presented to the New York State Water Power Commission would be left with the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission for further examination and a conference will be held in two weeks' time to further discuss the plans proposed. A second Conference attended by the same parties took place in Toronto on July 28, 1926. It was also held in private and its findings were not made public. Mr. Finch, however, made a statement to the press in which he said that a full discussion had taken place and the advantages and disadvantages of the various plans had been considered. It was a very big problem, he added, and a final decision as to the type of development could not be made until full opportunity had been given for a most careful study of the various plans. In an Associated Press despatch from Albany, Sept. 24, 1926, it was announced that the State Water Power Commission had adopted its final plan for the development of the State's water power resources on the St. Lawrence River. This was for a singlestage development and specified that a dam should be constructed across the River near Barnhart Island. Recognizing that the rights of Ontario were substantially identical with those of New York and that co-operation was essential, it was provided that, if a licence were issued, the licensee must make a further study in cooperation with representatives of Ontario. The Power Commission was favourably disposed towards the applications of two corporations, the Frontier Corporation and the American Super Power Corporation, and it was believed would have granted them the necessary permits had not Governor Alfred Smth of New York opposed the idea of granting permits at the time to private interests. No action was accordingly taken and, when the Commission presented their Report to the Legislature on Feb. 2, 1927, they blamed Governor Smith for the delay, expressing the fear that, if New York did not act quickly, Ontario would turn to the Province of Quebec in order to work out a plan to meet its power requirements. During the year 1926 the International Joint Commission was engaged in carrying out an investigation of the levels of Rainy Lake, which lies on the international boundary west of Lake Superior. This investigation was similar in character to the Lake of the Woods investigation of some years before, which was also carried out by the International Joint Commission, and was designed to show what water levels should be maintained in Rainy Lake so as to best subserve the interests of water-power, navigation, fisheries, etc., without unduly injuring the property of summer residents and others owning property around the shores of the lake and on its islands. Canada and the Pan-American Union. With the appointment of a Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, Canada's relations to the Pan-American Union again received some attention. Speaking at the fifth Pan-American Commercial Congress, which was held in New York, Dec. 13-15, 1926, John Barrett, Chairman of the International Pan-American Committee, gave an outline of informal conversations and correspondence on the subject of Canada's possible entrance into the Union, which had been carried on over a period of years, and suggested that the proposal should be taken up in a formal way at the sixth PanAmerican Conference to be held in Havana in 1928 or 1929. Among the resolutions adopted by the Commercial Congress was one inviting the Dominion of Canada and other political entities in the western hemisphere, not at the time included in the Pan-American Union, to become associated with the Congress, and asking that the proper agencies be urged to invite Canada into full membership in the Pan-American Union, to the end that Pan-America might really include all America. It was decided that the Congress would meet in 1927 in Toronto. The IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION Immigration Movement in 1926-27 and its Chief Features for the year was By W. A. Craick, B.A. A marked increase in the volume of immigration occurred during the fiscal year ended Mar. 31, 1927, and this was due not only to improved economic conditions but to the effect of the various schemes for stimulating the movement of settlers to Canada which had been brought into operation during the preceding year or two. The total number of immigrants 143,991, which was an increase of 47,927 over 1925-26. Of the total, 49,784 came from Great Britain and Ireland; 21,025 from the United States and 73,182 from other countries. 80,512 were adult males; 34,828 adult females and 28,651 children under eighteen. During the same period, 56,957 Canadians who had been living in the United States, returned to Canada with the intention of taking up permanent residence in the Dominion. Of these 49,255 were Canadian-born citizens, 5,326 were British subjects with Canadian domicile and 2,376 were naturalized Canadians. By nationality the principal groups making up the total of 143,991 were as follows:-English, 24,890; Scotch, 14,296; German, 12,540; Ruthenian, 9,995; Irish, 9,187; Polish, 6,505; Finnish, 5,180; Magyar, 4,863; Jewish, 4,471; Norwegian, 3,384; Italian, 3,301; Swedish, 2,628; Jugo-Slav, 2,084; Dutch, 1,674; Welsh, 1,411; Russian, 1,127; Croatian, 1,085. Much detail as to immigration and colonization work in Canada was published in the ninth Annual Report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization covering activities during the year ended Mar. 31, 1926. The Deputy Minister, W. J. Egan, directed special attention to the settlement of 3,000 British families in Canada under the Empire Settlement Agreement of 1924. The task of finding suitable farms and undertaking settlement and supervision fell upon the Department and the Soldier Settlement Board, while the British Government provided funds, not exceeding £300 per family, for stock and equipment. During the Spring and Summer of 1925 upwards of 500 families had arrived. "The success of the undertaking during the first season," commented Mr. Egan, "has created much interest in the scheme in the British Isles and already a large number of families are making application to come out during the next few months. It is anticipated that no serious. difficulty will be found in settling the total number of families within the time limit." Mr. Egan also dealt specially with the new Empire Settlement Passage Scheme which came into effect on Jan. 1st, 1926, pointing out that it differed materially from the agreements of 1923-24-25. Under former agreements loans of amounts covering the entire cost of passage had been made to adults but the collection of these loans had been a somewhat serious undertaking. In the Autumn of 1925 discussions had taken place between the Department and the Oversea Settlement Committee with a view to finding some way of reducing the cost of passage to the migrant to a point where he might himself find the funds. The agreement which became effective on Jan. 1, 1926, was the outcome of these negotiations.* A notable event in con Visit of the Earl of Clarendon. nection with Empire settlement work in Canada was the visit during the Summer of 1926 of the Rt. Hon. The Earl of Clarendon, Chairman, and T. C. Macnaghton, c.M.G., C.B.E., Vice-Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee, "to study land settlement in Canada and particularly to ascertain what progress has been made by the families who went to Canada from the United Kingdom during the seasons of 1925 and 1926 under the scheme known as the "Three Thousand Families Scheme'." Lord Clarendon and Mr. Macnaghton sailed from England on July 10 on the S.S. Empress of Scotland and reached Ottawa on July 20. After interview swith Sir Henry Drayton, Acting Minister of Immigration, and officials of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, they left the capital on July 21 for an extended tour of Canada, accompanied by Major J. Barnett, Chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board. Their journey took them into almost all sections of the Dominion, about 6,000 miles being covered by motor, and was not concluded until Sept. 22, when they arrived back in Ottawa. During this period 178 families were visited. They sailed from Quebec on the S.S. Empress of France on Sept. 29 and arrived at Southampton on Oct. 6. A report to the British Government on the visit to Canada was tabled in the House of Commons at Westminster on Nov. 16. This went very thoroughly into the operation of the 3,000 Families Scheme and described the journey of the two investigators in much detail. The Report declared: We have no hesitation in saying that the scheme has thus far proved a conspicuous success and promises to become the most successful effort in colonization undertaken by any Government in modern times. (The total number of families settled at the time was 1,504, comprising 8,381 souls, and these were distributed as follows:-Ontario, 153; Manitoba, 172; Saskatchewan, 359; Alberta, 492; British Columbia, 179; Quebec, 17; Maritime Provinces, 132.) The percentage of complete failures is very small indeed. A few families have abandoned the scheme, some of these returning to the Old Country. Others have abandoned the scheme temporarily and intend to return to it. Possibly some 2 per cent. have found work in towns. Those who have abandoned the scheme, whether temporarily or otherwise, hardly exceed 5 per cent. of the whole. Of those that remain, some 10 per cent. appear to be below the general average and consequently we must regard their success as doubtful. We believe, however, that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the families settled under the scheme will, given reasonably favourable conditions of climate and markets, make good and *NOTE.-See The Canadian Annual Review for 1925-26, page 165. |