1926-03-25

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE


Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the time for receiving petitions for private bills be renewed until Wednesday April 14 next, and that that portion of rule 89 which limits the time for filing private bills be suspended for the present session.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was before the House yesterday I asked that it might stand until I had had time to ascertain exactly what it involved. The Internal Economy Commission has reported on the question, and I purpose to place its report on Hansard so that the House with this report before it may share responsibility with the Private Bills committee if this motion is agreed to. This is the commission's report:
The Commission of Internal Economy of the House of Commons held a meeting this morning and took up the question of remitting fines to such applicants for private bills as did not present their petitions within the delays fixed by the niles.
The Private Bills committee report, read in the House yesterday, recommended that the time for receiving petitions which expired on February 18 last 14011-119i	[DOT]
be extended until Wednesday, April 14, next, and that rule 89 be suspended in relation thereto. A motion for concurrence in this report is to be made this afternoon. The Clerk of the House has pointed out that under this rule a fine of $200 is levied on all bills introduced after the twelfth week of the session. There are at the present time a large number of divorce bills and several incorporation bills for which the delays have expired. As we have 175 divorce bills so far, most of which have come too late, and several companies' solicitors have informed us that they intend to apply for legislation, I may safely say, after consultation with the officers of the House, that the aggregate amount of fees and fines thus remitted would be approximately $20,000.
In the case of companies, the promoters avoid paying a large fee by introducing their bills in the Senate, where they are only called upon to pay $300 whether they are late or not. When the bill comes before the Commons a net fine of $200 is charged because a petition has not been duly filed. In this way the country makes $500 on that particular bill.
The Commission of Internal Economy went into the matter very thoroughly, and heard Mr. Walter Todd, GiB0i oi tue rrivaie .dims oianch, who represented that such a report as the one presented yesterday by the chairman of the committee had not been- made to the House for the past fifteen years. It has been the custom to consider each case on its own merits.
Moreover, it is no fault of parliament if the applicants for private legislation are late in presenting their petitions. Sufficient notice of the opening of the session was given to the general public; shortly after the general election it was officially announced that parliament would be called for December 10-the proclamation calling the session for January 7 was published in the Canada Gazette on December 1.
There does not seem to be any valuable reason why petitioners should not have 'been ready in time. It is certainly not the fault of the House of Commons if they are late, and the commissioners were of the opinion that parliament should not be penaflized under the circumstances.
I direct what follows to the particular attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Parent):
The principle that whoever is responsible for the delays should pay the costs was accepted as the best solution in the matter.
Heretofore parliament has considered each case on its merits, and I submit to my hon. friend that he might very well point out to the Private Bills committee the practice which is usually followed in such cases. It seems to me that the Private Bills committee, fairly representative of both sides of the House, has not carefully considered how this wholesale proposal will affect the public revenues.


Georges Parent: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see
that the Commission of Internal Economy has anything to do with the purpose of this motion. If the commission has any representations to make it should appear before the Private Bills committee so that the committee may give them proper consideration. In view of the committee having unanimously made a certain recommendation, I resent the action of the commission in objecting to its adoption. However, if the House considers that the Private Bills committee should take
Questions

notice of these representations I suppose I may have to ask that the motion be referred back to the committee, but contend that the motion should carry.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, although I am a member of the Private Bills committee I was not present at the meeting which made the recommendation incorporated in the motion. But it seems to me that we are here to do the people's business, and for my part I cannot see why applications for bills should not be received at a later date so long as the bills can be put through this House while we are in session. We should accommodate the people as far as possible. Speaking for myself, I heartily support the report of the committee.


James Alexander Robb: After that statement by the
chief whip of the opposition, I will not further object to the resolution. I wish to put upon the House responsibility for its adoption.


William Alves Boys: I spoke absolutely for myself, not as the chief whip of the official opposition at all.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I ask who is speaking for the other side?


Georges Parent: My motion is before the
House, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Is Mr. D. E. Brown a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways? If so, is his salary as reported, namely $20,000 per year?
2.	Is Mr. George Gaston a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways? If so, is his salary as reported, namely $36,000 per year?
3.	If members of the staff, what are the duties of each of the above named, and do they receive their expenses in addition to salary?
4.	What amount of expenses, if any, has been paid to each to date?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. D. E. Brown is a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways and Mr. George Gaston has been engaged for some time on special work. The railway management assert that it is not in the public interest to give the information requested as to salaries and expenses.


CAMP HILL HOSPITAL
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What amount of bacon has been purchased by the Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia, during (a) the year 1925; (b) 1926, up to March 15?

2.	From what firms, if any, has bacon been purchased?
3.	What brands of bacon have been purchased?
4.	Has any bacon been sold by officials of Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the period above mentioned, and if so, to whom sold and at what price?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) 1,947 pounds,
(b) to February 28th, 1926-354 pounds.
2.	Since the 1st of January, 1925, all purchases have been made from the Maritime Market Limited, which, having successively submitted the lowest tender in open competition, has been given the contract from time to time since that date.
3.	Brands not stated; purchase specifications are as follows,-best quality, smoked, thin rind, white fat, lean, firm and well cured, 8 to 10 pounds to piece, medium thickness.
4.	No.


HARRISON LAKE HATCHERY
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Is the Harrison Lake hatchery being operated by the department?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Has it been sold?
4.	If so, for what amount?
5.	Has it been leased?
6.	If so, to whom?
7.	What amount is being received in way of rentals?
8.	Was same advertised and tenders invited?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Because expensive repairs are necessary for its continued operation, and the Research committee of the Biological Board of Canada is investigating the life history of sockeye salmon and the relative efficacy of artificial propagation and natural reproduction at the Cultus lake hatchery, B.C.
3.	No.
4.
5.	Yes.
6.	The Harrison Lake Investment Co.
7.	First year-care of buildings and property, saving department 8900 in caretaker's wages. Second and all succeeding years- $300 rental, in addition to above. Lease- subject to cancellation by department at any time on six months' notice.
8.	No.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY-DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: 1.	How many demonstration plots were operated, at the instance of the federal Department of Agriculture, on the Hudson Bay railway, last year?
2.	Where were they located, and what were the results at each, including cost of each?

Questions
3.	Is it the intention to operate additional plots along the Hudson Bay railway?
4.	If so, where will they be located and when will they be put in operation?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Four.
2.	These demonstration plots were conducted at Mile 137, Mile 185, Hudson Bay Junction, and Port Nelson.
Results: The results at Mile 185 were most encouraging due no doubt largely to the extremely favourable season. Wheat, oats, and barley of the earlier varieties matured good crops of good quality. Peas of the most approved varieties successfully ripened satisfactory crops. Potatoes yielded a fair crop and the various grasses, including western rye, brome, sweet clover and red clover, all made excellent catches and promised well icr tiie winter. At Mil6 137 the yields of wheat, oats and barley were even heavier and the quality even superior. Other crops, as at Mile 185, were very successful, and the grasses and clovers went into winter quarters with good promise. At Hudson Bay Junction unfortunately the crop went in late and with the heavy June rains the small area of plots was so thoroughly flooded that no reliable results were obtainable. At Port Nelson, here again the seed through delay en route arrived so late that the crops were seeded too late to mature.
Costs: The cost of each of these small demonstration areas was very small. The plots were carefully seeded in rows one rod in length. The total area of each of these demonstration areas would not exceed one-quarter of an acre. The cost of seed, postage and other expenses excepting the supervision of these plots did not exceed $10 each.
3.	Yes.
4.	It is intended to carry on these demonstration areas at Port Nelson, Mile 185, Mile 137, Mile 81, Mile 42, The Pas, and Hudson Bay Junction. It is also intended to carry duplicate plots at two or three of these to cover the different types of soil, and all the small plots will be conducted in duplicate. Larger grass plots at The Pas will also be undertaken.
These will be in operation during the present season.


TENDERS FOR MARINE LEAD
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. STEVEN'S:
1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries recently called for tenders for supplying of white lead or red lead for marine use?
2.	Did the department specify that such "lead" should be of "English" manufacture?
3.	Is it the contention of the department that no lead manufactured in Canada is suitable for the purpose ?
4.	Is the government aware that there are at least three Canadian concerns manufacturing white and red lead of excellent quality suitable for marine use?
5.	For what reason were Canadian manufacturers refused the opportunity of tendering?
Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The department has not specified, nor has it authorized any one on its behalf to specify that such lead should be of English manufacture.
3.	It is not the contention of the department that no lead manufactured in Canada is suitable for its purposes. The general policy of the department is to purchase such lead as it requires from Canadian manufacturers.
4.	Yes.
5.	Canadian manufacturers have not only not been refused the opportunity of tendering; they have actually sold both white and red lead to the department.


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS TESTS
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	In what provinces have restricted areas for bovine tuberculosis been organized and the testing done, and what have been the fesults as to reactors in the several areas; (a) in first tests; (b) in second or subsequent tests?
2.	Is the accredited herd system of bovine tuberculosis eradication or control considered to be as satisfactory as the restricted area system?
3.	How many herds have been accepted for control under the accredited herd system?
4.	What are considered to be the principal advantages of this system?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.

and the acceptance by the United States free from restriction, of cattle from accredited herds.


HOME BANK
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums were spent by the government of Canada on the Home Bank since it failed on parliamentary and court proceedings, and other expenses incurred ?
2.	What sums were paid out to counsel "re" Home Bank, and to whom?
3.	What mergers of chartered banks have been sanctioned by the Minister of Finance from 1907 to 1926?
4.	What is the estimated coat of paying depositors of the Home Bank entitled thereto under the legislation of 1925?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Expenses of investigation, royal commission of inquiry and prosecutions, $75,956.62.
2.
E. Lafleur, K.C	 $ 4,875 58
H. J. Symington, K.C		5,693 80
H. J. Scott, K.C	 28,500 00
3. People's Bank of New Brunswick, and Bank of Montreal. (1907).
Western Bank of Canada, and Standard Bank of Canada. (1909).
Northern Bank, and Crown Bank of Canada, under name of Northern Crown Bank (1908).
Union Bank of Halifax, and Royal Bank of Canada. (1910).
United Empire Bank of Canada, and Union Bank of Canada. (1911).
Eastern Townships Bank, and Canadian Bank of Commerce. (1912).
Traders Bank of Canada, and Royal Bank of Canada. (1912).
Bank of New Brunswick, and Bank of Nova Scotia. (1913).
Banque Internationale du Canada, and Home Bank of Canada. (1913).
Metropolitan Bank, and Bank of Nova Scotia. (1914).
Quebec Bank, and Royal Bank of Canada. (1917).
Northern Crown Bank, and Royal Bank of Canada. (1918).
Bank of British North America, and Bank of Montreal. (1918).
Bank of Ottawa, and Bank of Nova Scotia. (1919).
Merchants Bank of Canada, and Bank of Montreal. (1922).
Bank of Hamilton, and Canadian Bank of Commerce. (1923).
La Banque Nationale, and Banque d'Hoche-laga. (1924).
IMr. Motherwell.]
Sterling Bank of Canada, and Standard Bank of Canada. (1924).
Molsons Bank, and Bank of Montreal. (1925).
Union Bank of Canada, and Royal Bank of Canada. (1925).
4. The work of investigating claims has not been completed and the amount involved cannot yet be stated. $2,500,000 has been advanced to liquidators to date for payment of claims, and $21,082.63 has been paid out to defray expenses incident to the distribution.


FATHER LECOUTURE
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Did the Indian department give Father Lecouture $11,000 of the local Indian fund belonging to the Caughnawaga band to be spent in repairing his church ?
2.	Was the consent of the band given to that transaction?
3.	Is a wharf now being built on the Indian reserve lands at Caughnawaga, Quebec?
4.	Has the Caughnawaga band given permission for such use of the land?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No; but during the fiscal years 1923-24 and 1924-25 the sum of $10,392.56 was spent from the capital funds of the band under contract and under authority of the Governor in Council, as provided for by section 89 and 90 of the Indian Act, for repairs and improvements to the church, which is the property of the Indians.
2.	No.
3.	and 4. Yes; a temporary wharf erected in 1925 by an Indian of the band, with the approval of the council of the band, is being reconstructed in a permanent manner by the Department of Public Works.


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name with respect to the Easter adjournment. With the consent of the House I would ask that the motion be amended to read 'that when this House adjourns on Wednesday, 31st instant, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 6 next. Hon. members will recall that on presenting the motion in its original form I stated that unless the adjournment on March 26 met with practical unanimity I would not press it, but would request the adjournment customary at Easter. I trust the House will agree to the amended motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous wish of the House that the motion as amended be carried?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Tariff Advisory Board

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I heard a report, rather
more persistent to-day than usual, that the tariff commission so long promised has at last been appointed. That is more or less surprising but what is more surprising still is the personnel. May I ask whether the government can announce anything at the moment in respect of this subject?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure that both the
House and the country will be gratified to learn that the government, after very con-oiderable persuasion, has succeeded m obtaining the consent of the Right Hon. George P. Graham to become chairman of the proposed tariff board. Mr. Graham was anxious to have a brief space of well earned rest, but acting from a sense of public duty he has listened to the very strong representations of members of the administration and has agreed to the postponement, for a time at least, of the opportunity of recreation for which he was preparing, and to accept immediately the position of chairman of the board. I feel I am only expressing what hon. members of the House will generally concede, that with the wealth of experience which Mr. Graham will bring to the conduct of the affairs of the board he will succeed in having it organized and functioning sucessfully at an early date. I believe I voice a general sentiment when I express the hope that he will see his way clear to occupy the chairmanship of the board for a long time to come.
The government's intention is not to have a large board, but one limited in numbers, giving to the board, however, power to engage, from time to time, experts to assist it in its work. Naturally, in connection with a subject so technical as the tariff, the board will desire to have the fullest information from the best available sources, and accurate interpretation; and the government has thought that a board comparatively limited in numbers enjoying the power in association with itself to secure from different parts of the country and from various sources expert advice and opinion, would be better than a large board formed in an attempt to represent all phases and possible interests. A small body, thus empowered can, it is believed, more effectively deal with the questions that will come before it than a larger and more cumbersome permanent organization. The membership of the board has accordingly been limited' to three. The Right Hon. Mr. Graham will, as I have said, be chairman and the other two members will be Mr. Joseph Daoust, ex-President of the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal, and Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie, from Brandon, Manitoba, a well known farmer of the west. I may observe that, associated with these gentlemen, there will be a number of the members of the permanent service, chosen from various departments of the government. The Departments of Finance, Customs, Trade and Commerce, Agriculture, Labour and External Affairs and the Statistical branch will doubtless make their contributions as required. These departments all possess able public servants who have special knowledge that will be of great utility to the board in the discharge of its duties. These public servants will co-operate with the board in its work. There will also be a permanent secretary to the 'board. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) informs me that the gentleman whose name I was just about to mention has not yet formally signified his acceptance of the position. However, I hope on Monday next to lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council setting forth in full the personnel and powers of the board.


Arthur Meighen: What has become of
the promised woman member?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No doubt she will be among the experts immediately to be selected to assist the board.


DUTY ON AUTOMOBILES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1
would direct the attention of the government to a report that appeared in the journals of this city recently to the effect that the government has decided not to reduce the tariff on automobiles this session, but to refer the matter to the tariff board. I trust the government will be able to assure the House that there is no foundation whatever for that report.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend, who has been a member of parliament for some time, knows that statements regarding the tariff are made only when the Minister of Finance presents his budget from his place in the House.


Arthur Meighen: Except occasionally.
Privilege-Mr. Woodsworth



PRIVILEGE-MR. WOODSWORTH

[Stage Direction]
On *the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S, WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):	On a question of privilege
I should lake to make a statement with regard to a charge which was made the other day by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) concerning myself. I quote the following from Hansard of March 23 at page 1812:
I rise to a question of privilege. Last night, at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for Label !e (Mr. Bourassa), I rose to call the attention of the House to a certain statement that had been made with reference to myself earlier in the day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), in which he misquoted a speech which I had delivered in Toronto. The hon. member referred to- certain remarks of mine as rightly quoted by the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) at page 67 of Hansard of the present session, and further put into my mouth these words:
Had we had autonomy we should not have entered the war.
The suggestion is there that I misquoted his speech, and that I put words into the mouth of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). In looking over my speech of that day, I notice that this is what I said:
I refer the House to page 67 of Hansard, where the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) in a speech criticising his leader's new war policy is reported to have said: "Had we had this autonomy in 1914 Canada would not have been represented in the Great war. There would have been no 60,000 soldiers in France from Toronto."
Now I turn to the passage quoted from page 67 of Hansard, and I read:
All autonomy did for the Liberal party was to send it to the political graveyard. Had we had this autonomy in 1914 Canada would not have been represented in the Great war. There would have been no 60,000 soldiers in France from Toronto.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the members themselves by looking up Hansard can decide that I did not misquote Hansard, nor did I put words in the mouth of the hon. member.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration, a-nd Colonization) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize advances to settlers on crown lands, and to provide,-
l.That for purposes connected with settlement, the minister may make loans to settlers on the basis of improvement of land and farm buildings erected-(a) to a settler who is a Canadian citizen as that term is defined in the Immigration Act, an amount not exceeding $1,000, (b) to a settler other than a Canadian citizen an amount not exceeding $500.

2.	That settlement loans under the proposed legislation shall not exceed the sum of $5,000,000 in any fiscal year, and shall be paid out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That Settlement Loan committees may be established anywhere in Canada to report upon and recommend to the minister the suitability of a settler, and of any parcel of crown land, and to advise the minister as to the amount of loan to be made and how it should be expended, and such committee shall consist of not less than two nor more than three persons in the employ of the Dominion government or of any provincial government, such persons to be nominated by the minister, one of whom shall be the Dominion lands agent or the provincial crown lands agent, as the case may be, for the district in which the settler is located, and no salary or remuneration additional to that which he otherwise receives shall be paid to members of such committee.
4.	That no settlement loan shall be made unless recommended by a Settlement Loan committee, and unless approved by the minister, nor until the applicant has been recommended by a committee as a suitable settler and the iand as suitable for settlement for agricultural purposes, and all settlement loans shall be expended under the direction of the minister.
5.	That no settlement loan shall be made upon the security of improvements upon any provincial crown land, unless the province by appropriate legislation, has provided that the improvements upon the security of which any such loan is made shall be subject to a first charge for the amount of such loan with interest, and that no patent shall be issued for the said land until such loan with interest is repaid in full.
6.	That the payment of principal shall be made in annual instalments extending over a period of not more than ten years from the date the settlement loan is made, the first payment to become due and payable two years from the date of the settlement, loan, provided that the settler may at any time repay the whole of the settlement loan with interest to date of payment, and all loans shall bear interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, payable on the respective dates upon which instalments of principal fall due.
7.	That when a settlement loan has been made upon the security of improvements upon Dominion crown lands, the patent shall not issue until the loan and all interest charges thereon have been paid in full.
8.	That if a provincial government, not having suitable crown lands available, acquires by purchase suitable lands for settlement under the provisions of this legislation, the minister may pay to a provincial government a sum not exceeding one-half of the interest on the purchase price of such lands, reckoned at five per centum per annum, for a period not exceeding two years from the date of settlement.
9.	That the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations to carry out these provisions, and the minister shall make an annual report to parliament of all operations under the proposed legislation.
Hewitt Bostock: la it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? Carried.
Mr. MEI'GHEN:	Mr. Speaker, I did not
rise because I was expecting the minister to make some statement about this departure of policy.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The bill is
a new departure in the encouragement of immigration. In the old days, when we had a large influx of settlers to the lands of western Canada, there were lying adjacent to all

Advances lo Settlers
the railway lines lands that were known as homestead lands, and these were available to every individual who could qualify under the regulations. There is still a large quantity of land, though not of first-class quality, lying not so much in the southern portion of the prairie provinces, nor indeed in the southern portion of Ontario, but throughout all the provinces of Canada with the exception of the Maritime provinces there is a considerable area of crown lands, provincial crown lands and Dominion crown lands, lying within a radius of fifteen miles of existing railway lines. These lands, of course, are not as desirable as the lands taken up in former days by applicants who were desirous of settling upon them and developing farms in the various provinces, but particularly in the western provinces. For various reasons these crown 1 mi els arc still available and one of tl*e problems that the Immigration department have to face is the fact that if open lands, and there are still open lands available in western Canada, are to be procured by the newcomers or by those who under the regulations can homestead our crown lands, they would have to go a very considerable distance back from the present railway facilities, which would involve on the part of the provinces the construction of roads and of schools, and so far as the federal government is concerned, it invariably involves the building of new railway lines. I think most members of the House will agree with me that what we ought to try to do is to consolidate our settlement along the existing lines of railway which have been built and are now in operation, and which have already been financed. In all the three prairie provinces these lands are very largely covered, if not with timber, with a very heavy growth of underbrush, and are somewhat difficult to bring under cultivation without entailing a considerable amount of labour. That was the thought in my mind when I recommended to the government the adoption of this policy for the settlement of crown lands. In most of those settlements to-day, while perhaps there are not school-houses, there are to some extent facilities by way of roads, because the idea is not to locate the settler beyond a point from which he can travel to his nearest railway centre, nor to involve expenditure by the provincial governments or by the federal government for improvements necessary to open up entirely new areas. That is the object that was in my mind when I recommended to the government this policy of assistance to the settler going on these new lands.
Perhaps the House will be surprised to know that we have in Manitoba almost three million acres of land still available for settlement coming within the category I have mentioned. In Saskatchewan well over one million acres, and in Alberta well over six million acres; so there is a very considerable amount of crown lands available for settlement lying contiguous to the railway lines already in existence and in operation. Now, these are not all first class lands, no one would make that claim. In the case of a considerable proportion they are, perhaps lands not desirable for settlement. But in the case of the three prairie provinces, there is a very large area of lands very suitable for agriculture lying within the fifteen mile limit. In the old days of homesteading in the west, when millions of dollars were being poured into the country by the various railway companies for the construction of new lines of railway, there was a certain popular form of obtaining sufficient money to carry the settler along. I think I am safe in making the statement that in 95 per cent of the cases the homesteaders who went upon the land were men without means, men who undertook to live upon those lands for six months in the year doing what they could and spending the remaining six months in earning what was called in those days a grubstake to carry them over the next period. As I say, employment was easy to ibe had. Vast sums of money were being expended throughout the west at that time particularly in railway building and also in the construction of buildings and the opening up of new towns. Therefore no difficulty was experienced at that time in obtaining employment. To-day the man who goes upon a homestead may find temporary employment in assisting with the harvesting operations in the older settled areas, or in working for a farmer who is already established. But that class of employment can only be obtained in the summer season when the settler can be most advantageously employed in improving his own holding. In endeavouring to find a solution for this problem we thought we could hold out hope of assistance to the individual who would settle upon the land; that as he improved his holding, as he progressed in the construction of his buildings, in the erection of his little home -it might be of log construction and very likely it will; many of us who went out on the prairies first were content with sod construction because we were unable to buy lumber for the building of our home-the new settler would be able by making application to the board to secure an allowance to be applied to the cost, materials and construction. This will enable him to provide for the neces-
Advances to Settlers

sities of life and if he is fortunately situated, he can devote some portion of the advance to the purchase of machinery. As he improves his land and buildings further advances will be made to him up to a maximum of SI,000. The idea is to prevent people who desire to own land from locating in the extreme areas of settlement instead of near the railway, and to give them the assistance they will need in the pioneer years when they are endeavouring to establish homes for themselves. It will be a tremendous advantage to the settlers themselves to have this consolidation of settlement along the railway line.
The committee will notice that some difference is being made between Canadians and people who come from countries outside of Canada. For some considerable time past there has been an agitation to bring people from the urban centres of the Dominion back to the land. It is an undeniable fact that a great many desirable agriculturists have left our farm lands and migrated into towns and cities. The best evidence of that is to be found in the statistical information in our possession, which shows that to-day, perhaps, more than 50 per cent of our people are residing in ufiban centres, notwithstanding the fact that Canada is an agricultural country. I am not so well informed as to the conditions in eastern Canada, but I do know that in the west a great many of our people who are now residing in the cities would be glad of an opportunity to go back to the land and try to establish themselves again in agricultural pursuits rather than remain as wage-earners in the city.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Does not
this apply principally to the prairie provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: Principally
but not altogether. I will explain later how it applies to the older provinces. There are many cases of young men, sons of farmers, who are desirous of going out and establishing homes for themselves. A loan to them at 5 per cent will assist them very materially in obtaining a grant of land by way of homesteading, improving that land and making homes for themselves. So, the Canadian government proposes to make a loan to a maximum of $1,000 to citizens of the character I have described.
To those who come to Canada as immigrants the proposal is to lend them $500, not the full $1,000 to assist them in establishing themselves upon the land.


Mr. BENNETT:: How long after they
arrive in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Of necessity they would have to establish themselves before they could make application for the loan. If they did that during the first year they could make the application then; but the act provides that they must be upon a homestead within fifteen miles of an existing railway, and there must be evidence on their part that they have made improvements. It was felt that some difference should be made between those who come to us as immigrants and our own people. For that reason we do not propose to make as great a loan to the former class as to our own citizens. I think it can be said that iu the case of these immigrants the conditions they have left are not as favourable as those they will encounter in Canada, and therefore they will be able to get along with a lesser amount than our own citizens. I am able to sireak from personal knowledge of the adaptability of many of those who come from outside countries. I know that in my own province of Alberta one of the most prosperous settlements to-day is the Ukrainian settlement established around the town of Vegreville. Those people when they first came in brought everything they owned in a sack; and I am sure the members for Edmonton and the surrounding districts will bear me out when I say that there are in the Dominion no finer farms and none with more up-to-date equipment than in that particular district after eighteen or twenty years of settlement by the Ukrainians. And that has been done by our Scandinavian settlers and many people who have come from countries foreign to Canada and taken up their residence among them. We felt that some difference should be made, that we owed something to our own people in this respect, and that we should endeavour to be a little more generous to our own people than we would to those of foreign extraction who were coming to our country to establish themselves. In the case of the Britisher who comes here, of course our hope is that we will be able to interest the Overseas Settlement Board, and that they will make a loan to the British settler identical with that obtained by the Canadian. We are in joint operation with the British government on a good many schemes, more particularly that of the migration of 3.000 families to whom we are supplying land; the British government putting up in cash $1,500 for the establishment of those people upon our land, and that is working out very satisfactorily. We hope this year that we shall establish 1,200 British families in that way upon the soldier settlement land that we now are holding for this purpose.

Advances to Settlers


John Wesley Edwards: Am I correct in supposing that you will not advance a loan until you are thoroughly satisfied that the settler has an equity in the property to amply cover your guarantee or loan?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is why the provision is put in the bill, the idea being that, as these are crown lands, our advances will be first mortgages upon them, and that the improvements will be sufficient to warrant the advance, so that if there is an abandonment we will have sufficient improvements upon the land for the next applicant to repay us the advance made for the improvements thereon.


John Wesley Edwards: If the government must be satisfied-and of course the minister says quite properly that they must
Kg__+ f fv*o f scttlsr liJis sn ocjiiity in this !snd
to amply guarantee the loan advanced, why could not the settler get that loan from the loan companies or banks or other sources on the same equity? That- is your guarantee. Why could he not get it from others?
.Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):	There are
two very valid reasons why it would be difficult for him to get it. One is that the land is the property of the crown, and no loan could be negotiated until the settler had title to the land, and he will not receive title for three years. The second is that he could not borrow money on the property at 5 per cent, which in my view, is the most valuable consideration in his favour. But if he were able to borrow, even if he had the title, he would pay 8 per cent for the loan.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In reference to this scheme for the settlement of 3,000 families, does the government provide any cash for the settlers?


Charles A. Stewart: No, we
provide the land.


Mr. HANNESSON:: If the loan is to be a first charge upon the land in question, and the patent not to issue till the loan is paid, how does the minister propose that the municipality in which these lands are situated shall raise the money to provide for schools, roads and drainage? You are going to increase the charges on the land for which the man will get his patent, and the municipalities will have to do the necessary financing to provide for the schools, the roads and the draining.	.


Charles A. Stewart: There should be no difficulty.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: If the settler has a loan from the crown, the taxes are not a
first charge. By this measure you are putting on a prior charge.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite sure you would not expect the crown to have priority on the issue of these loans. So far as taxation is concerned, I would have no objection to the taxes being made collectable, and the crown would have to suffer in a like degree with the mortgage companies, if they allow the loans to lapse and get into arrears. My hon. friend has in mind the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act. That act will not apply in this case.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: One of the difficulties in the west, as my hon. friend knows, is with the municipalities which have a large quantity of unpatented land. They cannot sell those lands for arrears of taxes. They cannot horrow on the strength of their lien for taxes on the land, because if the patent does not issue they will never be able to collect at all. You are going to increase the handicap of the municipalities in the west by this provision. They have now great difficulty in collecting taxes.


Charles A. Stewart: You are referring to the situation which exists in connection with the soldier settlement lands, because they have reverted to the crown. These lands are not taxable now. No one has gone on them at the present moment, and what my hon. friend is fearful of is that, because the crown is taking a mortgage, there will be no issue of patent, and therefore there would be some doubt as to the ability to collect the school and the municipal tax.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: As soon as the settler goes on the land he is subject to taxation. His interest in that land is subject to taxJ-ation, but there is difficulty in the collection of the tax. The moment the settler goes on, the municipality must raise money for schools, roads and drainage. I took the soldier settler matter up with the government some years ago-Sir James Lougheed was the minister at the time-and he gave an undertaking in regard to soldier settlement land. He gave us the assurance that as long as the soldier remained on the land the government would pay the taxes, but if they took the land back, then when it was resold, the arrears would be looked after. But in this case the minute the settler goes on the land he increases the burden on the municipality, but no responsibility is assumed by the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not want to get into a controversy about this matter in regard to the crown paying taxes,
Advances to Settlers

because I expect it will come up at a later date, but I think it should be borne in mind that it would be a very serious matter for the crown to have to agree to pay taxes on land held by the crown. While the settler is in occupation there will be no serious difficulty about the collection of taxes, so far as the soldier settler is concerned. As a matter of fact to-day, until the date of abandonment, the crown has protected the municipality in the school district, but at the moment of abandonment when the land reverts to the crown, it is then in a different category, and there are very serious difficulties about any suggestion of the crown being responsible for the payment of those taxes while it is strictly crown land, and naturally the same difficulty will apply here, because it would be general in its application. If you could confine it to any particular case it would not be so bad, but the breaking away in any particular instance would create what my hon. friends speak of so often as a precedent. I fear it would work very detrimentally to the crown, and I would much rather find some other way of solving the difficulty. My desire is to help the municipalities to increase settlement within their boundaries and so long as the settler is on the land they will have the same right to collect taxes that they would have under the Homestead Act as it stands to-day.


Mr. BROWN:: These are lands that would be open for homesteading under ordinary circumstances?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: In that case the effect of the loan being made would not make any difference in regard to the collection of taxes?


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Yes it would, because it imposes a prior charge.


Charles A. Stewart: I think we
should get away from the idea that the loan will make any difference. It will not change the situation so far as the homestead is concerned because, so long as the settler is upon the land, the municipality and the school districts will expect to collect the taxes even if there is a loan in existence. If the land is abandoned by the settler and reverts to the crown, it is non-taxatble today. The only difference would be for. the period between the abandonment by one occupier and the occupation by his successor.
Mr. MoGIBBON: How long would a man have to be on the land before he qualified for a loan?


Charles A. Stewart: Until such
time as he had provided the necessary improvements to warrant consideration of a loan.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	What is the settler going to do during that time?


Charles A. Stewart: He will
have to be in a position to make some improvements before he can obtain a loan. The idea is not to put the money into the hands of the settler and to say to him:	You can
go on and expend the money in any way you wish or even under instructions, but rather to lend him money after he has made progress in improvements or in building and there is justification for the issue of a proportionate amount of the loan..
Mr. MoGIBBON:	That is, the country
is going to lend money on its own security.


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is it necessary that there
should be a certain margin of security before a loan is granted?


Charles A. Stewart: There always is and should be a reasonable margin. The margin will probably not be a big one. A great deal will depend on the character of the settler and the initiative he shows in making progress on his homestead.
Mr. HANNESSO'N: Would it be possible to give this assistance under the Rural Credits bill?


Charles A. Stewart: I think not. The Rural Credits bill is of an entirely different character. It is intended to deal with men who have patents for their land or, in other words, who are private owners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And on security.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	What ground is there
for giving one man land and then money to start, in business in preference to a man going into any other trade or calling?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look at the earnings of our railways, he will notice that years of surplus are always those when agriculturists have had good crops. iMore money is put into circulation when there is prosperity among agriculturists than in years of dearth. The idea in thickening up the agriculturist population along our railway lines is that this will help to lessen the deficits on our railways by creating more traffic, more business in the country. If that were not so, I would oppose a loan of any sort.

Advances to Settlers


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I remind the minister of Sir Henry Thornton's statement that the falling off in the earnings of the railways was due to the falling off in the manufactures of this country, and the return made to this House which I placed on Hansard a few weeks ago showed that wheat in the west was being carried at a loss by the railways?


Charles A. Stewart: Being a
westerner I would not like to admit that.


Peter McGibbon: Those were not my
figures; they were the figures of the minister's own government.


Charles A. Stewart: All I can
say in reply to my hon. friend is that my observation goes to show that when you have, not particularly a big wheat crop, because that is confined very largely to western Canada, but a good agricultural crop throughout Canada, you have a year of great prosperity in the country. I think my hon. friend will not deny that statement. I am not denying for a moment the fact
4 p.m. that industry plays a very important part in the matter. My hon. friend will realize, however, that boards of trade in a'll the important cities in Canada are crying out for more immigrants. Where do they want these immigrants to go? They want them to go on the land, and our difficulty is to find, in countries from which we recruit settlers, people with money to establish themselves. If we could secure from the Old Land and the continent people with means bo establish themselves on the land, we would have no necessity for a bill to give assistance of this character. If we had former conditions in the way of employment on account of the expansion of the railways as we had in past years in western Canada, there would not be so much necessity for such a bill. But this is designed with the idea of settling up lands that are close to the railways and that have been passed over, I will admit frankly, for lands more desirable. The idea is to encourage people to go on those lands in order to thicken settlement under those conditions, to keep men working on the land and improving it until they get to the point where it will be self-supporting. I think there is a great necessity for assistance of this character wisely administered.
I have sought to recommend in this bill that we do not set up any elaborate establishment. In the western provinces we choose the Dominion lands agent in the particular district in which these lands are located, assisted by the
expert advice of our Soldier Settlement Board officials who have acquired a wide fund of information in regard to various localities in connection with the settlement of soldiers upon the land. These men will be a committee of three who will decide upon the character of the land upon which a loan is to be made and the standing of the settler, and they will protect the government in every way in connection with advancing money to these settlers. I have tried not to set up any elaborate machinery, but simply to create an organization that will assist the new-comer upon the land to a very reasonable degree in order to thicken settlement upon those crown lands that are available for settlement along the railway lines. #


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: What assistance, if any, will this Immigration bill grant to the settler coming into Canada who is willing to settle in the old provinces? For instance, in Ontario there are tens of thousands of acres of farms that are available and that are offered for sale at practically the cost of the buildings, let alone the land itself. These farms are valuable for development purposes, and schools, roads and all the rest are provided. Has the minister not taken into consideration the fact that there is a possibility of an immigrant who has a reasonable amount of money being settled upon farms in the eastern provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: There is in the bill a special provision that will apply particularly to the Maritime provinces which have no crown lands, but the bill does not purport to touch other than crown lands in the other provinces of Canada. In British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, if the provincial governments are in agreement, the same provision will apply to crown lands. As regards Ontario, I have in my hand a bill almost similar in character to the one I am describing this afternoon whereby that province lends money up to $500. I have not the Quebec bill under my hand, but in it there is a provision, almost similar in character, under which loans are made in connection with settlement in the new land in the northern district along the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am not aware that in British Columbia they have loan provisions of this kind, but they have in the two older provinces. This bill, however, does not purport to touch the class of farms that my hon. friend has just mentioned; it deals only with lands owned and held by the crown whether federally or provincially. As regards provincial crown lands exactly the same provisions will prevail with
Advances to Settlers

the single exception that the provincial officer in the latter case will be a member of the board. That is, the officer in charge of provincial crown lands will be substituted1 for the officer in charge of Dominion crown lands. The Soldier Settlement Board officials will perform the same service in the provinces and of course this will be done only by consent of the provinces if they wish to take advantage of the provisions of the bill.


Mr. HAY:: I understood the minister to
say that these regulations would apply only to crown lands. Now I see that under section 8 of the resolution if a provincial government has not any crown lands it has the right to purchase suitable land for settlement. Will the minister explain *his apparent contradiction?


Charles A. Stewart: I was just
coming to that provision. It was designed primarily to meet the situation in the Maritime provinces. There I am told they have no crown lands available for settlement. In order to make the bill general in character and to avoid discrimination against any provinces without crown lands that wished to avail itself of the provisions of the bill, we have provided that under such circumstances a province may purchase suitable agricultural lands, and we will grant a certain amount of assistance, although it is true that this assistance is so meagre that it is hardly worth mentioning. If the provincial government wishes to put land into the hands of a new settler, we are prepared to make the necessary advance, of course always reserving priority of claim for repayment of our loan.


Peter McGibbon: Why is not this left to the provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: It will be; but in all probability some of the provinces will not care to take advantage of this measure.


Peter McGibbon: But they will have to pay for it just the same.


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily.


Peter McGibbon: If one province does
not participate, and two or three others do, would not the whole obligation be on the Dominion?
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton): Only to the extent of the losses. I think after all my hon. friend will agree that land settlement is so important a factor that any small loss which might accrue would not seriously affect any province whether it participated or not.


Peter McGibbon: That would depend on
the amount of the losses.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Might I ask-


Hewitt Bostock: I would suggest to members on both sides of the House that they withhold their questions until the resolution is in committee. I am quite aware that the questions are very pertinent and very important, but in committee stage both on the resolution and on the bill hon. members will have ample opportunity to put their questions.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have almost concluded my remarks. I commend the resolution to the consideration of the House, for I think it will be of material assistance in settling lands that hitherto have not been made use of, and will thus consolidate settlement. Lest some member should object that there is plenty of good agricultural land awaiting settlement, I think I am safe in saying that it is scarcely the business of the federal government to undertake the settlement of such lands: but we did feel that some concession should be made to the Maritime provinces, whose governments are taking a very active interest in immigration and have signed agreements with us for the care and placement of the young boys that are being brought out from the Old Country. This is all to the good, for in all matters of immigration I should like to have the closest co-operation with the provincial governments through their local officials rather than attempt to do work by establishing federal officials in the various provinces. I think our efforts should be devoted largely to bringing out the right class of settlers and placing them in the hands of the provincial authorities, who, being conversant with the local situation, know where to place the newcomers to the best advantage and can give them sound advice. I am speaking now purely and simply of immigration for the settlement of our agricultural lands. We are bending all our energies to getting that class of settler, believing that later on there will be an opportunity for immigrants of the artisan class, although they are already coming in in fairly large numbers. This measure is designed solely for the purpose of advancing the necessary funds to help the settler to improve his holding until the day that it shall become self-supporting. I have no doubt a good deal of criticism can be offered against 'the proposal, but I do think it will materially help in settling lands that up to date have not been considered first-class for homesteading.

Advances, to Settlers


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I have no
objection to this resolution going through committee. I really want to give the minister credit for the best of intentions in introducing it, but he will have to forgive me if I cannot get enthusiastic over this venture. It is one of those measures which are very likely to be fairly popular at the initiation stage, but which leave a long train of sad memories in their wake. Not only so, but after they are immediately in operation there is an evidence of good results-often an illusory evidence. The very expenditure of considerable sums of government money produces a certain exhilaration and things look fine, but after the night of intoxication there is usually an awakening of bitterness; and I fancy we are going to suffer such experience in relation to this bill.
I must admit, first of all, that my doubts are very much related to the experience of the country with respect to soldier settlement. As respects soldier settlement, the minister throughout his entire term of office has been exceedingly fair to the whole scheme; he has given it, I think, a fair trial under his administration. He will admit with me, that if it was possible to launch such a scheme on sound lines, to barricade it against the rapacious and protect the treasury, these precautions were all taken.. But while all this is admitted we have to confess that first of all we did not succeed in preventing the inroads of the unscrupulous and the fraudulent. We can point to cases where, notwithstanding all our precautions, the fact that it was a government venture rendered it vulnerable, and at different points in the country we were imposed on right and left. This however was not the worst result. As time went on the unexpected developed, so that we find ourselves to-day under the necessity of entering upon a great new scheme of revaluation, a scheme which, on whatever principle in the world you put it, is bound to land the country in millions, yes, tens of millions of a loss. I know that is due practically altogether, or very largely, to the trend of land stock values in these later years. But to all the incidents to which the soldier settlement scheme was subject, to all the vicissitudes that harassed it, this new venture will also be exposed. It is going to be so exposed from day to day.
The minister says this is intended to help the settlement of rejected lands, those which have been passed up by the homesteaders. Well, perhaps it will for a time. But lands which the homesteader passed by when he
could get them free, when all he had to do was to live on them for a time each year for three years, lands which under those conditions are shunned will not be settled to any great extent by artificial means. Are we going to be further ahead in three, five, ten years? Our money will be there, but the homesteader will be gone, mainly for the reason that land which is not now settled along railway lines is in the main not worth settling. I do not believe that you will get a successful settlement upon such land by holding out the golden coin as an inducement to men to take up homesteads.
We are told that we have to do this because the provinces will not undertake the work, and that it is necessary in order to stimulate immigration. We all want to stimulate immigration; everyone knows that we need to. inaeea, it nas oeen stimulated pretty nearly to death ever since this government came into power. They started out with an immigration of 145,000, and it is now 85,000; and last year was the worst in many a long day. But are you going to stimulate immigration by offering rewards? I do not think that any country has ever yet found any similar scheme an incentive to permanent and successful immigration. I am not aware of any means of stimulating immigration except to provide work for the immigrant. The minister says that the only people whom the boards of trade want are men who will go on the land. It is a funny thing to me that everyone on earth wants to keep out competition except the farmer. We are all ready to give him all the competition possible and to give it to him at his own expense. Now, if I were a farmer I would want competition among people to whom I could sell my produce.	And as I am a farmer that is what I
want.	The best way to get immigration is
to bring about healthful industrial conditions. We will get that way immigration for the land just as well as for the town, and artificial stimulants are not going to conduce to anything like wholesome, continuous immigration.
The minister refers to the provinces. He says, "Well, it is true that we cannot be fair among them, because some of them have not crown lands and we cannot help those that have not. But in any case they will not lose anything except, perhaps, to the extent of bearing a share of the loss, which will be trifling." Are we sure that it will be trifling? The loss will be trifling if we go into the venture on a trifling scale; but if we undertake it on any substantial scale the loss will not be slight. I ask the minister to cast his
1S92
Advances to Settlers

eye over western Canada, where he has been about the same time as I have been-not quite so long perhaps-and to assume that he had lent, say, $500-we will not put it at a thousand-to assist each man in establishing a homestead on fair land. How many of those $500 loans would he have lost? He would have lost a great proportion of them.


Charles A. Stewart: I must disagree with my hon. friend. He has referred to the soldier settlement scheme, with the dissatisfaction and the losses that have accrued to it. I am bound to say that if the loans to the soldier settlers had been confined within more reasonable bounds the losses would not have been so great.


Arthur Meighen: More reasonable bounds
in what way ?


Charles A. Stewart: They were
given loans up to $7,000 at the start, and that is not being done to-day. The large percentage of the loss is due to the fact that we loaned far too much money. I believe that if any man in western Canada who had a reasonably decent homestead, not even a first class one, had been loaned $500 at that time, either he would have repaid it or the land today would be worth the money.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows that abandoned homesteads in western Canada are legion, and so far as those which are not abandoned are concerned the men who were originally on them are very often not there to-day. Very few of them are. The minister says that we lost on soldier settlement because we loaned too much money. Well, we loaned only sufficient to get the men on the land. We had to lend too much for the simple reason that it took too much to get the land and stock. Now we are going to settle rejected homesteads, and homesteads on crown lands in those provinces where there are such lands, but the minister cannot put the scheme on a basis which will be fair among the provinces. I do not want to arouse sectional prejudice at all, but it does seem to me that it is absurd for the minister to contend that this is possible. There is no way of doing it. Take Ontario, for example: that province to-day has a scheme for advancing money for these very purposes, and they can supervise the whole thing much more easily than we can. The land is theirs and they can take care of it. And they too, I venture to say, will have a loss. Quebec has a corresponding scheme. Nova Scotia has not, because it has no crown lands, nor has New Brunswick. Now to the losses that will accrue in respect of those provinces

which have, these others will have to contribute, and there is no way of compensating them. The minister in the second last clause of the resolution has a scheme whereby he can give to Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick a half interest for two years on the purchase price of lands. He rightly describes this as meagre, I think he said trivial. Well, it is trivial.	It does not hold out the
slightest inducement, for not a province will buy on that basis. Imagine a province buying a piece of land privately owned, paying its value, and then turning it over to a settler. The settler borrows from this government and this government takes a first mortgage, giving the province a second mortgage for the purchase price of the land, and the inducement that gets the provinces to do thus is that the minister offers them the interest for one year. It is laughable. Never would a province venture upon the plan on such a basis. Therefore, you do expose those provinces which cannot come into the scheme to the necessity of subscribing towards it, bearing their share of the loan, in the first place, of the administration, in the second place, and of the ultimate loss, in the third. I warn the minister there will be a large cost of administration of this plan. I do not think he has devised it on a political basis, and I do not know that I can suggest at the moment anything very radical in the method of recommendation of the lands and of the loans, but I warn him that the cost of administration proportionate to the results will be very, very large. He will have to have a system of inspection, not only of the farms, in the first place, but of the farming, in the second place: he will have to have a system of supervision; he will have to have a staff here of a very considerable number to conduct all the correspondence with the municipalities and the like, and as the whole scheme develops, the top will increase in weight even after the base commences to diminish.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will permit me, I do not see any reason for being alarmed about the administration cost, because we already have a thoroughly trained organization in the field, the soldier settlement organization, and that is the organization I purpose using.


Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Is it not a fact that the farm loan scheme of Manitoba shows a profit every year?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is not so; not at all. I have talked with men who have had to do with it-


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I have had to do with it myself; I have a mortgage with them, and I know they show a profit every year.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman may have profited, but the province has not profited, and I fancy that will be the case here, that those who get the loans will be the chief beneficiaries, and I doubt if they will be any very great beneficiaries either. What I think is this: It is not hard now for a man who knows how to farm to get some land to farm. Lands are down in value, they are plentiful, they are easily secured. Why,
I know in our district, and it is a good district, you can buy very much on a shoestring, and if you have the goods in your own person in the way of energy you can go ahead and make a farmer of yourself.


Charles A. Stewart: It is all right buying on a shoestring, but that does not get rid of the obligation or pay the interest charges. The obligations pile up until the man is smothered.


Arthur Meighen: How do you get rid of them here? In the one case you can buy
-	REVISED
from the private owner at a low rate of interest; here you are paying the government a low rate of interest; that is all. The difference is this: In the one case the man knows he owes the money to a private owner, and knows he has to make good; in the other case, he owes the money to the government, and does not feel he has to make good.


Charles A. Stewart: I would not agree with that.


Arthur Meighen: Long experience has taught us that it is correct. It may be-I do not know-that there are certain obligations the minister has entered into in good faith which make this scheme necessary as a complement to his immigration policy. If such is the case, it would be some measure of justification, but with the tremendous load which is on our backs now and which is to become greater and greater if this other resolution regarding the revaluation of soldier lands goes through, as well as others, with all these obligations I fancy that we are hardly doing justice to the general interests of this country to place upon the shoulders of the taxpayer still another burden.


John Millar: In making comparison between this scheme and the soldier settlement scheme, the leader of the opposition touched very lightly on one great difference. It is a difference which I think should receive a great deal of consideration at the present time. At the time the land and equipment was purchased for the soldiers going on the land, prices were at the peak. I will give just one instance. A farm that I know quite well for which the purchaser refused 860 per acre, was sold in two or three years afterwards on very, very easy terms at $29 per acre. In those years when the soldiers were going on the land the prices for land and equipment were at the peak, but the prices obtainable for the products of the farm, for the wheat, the oats, the cattle and everything the soldier produced were low. The peak prices were the prices he had to pay for his land and his stock. I think it is no exaggeration to say that horses which were purchased for the soldiers at a price of say, $200, in the course of three or four years' time were worth not more than $50. I do not give those as the exact prices, but that is about the proportion. In a conversation I had with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) a few nights ago, I pointed to one settlement where some fifty-two farms were taken up and appraised by a very efficient appraiser, a mutual friend, and I believe that of the fifty-two, fifty-one suc-



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Advances to Settlers
[Stage Direction]
ceeded under the very adverse conditions I have mentioned-buying land, stock and equipment at peak prices and receiving for the products of the farm low prices. The prices of the chattels purchased had dropped 50 per cent in many cases. An hon. member behind me says 150 per cent. At all events they have dropped 50 per cent and more in some cases.
I believe the greatest danger to this scheme lies in the appraising of the land. Some very peculiar things took place under the soldier settlement scheme. I am not sure that all of them ever came to the attention of the board, but I know of one that worked out like this. A piece of land that was nothing but a sand bank, not worth in my estimation more than $10 an acre at the most, and I would call that price high, was appraised at $30 an acre and sold at that price. But that was not all. The owner of that land, I believe -I have not positive proof, but I have sufficient to cause me to believe it is an actual fact-made a quiet bargain with the three returned men who were going to take three quarters of the section, that if they could persuade the board to purchase at $30 an acre he would make them a gift of the other quarter. The deal went through. However, the three returned men found out although they got the quarter for nothing, that having purchased the three quarters at $30 an acre after the deflation took place, they had made a very bad deal indeed. I have not the slightest hesitation in believing that the gentleman who made the appraisement of those lands was not absolutely honest. I cannot think that any man who possessed the experience the man in question is said to have had honestly appraised that land at $30 per acre. In discussing this matter with certain officials they advanced the excuse that the scheme at that time was an entirely new one, that they had to pick out new men, that they were up against a difficulty and in some cases secured men highly recommended only to discover that they were very poor appraisers. As the minister has pointed out, there is machinery that will be available under the new scheme, and I have no doubt that those responsible for its operation will profit from the mistakes made in the past.
Another point to which I wish to allude before taking my seat is this. The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that he believed that homesteads that have been passed over are hardly worth taking up, and that it is just a question whether it would be wise to insist upon settlement going on to these homesteads. If it were a case of the open prairie
IMr. Millar.]
that statement might be true, but some of the lands on which it is proposed to settle these newcomers are potentially valuable. Where the land is good it will make excellent and valuable farms. In the case of lands covered with scrub sometimes the timber will be large enough to possess some commercial value but for the most part it is useless. Once that timber is removed, however, the lands will be found to be valuable. I am inclined to think that if the appraisement is surrounded with proper safeguards the present scheme will have undoubted value in connection with the settling of some of these lands.
Mr. MEiIGHEN:	How are you going to
appraise lands that nobody will take now for nothing? Is not that the very land that is to be used?
John Millar: I think it may be easily
understood that land that many settlers might not take now for nothing, especially when they have to clear it without assistance, would be acceptable to them if they were going to receive an advance of money to enable them to make, a start, lit is true the amount is not very large but it is an encouragement to them to take the land and improve it.


Arthur Meighen: That may be. They may take the land and may get money to help them to carry on, but that does not affect the question of the appraisement of the land as it stands. How can you appraise land that nobody will take as it stands?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I
should not like the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition in regard to the Manitoba farm loan scheme to pass without a comment or two. I do not think the right hon. gentleman wants to do an injury to any organization; I think he has confused the farm loan scheme with that of rural credits. There is no doubt that the rural credit societies of Manitoba have experienced losses but the loans in such cases were made on the operations of the farmer. The scheme of farm loans in Manitoba has been a success. It has not only proved profitable but it has been successful in keeping down the rate of interest. In the case of these loans the Manitoba farmer is getting money at the rate of 7 per cent, plus 1 per cent for amortization extending over a period of 30 years. This means an interest rate of 8 per cent. On the other hand you will find a great many farmers to-day paying a rate of interest as high as 8J and 8|, and in some cases 9 per cent, not only in Manitoba but in the provinces farther west. So that I think that the farm loan scheme in

Advances to Settlers
Manitoba even if it has not made large profits has certainly helped the situation as far as loans on farm lands are concerned.
I do not know how the scheme before the committee will work out, but I have this in mind; in a good many parts of western Canada-and for this I think the lack of proper colonization schemes is to blame-we have allowed a settler to locate here, and another there, and so on; they are scattered over quite a lot of territory. Then we have crown land adjacent to the settlers that are there to-day. But their numbers are too small to support schools, to build roads, and to carry out other improvements. If the present scheme can be properly worked out the settlers in question, few in number and virtually exiled, will receive a considerable augmentation of settlement and it will be possible to creat a community life which is largely absent to-day. If the scheme has this result it will be a good thing.
Another point to which I wish to allude is that this is the first time to my knowledge that we have given Canadian citizens a certain benefit under our immigration policy. We know of lots of men who have left the farm because of circumstances over which they had no control. They are at present in the city engaged in a desperate effort to make both ends meet. Now. if we could settle these people upon crown lands and advance them a sum of money to help them to carry out certain improvements they might be induced to return to the land and establish homes for themselves which would be a decided benefit to Canada. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) asked the question " Why not give those in all other walks of life the same advantages?" As a matter of fact we know that if the agricultural industry in Canada is prosperous all other industries will prosper likewise. Agriculture is a primary industry and everybody knows that if we have a prosperous agricultural community the rest of Canada is prosperous also. Suppose one had entered a manufacturing establishment two or three years ago, and had asked the manager why depression existed, his answer, if he were not intoxicated with the principle of protection, would be that it was due to the lack of purchasing power on the part of the Canadian people. He would say that was the reason why our industries were not prosperous. I have asked that question of dozens and dozens of manufacturers in the province of Ontario and they too gave me the same answer. While settlement was going on in western Canada, while the construction of railroads was in 14011-120)
progress, and immigrants were coming in great volume to this country, we never heard the manufacturer complain about the lack of business. But depression came and hit the agriculturist first. Then, two or three years afterwards, the manufacturer began to feel the pinch. This experience may do our manufacturers a lot of good and render them more efficient.


Peter McGibbon: I desire to occupy the attention of the committee for a moment or two on this question. I am opposed to the principle of the resolution because I am opposed to parliament eternally spoon-feeding the people.
I do not think we can ever develop a self-respecting and1 self-reliant race as long as we continue to follow methods of this kind. Neither do I think that in this good Dominion of Canada such a scheme is necessary.
I remember reading a debate in this House some time ago when the then member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) said! that he knew a gentleman, presumably himself, who came to this country as a stowaway or something of that character. He had grown, if not immensely wealthy, at least very well off, and ended up by being a representative of the people in this parliament. That is the class of people we want in Canada, self-reliant people who can make good if given the opportunity, and1 I might say that he is no exception. There are hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of such people in the country. Neither do I think that this proposition is a fair one to the dominion or to the province. As my right hon. leader has pointed out, you cannot make it fair to the provinces. I do not think it is going to be fair to the settler. I think you could not put a settler under a greater handicap than to put him where he could not grow a first-class crop. Of necessity his income and earning power is going to be greatly reduced from the fact that he is on inferior land. Why then should this country go into a proposition of this kind, loan money on our own property, or give away property which is inferior and ask a man to go on it?


Charles A. Stewart: May I
correct my hon. friend. He seems to be under the impression that the loans will be made on inferior land. That is not the proposition at all. A great deal of this land now under timber and brush is first-class agricultural land, the very best land we have in western Canada. I speak with some knowledge. I am sure when my hon. friend goes
Advances to Settlers

into northern Ontario he will have the same thing to say about the clay belt there. There is no better land than the olay belt in that district. Of course it is considerably to the north, but bear in mind the trouble is not the quality of the land, it is the difficulty in acquiring 'the land, to get it under cultivation.


Peter McGibbon: I was taking the minister's own word. He gave me to understand this was inferior land that had been passed over when settlers were going there.


Charles A. Stewart: On account of the brush.


Peter McGibbon: On account of the
difficulty in clearing. I think it would be of infinitely more importance to Canada if this government would get busy and so shape its policy that the people of the country could get something to do, and get some money for doing the work rather than simply loaning money on propositions which they admit are fraught with great difficulty and loss. The proposition is unsound and1 unfair from the dominion standpoint, from the provincial standpoint, and unfair from the standpoint of the settler. I want to voice my objection again to the eternal propositions coming before this House and country for the spoon-feeding of the people. We wili never get into this country good self-reliant people so long as they have to rely on the government to be spoon-fed. This class of people will never make a living.


Mr. McPHEE:: Would the hon. member
apply that to manufacturing as well?


Peter McGibbon: I desire to tell the hon. gentleman and this House-and I have stated it in parliament before-that there is no more justification for giving assistance to men going on the land than there is for giving assistance to men who are going into a manufacturing industry, and when we are going into .propositions of this kind we are showing favours to different classes of people in the country, which we have not the right to do.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
see very little difference between giving a bonus to a man going on the land and giving a bonus to a manufacturer by protection, the latter being spoon-fed to the limit. I heartily endorse what the minister said with regard to the necessity of consolidating settlement, but I do not entirely agree with his plan for crary-ing it out. I think one of our troubles in western Canada has been caused by spreading settle-

ment out too much. We surveyed land far beyond the reach of the ordinary settler. The moment land is surveyed and thrown open for settlement, it is a direct invitation for people to go in and occupy it. The settler is in a postion, after he has located on land a long way from the railway, to demand of ' the government railway facilities, and the government is under a moral obligation to provide him with those facilities when he goes in there, after the land has been thrown open for settlement. If we survey land too far out for settlement, men go in there and locate, start to build homes, clear up the brush, drain sloughs, organize municipalities, a large amount of money is spent on roads, schools 'being necessary, debentures are issued-against what? The most of the land is unpatented. After a few years, in many of the frontier settlements, a great number of these people, I think oh an average in the bush districts probably SO per cent of them, move out. You see the position in which that leaves the other 50 per cent. Their taxation is automatically doubled. There is continual pressure brought to bear on the provincial authorities-and I think the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Railways will bear me out in this-for improvement and for roads. The municipalities are burdened with the same thing, and instead of settling a problem you have created a new one. To my mind that is just what this legislation is going to do. It is not going to settle the problem that the minister has in mind, but he will create a new problem. I think I can speak with authority on this matter, because in my constituency we have about one hundred and twenty-five miles of a frontier on the bush land. There were large settlements there, but hundreds of these settlers have left and given up their farms. I am safe in saying that there are scores of homesteads which after being proved up, have reverted to the municipalities for taxes. Those homesteads have been improved and men have spent the best part of their lives there. Money has been spent on roads and money has been spent for schools, and in one district I know there are two schools idle to-day, not being used, but the debentures are still held against the land'. The settlers are still striving to make a living. When you go out to the frontier settlement, between the old settlement and the railway, you pass miles and miles of good agricultural land not occupied and some of that is partly improved. My 'hon. friend asks, why? There are various reasons why. Agriculture out there has not been prosperous. Farmers have been evicted. Their mortgages have been foreclosed. Others

Advances to Settlers
have gone voluntarily. Conditions are improving now, no doubt about that. In other cases, farmers bought more land than they could handle. When they found they could not handle it they had to give up some of it. I say to the minister that if he wants to accomplish the object he has in view 'he should endeavour to consolidate our settlement and converge on the existing settlements where educational, transportation and other facilities are already provided. In that way he might accomplish something. He could use money to assist settlement on lands privately owned. He may say that that is a provincial issue. I say that it is not a provincial issue entirely. Colonization is a federal issue and not a provincial issue. As the hon. leader of the opposition has said, these lands are available for purchase to-day at very low price?, lower than we have seen in western Canada for many years. The conditions out there are improving to a considerable extent. J believe that if many of these men could get assistance to locate on this class of land to-day they could make good.
Instead of opening up new lands where we have to build new roads, new schools, and to provide all the municipal machinery and so put further burdens on provincial and dominion authorities, let us use the facilities that we have. One of the problems of our railways and of our private business to-day is the overhead. Any business man knows that if he can double, triple or quadruple his turnover, he can reduce his overhead. By thickening up our settlement, by filling up those lands privately owned which are adjacent to our present transportation facilities, we can as a nation substantially reduce our overhead. We do not need to go outside of this country to get many desirable settlers for this class of land. The minister has referred to the "back to the land" movement from the cities. I know I can go to small towns in western Canada and to our cities in the east and in the west and I can get thousands of men, many of whom have had considerable agricultural experience, to go out on the land. They will not go fifteen or twenty miles into the bush; they are too shrewd to go there; but if you give them a little assistance to buy good privately owned land adjacent to the towns, they will go there and tens of thousands of them can make good.
That will help to solve the problem of unemployment which at present exists in the cities. It will assist us in our taxation problems in the country, and that is a terrible problem in some of our districts where many
men have been thrown out of or have abandoned their farms. It will assist in solving another problem. As I have said, one of our problems is that many of our farmers have too much land, perhaps on account of being over-speculative at a particular period when the government at Ottawa as well as private business concerns were demanding greater production. The farmer was pleaded with and preached at to produce, and produce, and produce. That was the proper thing to do at the time and there was a time when it was a profitable thing to do because, during the latter ye^rs of the war and indeed two years after the war, mass production was the proper kind of. production for the farmer. He could use engines instead of horses and in that way cultivate a large area much more cheaply than a small one. But those conditions do not obtain to-dav. The ^rice of engine fuel is just as high now as it was then. The price of horse feed has gone away down; it is not more than perhaps 25 to 30 per cent of what it was in the years to which I refer, and the farmer finds now that he must go-back to the use of horses almost exclusively in the cultivation of his land. That means; that he cannot cultivate on a large scale; that he must get down to a matter of more intensive cultivation. Many of those farmers who purchased more land than they could handle are in a position where they are liable to lose everything they possess. A man may have a joint mortgage against his land, whether it is a section or two sections as the case may be. If he can sell two or three quarter sections to new settlers under some scheme, the government might very well take hold of it. This would take a tremendous burden off his shoulders, thicken up settlement, bring in more men to pay taxes and help to clear bush on this class of land because there will probably be only sixty, seventy or eighty acres cleared on a quarter section. It will be better to get settlers on such land who will clear the balance of the quarter sections, rather than to send men out fifteen, twenty, twenty-five miles into the bush to clear new land away from settlement altogether.
At one place in my constituency we have what was at one time a very large settlement, forty miles from a railway. The men there were brought in by the Soldier Settlement Board. The land is the finest class of land you will find in western Canada, an ideal place, but there is no railway and the inevitable has happened. Some of these men have cleared up as much as 100 acres on a quarter and after doing so have walked out and left it. We do not want any more of that and
Advances to Settlers

I would earnestly plead with the minister to use the same legislation, because it has some merits, but in a different way. If you assist a man to be relocated on privately owned land, you have the same opporunity to get first security on it as you have in connection with your homestead fifteen, eighteen or twenty miles from a railway on the edge of a forest reserve. Where is your security in connection with that? The farmer who owns the land-or whether it is a speculator or business man or bank or mortgage company it makes no difference-in many cases would permit the government to * take a first mortgage and put his own equity on as a second mortgage. It would be of considerable assistance to the settler to have a first mortgage of SI,000, let us say, at a low rate of interest and spread over a long period of years, and many men under some such plan as that could be induced to go on the land whereas under this plan those who went on the land would be almost sure to fail.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: How would the hon.
member give the federal government priority over everybody else on privately owned land?


Milton Neil Campbell: Supposing these is a
mortgage of 13,000 against a quarter section of land and a settler wants to buy it. The man who has the $3,000 mortgage would be only too glad to accept the $1,000 as a cash payment, give the federal government security for that, and take a second mortgage for the 12,000.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: And give the government priority?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, post-mortems are not valuable except in so far as we gather therefrom some knowledge that is useful at the present or in the future. I am not very much concerned about our experience in connection with soldier settlement, for instance, or the advances we made to farmers who were in the drouth-stricken areas of Alberta, or other advances, except in so far as they induce me to believe that no government assistance as such has thus far been successful in western Canada. I regret to say that in Manitoba to which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) referred a moment ago, I think he will find that not only did the government lose money on the rural credits, but they also lost money, as reported by their own officers, in advances they made on farm lands as such. In Saskatchewan, where the administration was in the hands of an old loan company 
officer, their experience has been very much more satisfactory. Even in the land banks of the United States that have been in existence only a short time, there have been substantial losses during the last few years, and recently the government imposed upon those banks the necessity of setting up a reserve with respect to all property which they now hold under foreclosure.
The question that we are considering is whether or not this country shall put into unpatented or undeeded property $5,000,000 per annum at a rate of interest of 5 per cent per annum, repayable in ten years, the first payment to commence at the expiration of the second year. To that question baldly put in that way, I should think the answer should be in the negative. If on the other hand you surround the proposal with sufficient safeguards, there are a number of deserving cases that come to the attention of most of us every week of our lives, either by correspondence or by personal interview, that warrant the government in doing something to intensify settlement that is so sparse especially in western Canada. I wholly agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Air. Campbell) as to the causes that have brought about present conditions in western Canada. Nothing struck me more in the early days than to observe people going far away from a railway and settling and then the clamour that commenced for railways. In addition to the factors that have been mentioned as bringing about the condition referred to, there is one other factor which I think the minister might well bear in mind, that is, that lands have been stricken by drouth. Areas were opened for settlement that should never have been homesteaded. Especially is that so in Alberta and in one comer of Saskatchewan.
Now, the Minister of the Interior has observed that there are six million acres of land in Alberta within fifteen miles of railways and available for homesteading. But as I read the agreement that is now before the House, those lands are to be transferred to the provincial government, in whom the title would then be vested. These lands have not been homesteaded, and the reasons are twofold. First, in the northern part of the province there is considerable timber and railways have been extended north and west by the Dunvegan line, north by the Waterways railway, and to Athabasca Landing by the Canadian National. Still those homesteads have not been settled within fifteen miles of the railways for the simple and obvious reason that no person desired to take up the land.

Advances to Settlers
There has been homesteading in the Peace river territory, and we have had demands for railways from men who have settled in those remote sections. In the southern part of the province there are still some homesteads left, and there is still a considerable area in the central part of the province, but no one has attempted to homestead on those lands for the last twenty-five years. Only yesterday I received a communication with respect to a quarter section once homesteaded, and the reports are that no man can possibly go upon it and make even a pretence towards a living.
Under these circumstances is it fair or just or right that we should pledge the public credit with the hope that we will ever get back the money that we lend to the people who go upon those lands that for twenty-five years have been passed by by those who might have occupied them on payment of $15. Although patents to the land cannot be obtained in less than five years, we are told that we may be able to get back the money in eight years, commencing at the expiration of two years, with interest at 5 per cent per annum. Can we hope that at the end of the second year the homesteader may be able to pay interest on $1,000, that is, $50, plus one-eighth of the principal, which is $125. But in my judgment, having regard to what I have observed in the operation of loans of that character in that part of Canada, this would be nothing more nor less than an admission of failure before we commenced.
Now, it is said there are millions of acres of land available in Saskatchewan. I am perfectly certain that the ministers from Saskatchewan will bear me out that any land available for homesteading within fifteen miles of a railway in Saskatchewan does not belong to the class of land on which we expect people to make successful settlement. In Manitoba there are three million acres of vacant land. Why? Because you have the Hudson Bay railway extending into the northern part of that province, and the lands within fifteen miles of it have not been settled because they are not of the character that attracts settlers for any purpose other than ranching.
Then why should we do this at all? I think there are some reasons why we should. I have observed a very considerable number of people during my residence in western Canada who have the merit of a willingness to work-which is not common in some parts of Canada-and yet despite all they may do they have not been able to get even $500 of additional capital to enable them to start
upon the pathway of success. Those people I think this country might well assist. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) when he says we may rely upon the grim determination and the hardihood of settlers in these days to make homes for themselves in the wilderness, to succeed by their own unaided efforts or perish. Before the war that was true, but since settlement conditions have entirely changed, and we can no longer expect to attract people to this country and get them settled successfully under the same conditions as obtained before the war. With respect to that I am perfectly certain. The great success, if it was a success-I have my opinion as to that, but this is not the time or place to discuss it-with respect to settlement in western Canada was during those days when we were spending borrowed money on railways and paying interest on the borrowed money out of the money so borrowed, with the result that this country to-day is called upon to pay $30,000,000 per annum or even more for that costly experiment we engaged in at that time. Now my friend the minister knows, because he is aware of the conditions, that the very best settlement from the standpoint of getting results was settlement created at the time when men were able to find employment at certain periods of tihe year and then go up on their homesteads and utilize the money they had earned. What the country is demanding to-day is an opportunity for men to work; that is my observation; and if we can supply work of any kind for those who come into the Dominion, then advances of $500 or $1,000 would be absolutely secure; but if we merely intend to put people upon land within fifteen miles of a railway that has not been homesteaded for the last twenty-five years, and tell them as soon as they have a barbed wire fence around it and have put up a log or a sod hut they can come and get $500 or $1,000, that money is irretrievably and inevitably lost. I am satisfied of that. But if we can create conditions in this country, as I think we can if we only desire so to do, by which there would be some employment afforded to those who come here, especially having regard to the seasonal conditions that prevail, then those who have shown their desire to have a permanent stake in the country and have indicated by their earnings or savings to the extent I have mentioned that they desire to settle on land passed up by others, this country would be warranted in making some advances to them.
I fear very much that the minister will be not only disappointed with the working out
Advances to Settlers

of this proposal, but I think it will afford one more reason for a raid being made upon the government. To that extent I agree with my friend from Muskoka, that every time we weaken the fibre of our people by inducing them to believe that the government must take the place that has been occupied in times past by the hardy manhood of the people themselves, to that extent we have done injury to the country. But if we assist where there is ambition, if we aid where there is aspiration, then we have done some good to the community.
Now, this resolution does not say that lands must be within fifteen miles of a railway.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told by those who have had to do with the handling of farn^ products that even fifteen miles in these days is too great a distance.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles A. Stewart: :I may tell my hon. friend that 190 homesteads were taken up in western Saskatchewan last year in the wooded areas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: And they have been passed by for twenty-five years. Across the Saskatchewan river, within fifteen miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is another splendid area of first-class land, which has never been taken up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the minister says
is absolutely true. There is no doubt that wherever men have to spend from three to ten dollars an acre to clear land to make it available for the profitable production of crops, such land will always be avoided, the preference being given to prairie lands. What the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gibbon) has said is quite correct. In the early days of settlement in eastern Canada the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec had to hew their homes out of the wilderness. But that is entirely a different thing from establishing homes on the prairies. There has been no disposition on the part of the prairie settler to take up land where he has had to do any clearing, even of scrub and brush, to any considerable extent. No great settlement of homestead lands has been passed up in southern Alberta.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I have already said,
I fear the minister is destined to be greatly disappointed by a scheme such as is proposed. I have an idea that what has happened in the past will happen again. A desperate effort is always made by the political organizer to induce people to undertake things of this kind. The organizer will tell them, ''Here is your chance. If j'ou only do certain things, you are bound to secure the desired results." My hon. friend knows this; he has had as much experience of it as I have had. And this is not confined to one party. We know that during the days of the distribution of the drought relief such incidents were not uncommon. I would advise the minister to reduce the amount and to make the experiment for one year only, trying under those conditions to induce.people to take up settlements in the vicinity of districts already settled, rather than going far afield and afterwards
making demands for telephones, schools, rural mail delivery, better roads and, lastly, increased transportation facilities in the way of railroads.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry? Carried.


Mr. CAHAN:: I trust, Mr. Chairman, you
are not going to carry it so rapidly as this.
I wish to make no reflections, but I think the Speaker was rather hasty in calling "Carried" before.
There is one objection that I think may be made to this resolution, and -that is that while the amount is -large, $5,000,000 a year, it is also unlimited as to time. I do not think, under -the present condition of the finances of this country, that an experiment of this nature t-o the extent of $5,000,000 a year should be unlimited as to time.


Charles A. Stewart: I intended
to say in reply to the hon. member for West Calgary that I have no particular objection to a reduction of the amount. Indeed, we likely shall not be called on to spend any of t-he -money this year, but my hon. friend will readily understand that if settlement takes place under the provisions of the act, the persons who settle on the land and make improvements will expect to have advances made to them in the succeeding year, and that is one of the difficulties in limiting it to one year. I have no objection to limiting: it to three years, and, when the bill is introduced, to cutting down the figure to a very reasonable amount, if that will meet my hon. friend's objection.
Mr. -CAHAN:	Mr. -Chairman, it certainly
will go a long way toward meeting the objection I had in mind, if the amount can be reduced, and- if the term during which the experiment is to be carried on can be limited. As a matter of fact, the constituency which I represent, -and this applies I believe -to the whole of the eastern provinces, is desirous of going a very long way in order to assist, in the development of the western provinces, bu-t there -must be a limit to the liabilities-which the whole country w-ill undertake in the next few years in that respect. We have-this liability, and if it is not inopportune to say so, we have the -liability coming in connection with rural credits, which lis a somewhat similar -application of public funds. Then we have the pension proposal, which
Advances to Settlers

I understand will require about twenty to twenty-five million dollars a year, if it is to be carried out according to the terms proposed in the resolution. Then we have the liability to which I called attention the other day in connection with the West Indies, which may amount, if we carry out that engagement, to a capital outlay of some nine or ten million dollars, and an outlay to make up the deficiency in earnings running anywhere from $300,000 or $400,000 to $1,000,000 a year, depending on the extent to which the scheme is carried out.
We are in a very critical position in this country at the present time. Hon. gentlemen do not seem to realize the burden of debt and the burden of taxation which we are now carrying, and which, if you take your municipal, your provincial, and your federal taxation, all of which we have to bear, amounts to nearly one-quarter of the productive energies of this country. Further, while the east is prepared to make large concessions to the west, if you impose too large burdens upon the east, it must break; it cannot carry the burden that it is carrying. Since confederation was established in 1867 the east has willingly carried that burden, and it is carrying it to-day. In proportion to the wealth of those western provinces, Manitoba*, Alberta 'and 'Saskatchewan, -the individual wealth of the eastern provinces is far less, and the eastern -provinces are far less able to carry the burden than the west. The west is more prosperous to-day than any other part of this country, and I am thankful for it; -but if you burden -the east without giving, as I think, proper encouragement to the establishment of remunerative industry in the east, this country will break so far -as the east is concerned1; it will be impossible to carry the burden of debt and taxation which has [been already rolled- up. Without saying one word of disparagement of the west, the great burden of our taxation comes upon the eastern provinces, and they are carrying as -heavy -a burden as it is possible for men to carry under the present industrial conditions. I am thankful, therefore, -that the minister has saved me from talking half an hour by the very reasonable concessions which he says he is prepared to make.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend surely is not arguing that the individual in the east carries more taxation than the individual in the west?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The eastern individual
carries more than the western; there is absolutely no doubt about it. There is no doubt that the eastern provinces are carrying by taxation a large portion of the cost of shipping every ton of wheat that comes from the west to the east. That is according to the return which was brought down for my hon. friend from Muskoka, and to which he referred. It is not dealing with the present year-and I am not dealing with the present year, but in the two previous years this country as a whole paid a very considerable portion of the cost of transporting the wheat from the west to the east, and I think it is prepared to make large concessions in that respect.


Charles A. Stewart: That was
not the question I asked my hon. friend. I understood him to be arguing that the individual in the east was carrying more taxation than the individual in the west.
Mi-. CAHAN: I cannot discuss intelligently or compare our municipal taxation in the east with the municipal taxation in the west, because I have not the figures of municipal taxation. But so far as federal taxes are concerned there is absolutely no doubt, anyway you look at it, that the great bulk of the taxation of this country is being carried at a higher rate per capita in the eastern provinces than in any of the provinces of the middle west, and furthermore, it is being carried out of a per capita wealth much less in the east than in those provinces of the middle west. I am glad the amount involved in this proposal is to be decreased to a more reasonable limit. But consider the aggregate burden we are rolling up: We are also going to revalue the soldier settlement lands, a proposal which bids fair, if my information is at all Correct, to place a further burden of forty or fifty million dollars upon the whole country by the reduction of the amount of outstanding loans and the assumption of that reduction by the Dominion treasury and the east will have to bear a very considerable share of it. Then there is the rural credits scheme, the pension scheme, the proposals in connection with the Hudson bay, and all the rest. I say that unless you limit those obligations and at the same time give us an opportunity to increase our industrial efforts in the east you are placing a burden upon this country that, in my opinion, can have only one result. I have said before, and I wish to repeat it, I have no prejudice whatsoever against the west. I am anxious, and I believe

Advances to Settlers
the whole of the east is anxious, to assist in building up this country as a whole, whether it be the western provinces or the eastern provinces.


Murray MacLaren: There is a provision in the proposed arrangement regarding the provinces which do not have crown lands suitable for the purpose of carrying out the desired object. The minister very correctly describes what is proposed as a very meagre provision, so meagre indeed that he thinks-


Charles A. Stewart: May I correct my hon. friend? I am afraid that a different meaning from that intended has been given to a statement of mine. If the provinces have the lands and are desirous that the Dominion shall advance money to put settlers upon them, then the Dominion will advance the whole $1,000. The meagre provision 1 spoke of was the assistance granted the provinces to purchase the land.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some crown
lands in New Brunswick.


Murray MacLaren: Some of the provinces
have crown lands not suitable for settlement, and in order to make this provision apply generally the minister recommends the provision set out in clause 8 of the resolution. He described that as a very meagre provision and I agree with him absolutely.


Charles A. Stewart: That is towards the purchase of the land.


Murray MacLaren: Towards the purchase
of the land, yes. I wish to remind the minister, and I have already pointed out the fact many times, that the attention of parliament is too strongly drawn and directed towards settlement in certain portions of the west, whereas other portions of the Dominion might, with great profit and even greater fairness, receive equal attention at the hands of the ministerial head of the Immigration department.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend's province is in a very superior position in the matter of fares for settlers because it takes very much less money to bring settlers to that province.
Mr. MacLAREtN: I understand the arrangement to which the minister refers has been agreed upon but has not yet been brought into effect. I should like the minister to point out to the committee anything in the nature of an advantage to the Maritimes in matters of this kind that has been carried out in the past few years. What we are dealing with
here is something which it is hoped to secure in the immediate future. I think my contention is correct that the immigration policy of the government has been too restricted in its outlook, and that there has been a failure to apply it equally to all portions of the Dominion. My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the great difficulties that arise as a result of sparsity of settlement. In the remote portions of the country that difficulty would be encountered more easily than in the more settled parts of Canada. I would urge once more that settlement should proceed gradually from the populated districts outward rather than that it should be directed to remote and sparsely settled parts of Canada. At the present time I do not see that this proposal will apply to any extent to the eastern portion of the Dominion. I presume the minister will agree with that statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess that I am ignorant of the agricultural situation in the Maritime provinces, at all events I am not familiar with it. But my hope was that something might be accom-lished through the medium of this policy to settle the vacant lands of those provinces. I understand there are in the Maritime provinces a number of vecant and abandoned lands, although an abandoned farm has not a very pleasant sound to the ear of an incoming settler. That was a difficulty that was encountered in connection with the soldier settlement lands. At the same time I am informed that there are a large number of farms in the Maritime provinces of fairly good quality that are available for settlement to the newcomer. My hope was that perhaps the provinces might take up this problem in conjunction with the Dominion, in which case wp would make these loans to establish the newcomers.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I should like to ask the minister one question, because I can see how this proposal is likely to affect the province of Quebec to a very considerable extent. The minister has stated that the land coming under this scheme must be situated within fifteen miles of a railway. Such a provision, whether established by regulation or by statute, is going to militate extremely against the province of Quebec and will absolutely prevent the application of this scheme to districts in our province where settlement is needed, these districts being in some cases fifteen, twenty and, perhaps, twenty-five miles from the railway. I should therefore be very glad if the minister, when preparing the regulations which
Advances to Settlers

are to govern the matter, would take into consideration the fact that other parts of Canada as well as the west have to be kept in mind.


Charles A. Stewart: I am surprised to know that there is not a large quantity of land in the province of Quebec within fifteen miles of a railway.


Eugène Fiset: All the crown lands that are being settled at the present time are situated more than fifteen miles from a railway.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend does not suggest that there are no crown lands unsettled within fifteen miles of the existing railways?


Eugène Fiset: There is very little left in our part of the country within that distance.


Mr. MURPHY:: I am in accord with the
spirit of this resolution. The minister states that he wishes to settle vacant lands throughout the Dominion. I do not, however, follow him in his argument that the present proposal is going to carry out that purpose. The first clause of the resolution provides that the minister may make loans to settlers on the basis of improvement of land and farm buildings erected, and the amount of such advance is to be $1,000 for a Canadian citizen and $500 for an outsider. In other words after the man has been induced to go on the land and has demonstrated to the government that he can support his family and make improvements he is entitled to receive aid which however he no longer requires. He has demonstrated that he can make a living and support his family. Then the government intimates that it is prepared to come to his assistance. I do not see the soundness of any such reasoning. It seems to me that if assistance is given it should be given in the first instance, because the type of settler that you are going to attract to these vacant lands is likely to be a man of very limited means. Now, if the intending settler has certain moneys of his own that will enable him to live for a period of two or three years, erect his buildings, and carry out desired improvements, he does not need to settle on vacant land. There are hundreds and thousands of acres of more or less improved land in western Canada today and which, if they can be purchased, will be taken in preference to vacant land. There are lands which can be purchased in western Canada to-day on the basis of a share of the crop payment without the purchaser putting up one dollar of his own money. And upon

these lands buildings have been erected in many cases. Buildings have already been erected on these lands, therefore I say this proposal does not encourage settlement on vacant lands. If we are to encourage settlement' on vacant lands the assistance should come at the beginning of the term, not after the man has demonstrated that he is capable of making a living there. I am opposed to any resolution providing for making a direct loan to the people from any government of this country. It has been proven a failure, especially in my own province of Manitoba, under the rural credit scheme. It has been a curse rather than a blessing to the people of that province, and I think every member from western Canada will bear me out in that statement. The government in Manitoba is facing a loss at least of $500,000 under that scheme.


An hon. MEMBER:: $675,000.


Charles Murphy: Yes. Those loans were
made, I might say, to farmers already established upon the land with the object of improving their buildings and stock and making the business a success. If that policy was a failure under those conditions, where the farmers were already established on the land, how can hon. gentlemen expect inexperienced men taking up vacant land to make a success of it and be able to repay the money to the government? The principle of the government lending money directly to the people is to my mind absolutely wrong. We know that this is merely a sop and does not deal with the question in a big way. You have your other immigration schemes as well. Clause 8 states that if a provincial government, not having suitable crown lands available, acquires by purchase suitable land for settlement under the provisions of this legislation, the minister may pay to the provincial government a sum not exceeding one-half of the interest on the purchase price of such lands. If that provision was carried out you would add to the difficulties under which the municipalities are suffering to-day. You purchase the lands from private interests, and they become crown lands. Those lands are now taxable, and if those settlers leave them they revert to the crown, and any taxes that are paid on them at the present time will not be payable in future to the municipality.
Those are my main objections to this resolution. I believe the same result would be achieved by the government making a survey of all the different areas throughout the west, in co-operation with existing institutions such as agricultural societies, boards of trade, and the different locals of the United Farmers of

Advances to Settlers
the west, so that information would be at hand in concise form respecting lands which are available at the present time for settlement. There are many pieces of land in the well settled districts which the owners would be only too pleased to let go to men who wanted to settle on the land. If a man living in any of the cities of Canada to-day wishes to go on the land there is absolutely nothing to prevent him. Many farmers in the central provinces would only be too glad to get men and families to assist them, because many of them have too much land and not enough help to cultivate it. Some of these lands are capable of producing from 33 1-3 to 50 per cent more than they are producing at the present time with limited labour. Intending settlers from any of the cities of Canada, or incoming immigrants would have no difficulty in settling on the land or obtaining a lease and getting assistance from the owners of the land in order to get employment on the land.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: I do not think it is too late to suggest to the miriister that he should withdraw this resolution, so that hon. members may study it and become more familiar with it. It is rather a radical move, a move that I would expect from my hon. friends from my left rather than from the Minister of the Interior. At least it is establishing something new that would have a bad effect on the public treasury. I am sure if the minister would withdraw the resolution beAvould be doing the country a kindness. It is all right to laugh, but at the same time you are loading up the industrial world and the country generally with something that it cannot. carry, as an hon. member stated a short time ago. The government is getting into difficulties all over, with rural credits, pensions and everything else that is being suggested. Who is going to carry the burden? I do not wish to talk about it. I think the minister should use his judgment and withdraw the resolution. It is a radical move, this suggestion to spoon-feed the people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Conservative government are doing it in England.


David Spence: I do not care what they are doing.


Charles A. Stewart: Ithinkthere is a great deal of misapprehension about the resolution. I do not see the danger suggested by my hon. friend who has just spoken. While the losses in connection with the activities of the Soldier Settlement Board have been large and will be larger, after all the board has served a very useful purpose
in Canada. No one will deny that. The difficulty to-day with the man going upon the land is that he has not got money. It is all right to talk about the ease with which a _ man can secure an improved farm. I know all about that. I have some farms I would not mind selling to someone on crop payments, without any payment down, but I could not afford to sell them for nothing,. Incidentally, while a man is working a farm on crop payments, he must have at least $2,000 with which to purchase stock and implements before he can farm the land. So that he is met at every corner with a handicap. There is inherent in the human mind, no matter where we go, a desire to own land, whether in the city or in the country. It is a laudable ambition, because the ownership of land ties a man to the land and to the country and makes him a much more valuable citizen than he would be if he had no ties or stake in the country. I want to encourage not only the young man in the country, but those who are in the cities and towns at the present time, to go out and procure land which they will have a reasonable chance of owning within a certain length of time.
I think I can safeguard this legislation so thoroughly that the loss will be reduced to the minimum. I do not mean to say that when the government directly advances say from two to four thousand dollars by way of farm loans upon an improved farm, it is not taking a considerable chance in regard to the repayment of the loan. The loan companies lose a great deal of money, and they exercise much care. When you go into it on such a scale you sometimes lose money. But when you have an encumbrance on the land and the land is the property of the crown; when all you are doing is trying to give the man a sufficient amount to carry him along as he improves that land, and when you provide a safeguard by ensuring that he does not get more than the value of the improvements he places upon the land, the chances of loss are reduced to a minimum.


Peter McGibbon: How much does the minister think it would cost, roughly, on an average to clear this land per acre?? I know he cannot give exact figures.


Charles A. Stewart: If someone was hired to do the work it would probably cost $5 to $7.50 an acre. If the settler does it himself, the cost represents exactly the amount of energy he puts into the work, but we may say it would cost him on an average $5 an acre to clear that bush land. We have cleared whole townships of it in Al-
Advances to Settlers

berta by burning. There is a very prosperous settlement that I know well on the Edmonton-Dunvegan railway where three townships were burned over by officers of the Department of the Interior and were cleared very rapidly in that way. That is exceptionally easy' clearing, and probably it did not cost us more than twenty-five cents an acre to do it. Generally speaking there is sufficient timber on these lands to provide for the erection of log buildings. Many of these settlers would not under any circumstance get the maximum advance, but the advances would keep them at work improving their land whereas otherwise they would have to leave and finally abandon the land because they would have to go out in order to earn sufficient money to support their wives and families.


Peter McGibbon: All a man would have after three years would be his wages, which would be paid by the government.


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily, because in my experience in western Canada, although this may not be true in the east, every homesteader has an opportunity during at least two months in the year of earning very high wages. During the last few years he has been earning, in harvesting operations and threshing, five to six dollars a day, with board; so that he earns a very respectable amount of money in that way in a very short time. This is merely supplemental in order to keep him on the land until the spring when he can best perform his duties, and to encourage him, if it is possible to do so, to own the land and to become a contented settler.


Arthur Meighen: Clause 5 reads:
That no settlement loan shall be made upon the security of improvements upon any provincial crown land, unless tihe province by appropriate legislation, has provided that the improvements upon the security of which any such loan ds made shall be subject to a first charge for the amount of such loan with interest, and that no patent shall be issued for the said land until such loan with interest is repaid in full.
I do not see very much security that is going to be given in that way. In the first place the Minister of Justice may take care that his province will not permit the minister to put a federal mortgage on provincial crown land, and next if the province withholds the crown patent until the loan >is paid, supposing the loan is never paid how is the government going to get title? Suppose, for example, in the case of crown land in Ontario a loau is made and patent does not issue. AH the man mortgages is his right to a patent if ever he repays the loan. It is a sort of equity to title.


Charles A. Stewart: The arrangement will be between the provincial government and the federal government in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but that is the basis of the arrangement as outlined in the resolution. All the province agrees to is that it will not issue patent until the loan is paid and that the loan will be a first charge. The province holds the patent; all the man mortgages is his right to patent once the loan is paid.


Charles A. Stewart: But the
land would not be patented to anybody. The loan would be a prior claim on the land.


Arthur Meighen: How is the government going to get title if the loan is not paid? There is no way in the world that it can get title. A man settles in northern Ontario, and the provincial government have passed legislation in Ontario that first of all if he borrows from the federal government the loan will be a first charge. They pass legislation also that they will not issue a patent until the loan to the federal government is paid. Let us suppose that is all done as is provided in the resolution and then the settler does not pay. Will anyone suggest how the government is going to get title? It cannot get title.


Charles A. Stewart: They get title to sell the property in order to recoup themselves.


Arthur Meighen: The crown patent has
not issued.


Charles A. Stewart: The loan is the only charge that will be against the land and surely the officials of the government would not be so simple as to lend money upon land which was not worth it.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it simply the point that we would not be able to foreclose and recoup ourselves?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, because there is no title to foreclose on. The title is in the province of Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: We would
be in the position of having a first mortgage on the land.


Arthur Meighen: Very good, but the
patent has not issued.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Advances to Settlers
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Duff: When the committee
took recess at six o'clock we were discussing a certain proposed resolution to authorize advances to settlers on crown lands. Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. ROGERS:: No, not yet.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Will the bill
contain any provision to prevent a settler going into debt in anticipation of getting a loan and then assigning the money to his creditors?


Charles A. Stewart: Of course,
this is purely a case of a mortgage upon the property after certain improvements have been made. The settler must first improve his land to warrant any advance to him.


Mr. FOSTER:: Has the government information as to the provinces in which these lands are located? What demand has been made, and by whom, for the introduction of this legislation involving an expenditure of *5,000,000?


Charles A. Stewart: The bulk of the land is in the prairie provinces and is vested in the federal government. As I pointed out this afternoon, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec have adopted a similar scheme for the settlement of their crown lands.


George Eulas Foster: Where are these lands
located?


Charles A. Stewart: This afternoon I gave the acreage and location of the lands in the western provinces.


George Eulas Foster: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon, I missed the statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
give the localities.


George Eulas Foster: That is what I am particularly interested in. I have knowledge of some of the territory in the western provinces. I do not know whether the lands I have in mind are vested in the crown or not; that is why I put my question. Do any of the lands east of the city of Winnipeg along the Canadian National lines come into this scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is the land northwest and
northeast of Winnipeg in that section east of the lakes vested in the crown?


Charles A. Stewart: There is some crown land there. Practically all lands in the northern portion of the three prairie provinces have been inspected by the inspectors of the Soldier Settlement Board. Those lands do not include any acreage such as I gave this afternoon. For example, out of a million acres in Saskatchewan, between 300,009 and 400,000 acres have been inspected by the Soldier Settlement Board inspectors, who have recommended the land, which is mostly brush and woodland, as suitable for settlement. In Manitoba I think land in five or six different localities has been inspected. In Alberta the Soldier Settlement Board inspectors have inspected five or six hundred thousand acres of land, mostly covered with timber and brush, that they recommend as being suitable for settlement. Those are the lands I have particularly in mind.


Mr. BURY:: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the committee recognizes two things at least : that the problem with which we are faced to-day is the result, first, of the absolute lack of any proper system of colonization, of any proper principles. The orderly development of the city of Edmonton was tied up for years by the great block of land held by the Hudson's Bay Company and we were forced in consequence to extend our various utilities to reach the settled parts in the outskirts of the city. The committee recognizes also, I think, the sincerity and earnestness of the minister in charge of this proposal, and that he really conceives it to be a serious attempt to solve the problem. I do not like to criticize his proposal, although in point of fact criticism is the prerogative of the opposition and the price of office, but it seems to me that the government is indulging in an agricultural experiment which is going to mean nothing but a harvest of political disappointment and a financial loss to the country.
Before dealing with the elements of the proposal, may I mention one or two statements made by the minister which are misleading? In the first place, he spoke of the proposal as being a settlement, and the settlers as being settled under the act. I do not understand that there is any such thing as a settlement under the proposed act. The act, if it is passed, will possibly bring certain settlers within its purview and the range of its benefits, but I do not understand the phrase "settlement under the act." So far as I can see, there is no such thing.

Advances to Settlers
The minister mentioned a fifteen-mile limit. I cannot find any reference to a fifteen-mile limit in the proposal as we have it before the committee. Perhaps the minister can discover it himself, but it has eluded me.


Arthur Meighen: It is not there.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The minister also said that
this proposal was for the purpose of helping to put settlers on the land. That of course, is not correct: the settler is on the land before he gets any assistance at all. He may be on the land for some years before he is in a position to make application for a loan, as I hope to prove in a few minutes.
Finally, the minister talks about a charge on the land. He gave the committee to understand that the federal government would have, as security for the loans, a charge on the land. In no sense is that true. If the land belongs to the federal government, the federal government can have no charge upon its own land, and if it is provincial government land the federal government certainly can have no charge on it unless the provincial government actually gives such charge. What the federal government will have by way of security for any loans it makes under the scheme will be a kind of equitable claim or charge against the interest of the particular settler, an interest which is very vague and indeterminate; and the moment it is abandoned, that very moment the security goes, and the money along with the security, because the only thing that will be left will be the personal covenant or promise of the settler. When the settler abandons his land, therefore, his personal covenant becomes absolutely worthless.
It is necessary for the committee to have these facts clearly in mind, and not to labour under the delusion that moneys that will be advanced under the scheme will have behind them anything which we can properly call a land security, or any tangible security, or any security which, in point of fact, can be realized at all. The fact is that it will be absolutely in the power of the settler at any moment to extinguish the security merely by his leaving the homestead and throwing the land back on the government.
The minister has said that the purpose of the proposal is to settle crown lands within fifteen miles of the railways. He has gone further and assured us that the reason there is any such land still available is that homesteaders have passed it up long since and gone out into the country forty and fifty miles further on, rather than take them up. Why? They have passed these lands up either be-
[Mr. Bury.J
cause they were poor or because, although being rich lands, they were so heavily timbered that it did not pay to clear the ground. I take it for granted that the land that would be brought within the purview of the proposed act would be not poor, but very heavily timbered, land. The question arises, then, as to what it would cost to clear such land. The Minister of the Interior tells us that it would cost $5 an acre to dear it. I do not think that is correct. Hon. gentlemen to my left understand something about clearing land, and I leave it to their judgment whether I am not nearer the mark when I say that the cost of clearing the land would be more like $15 or $20 per acre. Of course it entirely depends on the weight and thickness of the timber. If land could be cleared at $5 an acre it would not now be available for homesteading if it is within fifteen miles of a railway. I do not think anyone will dispute that statement. I happened to be in the northern part of the country two or three years ago in the neighbourhood of the Lesser Slave lake, and I saw some homesteads there with heavy timber on them. It was beautiful land. I asked some of the settlers what it would cost to clear such land, and they said $40 an acre. "In the name of fortune", I said, "how can it possibly pay a man to clear land at $40 an acre? Would it not be infinitely better to pay $10 an acre to begin with and get land already cleared?" That is a question which will be readily answered. However, if what the Minister of the Interior suggests is correct, and if this land can be cleared at a cost of $5 an acre, it means that before the unforutnate man can get a loan of $500 he must clear ICO acres of land. If he does not clear the whole 100 acres then he must put up a fence and build a house by way of improvement, which would mean that probably he would be on the farm about three years at the very least before he would have such improvements as would be worth $500. When he would have made improvements that would be worth $1,000 I leave it to the committee to imagine.
There is one other thing the committee must keep in mind. The minister has suggested that improved farms are so valuable in Alberta that a man has no difficulty in raising a loan of $600. I can only tell him that I lent a man personally $250 on an improved farm in Alberta near a railway station, and although that was ten years ago I am still whistling for the $250. In my office I am attending to two files representing mortgages, one of which started with a loan of $450 on a farm within a quarter of a mile of the rail-

Advan-ces to Settlers
way station. That was an improved farm and I cannot get any money out of it. I have another farm up in the Peace river district in which there is a loan of about $800 and it will keep me scratching to get my money out of that transaction. And these are all improved farms. The truth of the matter is that by reason of the fall in land values there are plenty of improved farms in Alberta that can be sold cheap, and I feel very much inclined to support the suggestion made by an hon. member to my left, whose constituency I cannot name, that it would be better for the government not to try to clear these heavily timbered lands but, if they are going to do anything in the direction now suggested, rather to assist in putting improved farms that are now derelict back into occupation and use. The settling of heavily timbered lands might come later, when through an increase in population in the immediate neighbourhood, the general price of land goes up and when there may be a greater market for the timber, so that those who might take them up could get something of appreciable worth from the clearing of the land itself. But to tackle the problem in the way the government now proposes, means, to my mind, that this country will be faced again with another fiasco and with a burden of debt. In Alberta we have seen the results of attempts to assist the agricultural industry. We had a famous cow bill once, the provisions of which all parties in Alberta united in passing.


Mr. HANSON:: Who was the author of it?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The Liberal government was
the author of that cow bill, but to be perfectly fair, I must say that the Conservative members of the House ardently supported it when it was brought forward. But nobody mentions the cow bill now except with bated breath or when no one is around.
It is all very well to talk of advancing money only to the extent of the actual improvements, and it is all very well to have your valuators go on the land to find out what the actual improvements are, but will the committee remember this: that the improvements on which they are proposing to advance this money are wasting improvements, that when a man steps out of his land, the breaking goes back into the old condition and becomes grass,	or worse still,	weeds.	Theneighbours around who want fence posts come along and take fence	posts	andthe wire, and	those who want	doors	andwindows come	and take the	doors	and
windows for their houses. By and by
the roof goes, then the walls, and finally there is just about as much left to mark the place where those buildings and outbuildings were as there is over the site of Sodom and Gomorrah.


Arthur Meighen: The mortgage will still be there.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Advances to Settlers

ing and improving that land. There is a great deal of groundless fear on the part of our eastern friends as to the expenditure that will be made under this scheme.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What is the check on it?


Mr. FORKE:: They have to make certain improvements, and the most they can receive is $1,000.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Does the hon. member not
agree that the fewer the number that take advantage of this scheme, the less useful it is? His very argument that it is going to be taken advantage of by only a very few surely means that the scheme is going to be of very little use.


Robert Forke: I think the hon. member
has not caught the point. I say this scheme will be taken advantage of by a certain class of people who have not sufficient capital to go on what I would call a really good cleared farm. It will appeal to men who are working out by the day during the summer and going back to the farm in the winter and making their improvements. My hon. friend from East Edmonton said that when one of these farms is vacated the fence posts and even the doors and windows of the houses are stolen by the neighbours. If there was anything else left, Mr. Chairman, I think the lawyers would get it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is why I am so poor.


Robert Forke: I was rather surprised, I
will not say at the indignation shown by the hon member for St. 'Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) this 'afternoon, because I believe he was quite in earnest when he spoke of the terrible burdens the east was carrying for the west. This was only another scheme, in his view, whereby millions would be loaded on to the shoulders of the eastern people. Mr. Chairman, I do not know when this sort of talk, this everlasting story of the east carrying the west upon its shoulders, is going to end. I have borrowed money sometimes, I suppose from eastern capitalists, and I never got it for less than 8 per cent. I never supposed there was any favour in the thing; it was simply a business transaction, and if hon. members in the east have made bad investments in western Canada it must have been through their want of sound business judgment. I cannot understand this constant talk of the east bearing the burdens of the west, of every move made in western Canada as being something that is going to be a further burden on the

shoulders of the east. I deplore that sort of talk, and I think we ought to stop it. The people of the three western prairie provinces do not want any charity; all they want is fair play and a square deal.


An hon. MEMBER:: They take all that
is coming to them.


Robert Forke: You do not hear us talking that way of eastern Canada. You do not hear any western man finding fault with the east or with the Maritime provinces. We are 'perfectly ready to help the east and the Maritime provinces in every way we can. Furthermore, I say this talk does not make for a united Canada, and I want to see a united Canada. I want this talk of east and west, of one carrying the burdens of the other, to stop, because I do not believe there is anything in it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the hon. member how he expects to have a united Canada in the face of the Speech from the Throne that this government brought down this year?


Robert Forke: How often hon. members
are pointing across the floor and saying, "this" government. This government is here, and apparently it is going to stay here for some time.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Does the hon. member think
that he should have been pointed to instead?


Robert Forke: I am not going to take up
very much time, and I hope hon. members will allow' me to finish. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is now in his seat, and I wish to relieve his mind a little. I want to tell him there is no danger that the east is going to be swamped by "this little insignificant attempt that is being made at the present time to help some of the workingmen to get homesteads out in western Canada or in any of the other provinces. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-iSt. George-1 an repeating this just for his benefit-seemed to get very much worked up this afternoon about the tremendous burden that was being heaped on the shoulders of the eastern people through some of the commitments that are being made in western Canada. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I repudiate any such statement. I know something about the history of railroad building and of the opening up of western Canada. I have seen that part of the west in which I live develop from the prairie to the point that we have there now a civilized community; we have roads and bridges, rural mail deliv-

Advances to Settlers
ery, and all the conveniences of modern civilization. I know something about western Canada, and I think we ought to stop this talk about the east carrying all the burdens for the west.
What remedy do these critics propose in place of the scheme that we are now considering? Hon. members continually repeat the assertion that what we want to-day in this Dominion is a larger population. We want more people, they say. What are we going to do with them? I wish the hon. members who make this statement so frequently would tell us what we can do with them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will tell my hon. friend,
if he will permit me. We are bringing into this country $600,000,000 of foreign products that can be manufactured in the Dominion.


Robert Forke: I had an idea what my hon. friend would suggest before he made his statement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Robert Forke: A great many arguments have been advanced during the last four years in an effort to prove the truth of that assertion. I have as yet failed to see that it will remedy the problems we have to meet. We are producing more goods than we can sell now, and they are being produced at a cost which renders it impossible to compete with other countries. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George would restrict the buying power of the people of Canada by forcing them to buy the goods that are produced here, notwithstanding the price at which they are produced.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be patriotic.


Robert Forke: I am just as patriotic as
hon. gentlemen who adopt that line of argument. But I am convinced that even if those hon. gentlemen had their way and obtained increased protection, that would not solve the problems with which we are now confronted. If any hon. member who favours that argument will give it serious thought he will soon come to the conclusion that his theory will not solve our problems. We have heard it stated, and it has been repeated time and time again, that we have all the facilities necessary to carry on business for twice our population, and that we need population to help to bear the capital expenditure that has been made in procuring those facilities. Now I come back to the question as to what we are going to do with the population we now have. You do not want them in the towns;
you say you have not markets enough now for the goods you are producing in the industrial centres, and that you want to create a greater market in this Dominion. How are you going to create that market? By an increased population engaged in creating natural wealth. Now, I want to draw a distinction, Mr. Chairman, between what I call creating natural wealth and creating industrial wealth, because there is quite a difference between the two. I want hon. members to understand that I do not belittle in any way the production of wealth by industrial methods. Industry adds to the value of an article by shaping it so that it will be available for the actual use of humanity. Wealth derived directly from the soil is actually created wealth. Not only that, but the soil produces wealth that pays for the employment necessary to its production. These are the A B C's of economics, and no one who has studied the subject for a moment can fail to understand them.
The great problem before us to-day then, is to increase our population, and the only way in which that can be successfully done is by increasing our agricultural population. How are you going to do that? By making those who are already living on the soil industrious and contented. Now we get back to the basis of the whole theory that has brought this section of the House into parliament. I want to make the statement here that this is no sectional or narrow view: I honestly believe that the whole economic structure of our country is built upon an agricultural basis. I am not for a moment arguing that agriculture is everything in Canada. But let me say this: make agriculture prosperous and you will solve the problem we have before us.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George told us that the per capita wealth of western Canada was much greater than the per capita wealth of eastern Canada. Well, I am sorry the hon. gentleman was not in the House when the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) was speaking, because he told us about some farms of a few hundred acres on which there were mortgages, that the mortagees had never been able to pay off. There is something wrong in that line of reasoning. On the one hand they are unable to pay off the mortgages on those farms in the west, and on the other hand the west has a larger per capita wealth than the east.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have some in the east as well.
i 1912
Advances to Settlers


Robert Forke: An. hon. member asks me
what about the people in the towns. I claim that if things are carried on as they ought to be in the west the people in the towns will be exactly in the same position. If there is more wealth in the cities than there is in the rural districts in western Canada it is because there is something economically wrong. That should not be the case.
I did not intend to make a speech when , I rose, but I want to repeat that there is nothing in this scheme that is alarming, nothing that is going to saddle the country with very much additional debt. I do think, however, it will afford an opportunity for a class of people we have in western Canada, men who work by the day and gather up perhaps four or five hundred dollars in the harvest and threshing time, to get back to their quarter section, if they have one, and spend the winter months in improving and clearing that scrub land. Not only that, but such a man will be able to provide a home for his wife and his children. He may be able even to keep a certain number of chickens and a cow or two. I say there is nothing very alarming about the proposal. It will open up certain districts for settlement for a class of men who will not be able to undertake farming on a more ambitious scale.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I understand the hon. member was president of the Union of Municipalities in Manitoba for some years, and has had experience in connection with the tying up of unpatented lands from a municipal point of view. How does he suggest that this scheme is going to help development in the western country?


Robert Forke: The situation cannot be any worse than it is, because these lands are not paying taxes now.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Until the settlers get on them they do not, but the moment they do you increase the municipal expense without providing the municipality with any source of revenue.


Robert Forke: I do not see that there is
any difficulty there, because if a man is settled on a quarter section of land and earning money at all the taxes on that character of land ought to be very low. The municipality would thus be in a safer position than if the land were lying idle and unoccupied.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I do not rise for
the purpose of opposing the resolution, but I think the government should proceed very

cautiously in this direction. The venture of lending money to settlers is not new in this country. A few years ago an act was passed under which moneys were loaned to returned soldiers. If I remember rightly that was done under the Soldier Settlement Act. I am speaking from memory now, but I think that under that act something like SI00,000,000- the minister tells me 8102,000,000-were loaned to returned soldiers. The wisdom of lending money to settlers was the same then as it is now, but at the time that act was passed the paramount argument was that returned soldiers had to be helped and that the country should be in a position to assume whatever risks such loans would entail. In my opinion that was the chief argument; that was the main reason. The government that promoted the legislation at that time should have been blamed very severely, because experience has proven that through this scheme of lending money to the settlers the country is losing each year enormous amounts of money. There is no question that out of the 8100,000,000 that was loaned to soldiers a very large amount will never be collected and will be lost. I am not saying this by way of criticism, but I wish to point out that the venture of lending money to settlers is not new, and now that we have had the experience of one venture of the kind; now that we know the result which can be achieved by our lending money to settlers, I can hardly understand the wisdom of going into a new venture of making advances, not to soldiers, but to settlers generally-civilians. If one will make a study of these loans to returned soldiers, one may very well imagine that similar conditions will obtain under this loan. Soldiers have borrowed money, but after one, two or three years they found they could not continue on the land; they had to abandon their farms and go away, and some of the farms became practically worthless. Soldiers have borrowed money in some cases in excess of the value of the farm; of course that was the fault of the officials who recommended the loan. In many cases they have been unable to repay, and what are you going to do with them? Are you going to take their farms away from them? Are you going to bring actions in law against them? You can hardly do that. What I am saying with regard to the soldiers applies with greater force to the civilians. The same difficulties which have been encountered with soldiers will be encountered with civilians, and that is why I state that the wisdom of this legislation is faulty.

Advances to Settlers


Mr. STEVENS:: I wish to ask a question which I think would give us a little lead in this discussion. Will the minister indicate why it is desirable to have virtually a rural credit scheme of this kind, when the government are about to introduce legislation of a general character for rural credits? In my estimation this scheme, so far as it has merits, might very well be included in a general rural credit scheme. Why have the two?


Charles A. Stewart: The rural
credit scheme will be designed for the purpose of lending money to people who own their property. The ownership under the proposal we are considering rests in the crown and will remain in the crown until the loan is repaid. When I began to think about this matter I had the same idea as my hon. friend.
T +firviinrh+ o prvmKinqfiotl fif fViP t.Wfl TTiIcrVlf. TsrfsrW
out, but it will be impossible to work it out, inasmuch as this is merely a loan to assist the man to get his farm under cultivation, earn his patent and get matters into shape so that he can take advantage of the rural credit scheme when he obtains the patent for the land. He may do what ninety-five per cent of the homesteaders in western Canada have done already. A few years ago when homesteaders earned their patents-and I think the hon. member for East Edmonton will bear me out in this-in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred they went to the mortgage company and arranged for a loan. They had some indebtedness; they paid it off and obtained a loan, generally about $800, sometimes paying eight per cent and sometimes nine. This scheme is for a different purpose; it is to lend them money on the progress they make in clearing up their land and making it of some value, to bring their homestead to a stage where perhaps they can get through with a very much smaller loan than they have had to negotiate in the past. That is the only difference between this scheme and rural credits.
In reply to the hon. member for East Edmonton, I have seen a great deal of what he has stated as having happened in the case of the homesteaders-not altogether in the case of the homesteaders, because he has reference to the secondary stage, in which there was a mortgage on the land, and of course the mortgage was a detriment to the new settler taking advantage of the scheme of purchase. It has* always been so; it is true every day. These lands will remain in the crown, with a mortgage against them; why? Because it is better business to go back thirty
miles from a railway and take up land, than to buy lands lying close to railway facilities or close to towns, and pay the claims that may be against them. Where the land remains in the crown, where it is subject to re-entry, if it is worth anything at all it does not remain very long in that position. I am not going to argue that in the ease of the man who abandons his land, say having earned $500, the same condition will not apply. The new homesteader might rather take his chance on a homestead entirely free from encumbrance than one carrying a small mortgage with nine per cent interest attached.
I am not claiming that I have discovered anything new or striking about this matter, but I do claim that if judiciously applied, on reasonably good land, it will assist materially in the settlement of that land. Even in our province, in the newer territory back of Peace river, where you have a good climate and good open land, you can obtain all kinds of homesteads, but that entails expenditure of money for the construction of new railways. I have always been opposed to that; when in the provincial government of Alberta I did my best to discourage the spreading of settlement, because it entailed the building of roads and schools to serve sparse settlements over large areas of land. That has been our practical difficulty in western Canada ever since I knew it. I do hope the rural credit scheme will consolidate settlement where we have land privately owned in the hands of the people, or even in the hands of prospective purchasers, because we hope to settle 1,200 families from the Old Country on improved lands under the arrangement we have with the British government. These lands are all in the hands of the Soldier Settlement Board at the present time, and that may relieve the somewhat difficult situation there. The rural credit scheme will help the farmer who finds it difficult, at the present high rates of interest, to remain on his land. I am going to ask hon. members, in the next bill that comes up, to consider some provision for assistance to sbldier settlers, many of whom at present find themselves in a very serious position, which will enable them to remain on their land. All these things are designed with a view to thickening up settlement, to using the railways for which we have already paid, and to assisting materially in building up the country itself. If the committee will allow this resolution to pass I will, having in mind some of the suggestions made by hon. gentlemen, have the bill amended in that respect before it is given its second reading.
Advances to Settlers


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the hon. member for Brandon a few moments ago to answer what seemed to be a very pertinent question in view of the remarks which he had just been extending towards members of parliament from eastern Canada. I invite his serious consideration of that question which I asked of him, and I invite him to reply to it on the floor of this House. But it is not for that purpose that I rise now. Dealing directly with the resolution which is now before the chair, and having regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for East Edmonton a few minutes ago, I should like to know the real purpose of this legislation.
I may be obtuse; I may not know conditions in the west, but the real necessity for this legislation is not apparent to me and to a large number of other hon. members. Is it to take care of a situation which has arisen as a result of the soldier settlement scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then what is it? In other words, to use the language of the hon. member for East Edmonton, what is the oblique influence behind this legislation causing this government to embark on a money-lending scheme? I take it that it is sound governmental practice for a government to keep out of the money-lending business. We have done altogether too much of it in Canada; we are paying the piper to-day and posterity will pay the piper to-morrow.
There is another feature in connection with this contemplated settlement of crown lands in the provinces. I do not know what the practice is in the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but I do know something about the practice in New Brunswick. They have a system of settlement of crown lands in that province under what is known as the Labour Act. A would-be settler on crown lands goes in and makes his clearance. He is given practically as many years as he likes, but he must clear and cultivate ten acres and erect a building on it. When he does that he is entitled to a free grant of 160 acres of land, but until he does that he gets no patent. The process is a long, slow one, because most of that land is heavily timbered and it costs not $20 but $50 or $100 an acre to clear it. The would-be settler does this work at odd times, for instance in the spring of the year. He bums what he calls his fallow and he clears it up gradually while he is doing other work.
Has the minister consulted members of the provincial governments in regard to this

scheme? Does he think it will be taken advantage of by any of the older provinces?
I do not think for a minute it will be of the slightest advantage to any single province in eastern Canada, but with all due respect to the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon I think we shall pay the major part of the bill. I would not object to that so much if there was any real foundation for the belief that it would be a success, because I realize, as most men do who have been in this House for any number of years, that we must get more people on the land in Canada and make it profitable for them to stay there.
I know that in the older parts of Canada there are many fertile farms which might be peopled with good settlers if they had some form of proper assistance. This is not the class of scheme that will bring about that result.	.
What is the expert opinion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell)? He is never very slow to give us the benefit of his advice. Has he examined into this scheme? What has he to say about it? I cannot conscientiously vote for this scheme unless I find that it has his imprimatur, and I invite him now to get up and give us the benefit of his views, having regard not only to the three prairie provinces, including the one which he represents, but to the other great provinces of this Dominion, the new provinces as well as the old ones. Let us hear from the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I could not resist such a pressing invitation to say something on this subject although I thought it was receiving ample attention from the various members of the House. The committee will recall that during the last four years this government has been subject to a great deal of adverse criticism by my hon. friends opposite and their press because we were not doing some-9 p.m. thing to promote immigration to Canada. As a matter of fact it was said that the number of immigrants was getting less and that apparently not very much was being done. In 1920, immediately after the close of the war, there was a tremendous deflation in agricultural prices and this rendered agriculture for a number of years quite unprofitable to those who were here and well established. The years 1921, 1922 and 1923 particularly were years of loss and in some cases of disaster to many farmers in Canada, .although perhaps they were no worse off, if not better off, than farmers in other countries. But it was not a good time to take a forward step in promoting immigration to this country, for the simple reason that immigrants would experience tremendous dif-

Advances to Settlers
ficuilty in getting established under the conditions that prevailed during those three years. Since then conditions have changed; prices have got better, and we have experienced . two or three good crops. That, accompanied by good management and thrift on the part of the farmers themselves, has brought about better financial conditions amongst the farmers generally. That, in turn, has had its effect on immigration; prospective immigrants in larger numbers are desirous of coming to our shores, and the government feels justified at this time in encouraging them to come because conditions are such that they should be able to make a success. That is briefly why we are taking an advanced step at this time as against not taking it in 1921. At that time it would have been unfortunate to place on the land people with practically no money and, expect them to make good under conditions under which old settlers, well established, found it difficult to succeed. Judging from the criticism of some hon. members one would think that this is a radical departure. It is not. For the last forty years we have given some form of assistance to homesteaders, especially in the west; not of this nature, it is true, but after they got on their homesteads how many times has seed grain been given to them, as well as fodder for their animals and food for themselves, in addition to loans of one description and another? That is no new thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That assistance was not
part of a settlement scheme; it was given to meet abnormal conditions.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me go back
further than that. A hundred years ago the government assisted settlers to establish themselves in the woods of Ontario and other parts o:f Canada, the assistance taking the form of loans, equipment and tools. Quite frequently those loans were wiped off to still further encourage the settlers. In a word,, it was found necessary in order to encourage settle-, ment to give some form of assistance that settlers might establish themselves in this new land. Surely that was good work, Mr. Chairman. From that day down to this some form of assistance has been held out to settlers to establish themselves on the land1. To-day, even if you igive the maximum loan under this resolution, it is not as much of an attraction as the governments of Canada have been holding out for the last thirty or forty years in the form of free homesteads on the open plain. Such a homestead as used to be available fifteen or twenty years ago was
worth more as a drawing card for settlers than the average homestead of to-day plus the maximum loan under this bill.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, no scheme can be evolved that is not subject to some form of criticism. The right hon. leader of the opposition was true to himseltf to-day as he pictured the gall and wormwood of disappointment that would follow when we tried to collect the loans to be granted under this scheme. No lending scheme either by a private individual or by a government has been carried out without some loss; that is inevitable. Now, are we to refrain from encouraging settlement on our vacant lands because there is a possibility of some of the loans not being .repaid? No. I think the time is ripe when we should go forward and endeavour to people the great waste spaces in western Canada and other parts of the Dominion. Those who are likely to come to Canada at this time are not men of extensive means. If they have substantial means I fancy they are not going to embark on farming just yet; there are other attractions. Consequently our settlers will be men of limited means. The first step the government took under the Minister of the Interior to promote this forward movement was in the reduction of the ocean and railway transportation rates for settlers. It now costs three pounds sterling to land them at Halifax as against at least twice that much in former years. The next step is to hold out a drawing card that will attract them just as a good plains homestead did twenty or twenty-five years ago. Naturally risks will have to be taken in connection with this work. Such security as is available will be taken, but with this difference from an ordinary loan, that the money will not be paid out to the settler until it is warranted by his having established himself on the land, that is by building a home, digging a well, and so on, in order to enable him to go on his farm with his family. It is well known that few men went out to the west with anything but the clothes on their back and a keen desire to work. Ordinarily those men were not able to bring out their families for two or three years. Under this scheme a settler will be able to put up his shack and stable and bring out his family without delay,-and farming is a pretty slavish uphill business to a man struggling along alone.


Arthur Meighen: How will he bring his
family out when he gets his loan only on the security of the improvements he has made?

Advances to Settlers


William Richard Motherwell: There is one thing sure, 'he will be able to bring them out sooner as a result of the loan. And what is more, the very fact that he is able to stay on his * homestead and put up his house without having to go out to work and earn the money is surely in his favour.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: How can he use the money
to put up his house and make his improvements if he does not get his loan until those improvements are all made?


William Richard Motherwell: Now, Mr. Chairman, the lawyers can quibble and squirm about this all they like but I have gone through it all.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the hon. minister tell me just exactly how it can be done because it will be worth money.


William Richard Motherwell: I know it can be done, it has been done and it will be done better with a little aid than without any.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the hon. minister tell me 'how to do it?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, as I listened
to my hon. friend describe the emaciated condition of his own clients, I was thinking that his speech would not help to bring any immigrants to Canada. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if our friends opposite would just realize that their gloomy forebodings will counteract the effects of all our aid,-
Some hon. M(EMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the fact. Certainly any prospective immigrant will be discouraged who may have the bad fortune to read the dispiriting speeches by my hon. friends opposite that the loans under this proposal will be squandered by the settlers and only a few ruins be left on the prairie to mark where once houses and stables stood. If my hon. friends think that their gloomy talk will promote land settlement, I do not agree with them. I think the time has come when we should discuss this question from the standpoint of actually promoting the settlement of our vacant lands.
I notice there is a tendency to take the ground that what our people want is work. Will any homesteader in this chamber tell me any better way of giving a man work than by putting him on a homestead? Did you ever see a farmer or a homesteader out of a job? I never did. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and another hon. member, I think my friend from St.

Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), put it very nicely when they suggested that what we wanted was industry. Well, that gets us back to the old question of protection. Now, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the early British settlers who were brought out here shortly after the Napoleonic wars found industries established here? Did the British government first attempt to establish industries in this part of the world, or was not their primary anxiety to get settlers on the land, which would eventually necessitate the establishing of industries to supply their various requirements?	*
Mr. BENNETT; The minister knows they had protection.


William Richard Motherwell: It is simply putting the cart before- the horse. Industries came later. And so to-day we must first get men on the land, and then the supplying of their needs will necessitate the establishment of more industries or the speeding up of those we already have. Consequently work must come at the beginning, because the man on a homestead is never known to be out of a job; industries will come later.
I think the Minister of the Interior is working along right lines. This is a modest beginning. I can understand my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition being somewhat wary of even these small loans, because he has gone through the somewhat excruciating experience associated with the soldier settlement scheme which I think he was partly responsible for. I do not want to criticize that scheme severely, because it was undertaken with the best intention to be kind to the soldiers; but it loaded them up with debts running from $5,000 to $7,000. Those of us on the prairies had misgivings, and I stated mine to the gentleman who had charge of the board and who seemed to agree with me. I said I thought it was better to go slow rather than to go head over heels into debt; I did not think that more than one out of three or four of the soldiers who got these large loans would ever be able to extricate themselves from their indebtedness. Unfortunately that has come true, and we must be wary about any proposal of the kind. But under the present scheme the largest loan will be $1,000, and under proper administration, as I am sure this will be, very few will take advantage of the maximum loan. The British settlers under this arrangement will dovetail into the empire settlement scheme. Settlers from Great Britain eligible for the $500 loan will come under the provisions of that scheme, and that is one great advantage of this pro-

Advances to Settlers
posal. The others will be immigrants of various extraction, many of whom will not require any loans at all. Probably a good many of them will never make any application, for they will homestead very economically. If there is no timber they will put up a sod shack, as I have seen done. I live in a neighbourhood adjoining a town called Lemberg, and from the name one can form an idea of the origin and character of the settlers. I saw them go in there thirty years ago, and all the shelter they had was a teepee of willows tied at the top with a withe, Indian-fashion. That was the only house they had, and a little later they put up a sod shack. They progressed as time went on, and to-day the settlement is one of the most prosperous in Saskatchewan. They have fine houses with all modern conveniences, such as the telephone, and many of them have radios. They are largely out of debt into the bargain.
One of the greatest, I was almost going to say curses, to agriculture, in the prairies at any rate, has been too indiscriminate a tendency on the part of the people to go into debt. Formerly they would quarrel with the mortgage companies if they could not get another thousand added to the burden they already carried. That day has passed. We are getting away from that condition, and I hope there will not be a repetition of that orgy of reckless borrowing. Moderate borrowing is a blessing, for it can be controlled. But excessive borrowing has ruined agriculture in many instances, and to-day we are suffering from that curse.
Now, the moderate loans suggested in this proposal will have this effect, at least, of bringing people to a realization of what it means to pay back even a small amount. They will have to pay back the first loan before they can put on a second mortgage. This will be the means of steadying the borrower, so that he will not be overburdened with a debt which he will find it impossible to discharge. That is one incidental advantage in the scheme. I see the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George smiling. Let me assure him that I am not advancing any arguments; I am simply stating what I know to be a fact. I know quite well that fifteen years or so ago, men unwittingly drifted into debt to such an enormous extent that they found themselves unable afterwards to meet their obligations, and they did this under the delusion that by some turn of fortune they would be enabled to wipe out their indebtedness. They find today, however, that only by the sweat of their brow in a fearfully arduous task will they
ever be able to pay their debts. The beginning under this system will be modest, and, as I have said, there wrill be many who will probably require no assistance at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I see my hon
friend (Mr. Hanson) laughing; I can understand his doing so. This is Greek to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to assure the minister that I was not laughing at him.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want to be uncomplimentary, but I do not expect my hon. friend to understand a word of what I am saying.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I protest I was not laughing at the minister at all. I was laughing at something that was said over here.


William Richard Motherwell: I could not understand anything about an involved technical constitutional question; I should be just as ignorant of such a subject as the hon. member is of the matter I am now discussing. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the field pretty well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no. I have got through and I think it is time to quit.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
want to take up much time, but I am in doubt as to where the government stands on this matter. I believe there is an understanding between the main wing of the Liberal party and the minor wing to my left in regard to all legislation brought into the House, and I presume that under that arrangement this subject has been duly submitted at least to the member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party in this House. But my understanding of what has been said by the Minister of the Interior, so beautifully amplified and clarified by the Minister of Agriculture, is entirely different from my understanding of the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon. If I have followed the Minister of the Interior correctly, the idea of the scheme is to put men on the land to work it and became farmers on their own account. No, says the member for Brandon, that is not the idea at all. He does not expect that this splendid scheme, which he endorses thoroughly, will result in many people going on the land. The hon. member for Brandon tells us that if they do go on the land they will spend their time working for other farmers. In other words, the building which they will put up on th'"
Advances to Settlers

land they acquire will' be merely the place they will live in. They are not going to work their own land themselves. These people, according to the hon. member, will keep two or three cows and a few chickens, and while they work out for other farmers the family at home, the good wife and the children, will look after these cows and chickens. That is the way they are going to make their money.
Well, that brings us to the point of the special appeal that will be made in propaganda, disseminated throughout the world, to induce settlers to come in and take up fend under this proposal. The government, backed up by the member for Brandon, will send out literature, calling attention to the splendid opportunity offering for men to come to this country to settle upon the land. And the hon. member for Brandon will add to that advertisement a little explanation as to the splendid wealth immigrants will amass from raising chickens and keeping two or three cows. He will point out that under this government's policy intending immigrants will be able to produce eggs and sell them in competition with eggs coming from Australia and New Zealand free of duty, or with eggs imported from China, or from the United States under a duty of three cents a dozen. He will make that perfectly clear to them, and it will be a strong inducement to them to come in and take up land. I suppose he will go on to point out the opportunities for acquiring ready cash and becoming rich which will be afforded1 by the production of butter in competition with butter coming in from Australia and New Zealand at a cent a pound. . All this will ibe quite attractive, and it will undoubtedly draw thousands of people to this country. My hon. friend from Brandon will be there waiting with a smile to convince the immigrants when they come that the way to get rich in this country in farming is that provided by the policy which he has followed, the policy of buying everything which the farmers require at protected prices and selling in competition with the whole world without any protection whatever. That is his idea of the way to make them prosper in this country. The minister informs us that he expects to get people to settle on the land under this plan. The hon. member for Brandon says:	I am
heart and soul behind this proposition; it is a good thing, but I do not expect very many people will take advantage of it. His position, it seems to me, is absolutely illogical and absolutely unreasonable. I think that a good deal can be said in favour of trying
(Mr. J. W. Edwards.]
to fill up the places which have been vacated in the older settled parts of the country; that is something we might very well attend to. But if you are going to encourage people to stay on the land you must giv3 those who do stay a square deal in regard to the selling of their products. That this government is not disposed to do, and I do not suppose ever will do, so long as it submits to the advice, not to say dictation, of the hon. member for Brandon.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort): Before the House rose for dinner, I was very much interested in listening to the very fair and reasonable criticisms particularly of the hon. member for West Calgary and the right hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. member for West Calgary saw certain dangers in this proposition as it is now drafted, and suggested that care would have to be taken, that possibly it would be well to cut down the amount of money that would be available at least for the first year, and that other safeguards of that kind should be provided. The minister immediately agreed to that, and I think it was well that he did so. I think the debate before six o'clock was eminently reasonable, but listening to the skilled agriculturists who have been speaking recently, and lecturing the farmers of (Manitoba on how and how not to do things on their land, it seems to me the tone of the debate has changed since dinner.
A good many criticisms have been offered during the course of the debate, some of them reasonable and some otherwise. Much has been made of the extensive losses incurred under the Soldier Settlement Board, and it has been suggested that if such losses were incurred under the direction of that Board, equally great losses in proportion would be incurred under this scheme. I do not agree. The Soldier Settlement Board started to function at a time when prices were at the peak of inflation, and they had to function at first with men who had not been trained to their jobs. I am not blaming them for |that, because no doubt they got the best men available, but, of course, they made mistakes, and largely through the mistakes they made were they able to learn. The soldier settlers who went on the land in the first flush of their return home, after having been overseas for so many years, were naturally anxious to get out of uniform and to go on the land, and perhaps they took land that did not appeal to them, and at prices and on terms that were not altogether satisfactory to them, but they were so anxious to get away from military life and regulations, so glad to.be their own masters once again, that many took chances

Advances to Settlers
that a few years later they would not have taken. Under those circumstances, with so many of these men heavily handicapped in taking up land at the time they did, the wonder to me, Mr. Chairman, is not that some of the soldier settlers did not make good, not that so much money has been lost, but that so many of them have made good in spite of the handicaps they were under. They were placed on land which was sold at high prices, and they stayed on the land during those years when times were not good even for the best of farmers, for men who had been on the land right along and had their equipment pretty well paid for and were off to a good start, but who have found it difficult financing in the past few years, commencing with the break in the price of wheat in 1920, and continuing for a few years thereafter. Yet the soldiers who bought their land at high, prices have in large numbers and in many districts stayed on the land, battled with their problems, and are to-day coming out on the right side. Many men were placed on crown lands at a distance from the railway, in settlements where there were no roads, no schools, no facilities, and no medical care for long distances, and yet a great percentage of these men have stayed with the game and are winning out. If they were able to do that without the aid of the very skilful organization which has been built up since, and which has got more careful and more skilful as time went on, it stands to reason that a settler going on crown lands to-day, with whatever help from this organization is necessary in the way of advice and inspection of his land before and after he makes his improvements, has a much better chance of success than those who bought land at the peak prices a few years ago. In view of the very different conditions, I do not think it is fair to compare the failures under the soldier settlement scheme with what some hon. gentlemen think might happen under this scheme.
I have been struck with this thought, that the hon. gentlemen who criticized this scheme before dinner, very reasonably and fairly, were men who know the Dominion of Canada as a whole. The eminent fanners opposite who have criticized the scheme since dinner do not, I think, know the Dominion as well as their leaders who spoke before them. There is much good land running right across northern Canada, from Quebec west. I am not speaking of the Maritime provinces because I do not claim to know so much about them. I have running through my
mind the words of an old Gaelic song written by a pioneer in the Maritime provinces, near Barney's river, in Nova Scotia. I do not know where Barney's river is; all I know about the place is what the song told me. This settler was afraid that before the trees were uprooted the strength would be gone out of his arm, that his back would be bowed before he could bring his land under cultivation and his children were able to make a living. I think that was a reasonable fear. The hon. member for York-Sunbury admitted a little while ago that in New Brunswick it is a slow process getting these lands cleared.
As I said a moment ago, there is much good land across northern Canada, in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, but it is a slow and a hard jub clearing these lands. But the land is good. Some hon. members seem to be under the misapprehension that this is second-class land. In many cases it is the very best of land, and it is because of the climatic conditions and the very fact that these lands were good for raising a crop that they have been left vacant so long. The crops having grown so strongly and vigorously, the land was not as easily put into another crop as would be the case in the drier districts in the prairie provinces, and so we find that much of the best land has been left to the last because of the crop of timber that has grown upon it. That good land stretches across five provinces, and it is to speed up the work of clearing this land, which the hon. member for York-Sunbury admitted was a slow job, that these proposed loans are being made.


George Eulas Foster: How are these loans going to speed up the clearing of land?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: 'Suppose I go
on to a vacant piece of land in northern Ontario to-day, having in my possession fifty or a hundred dollars. I could not go very far in clearing land with that amount of money. Under this scheme I know that by the time I spend $50 or $100 in clearing land, erecting buildings, ditching, or doing whatever that particular piece of land happens to need, the services of the homestead inspector, or such officer of the department as is detailed for the duty, will be available. Now, these officers of the department are passing through the new districts in the course of their usual occupation; special trips would not be necessary all the time and therefore no great additional expense would be entailed on this account. Well, we will say that I have gone on the land and exhausted my $100. Then I apply for an inspection of the

Advances to Settlers
improvements. The officer comes there and sees that I have given value for the $100 or $150 as the case may be. In the course of a little time I get a warrant as a result of which that money is refunded to me. I then go ahead and use that money over again; it is a sort of perambulating fund. I take it that is the principle of the bill.
An hon. M;EMBER: That is not in the bill.


Malcolm McLean: That may be,
but I think there is nothing in the bill to justify the conclusion that it is not the main principle involved.


Mr. McMILLAN:: We have not got the bill. We only have the resolution on which the bill will be drafted.


Charles A. Stewart: I am trying to get the bill before the House.


Malcolm McLean: We are considering a resolution, and after it has been adopted the bill will be placed before the House. The situation, as I see it, is this: that a man coming along with a little money would be allowed to spend that money on improvements, but it would be refunded to him as he spent it from time to time. \\ e pay him for what he does until he comes to the limit of his loan, either $1,000 or $500. That was the system employed in connection with the settlement of the land by soldier settlers. Under the Soldier Settlement Act the settler would go to the supervisor and say he wanted to sink a well, or put up a bam or a house, or carry out some other improvements. The supervisor, from his knowledge of local conditions and of the settler himself, could say, "All right, we will give you authority to do that . Then the settler would go ahead, breaking the land and carrying out other improvements, and so was able to make progress even under the handicaps from which he suffered.
One criticism was made, I think by the hon. member for East Edmonton. He said there was much land that could be bought cheaper than other lands could be homesteaded and cultivated. That is partly true, but if a man does not have money to buy a piece of land even if the land is cheap, he is subjected to a load of debt, and the accumulated charges are going to handicap him a great deal. Many a man would prefer to take a piece of land that would be hard to clear as long as that land was all right otherwise. He would prefer to wait a little while longer so as to keep out of debt as much as possible and finally get a clear title to it much sooner. In the 
case of a piece of land out in the open prairie the value might be $25 an acre. Well, that would be $4,000 for a quarter section, and the interest on it at nine per cent would be $360 a year, or a dollar for every day he was on it. Many men would prefer to go on a piece of raw land if it can be got from the Dominion for an entry fee of $10, and spend their time breaking and preparing it. In that case they would be able to establish a home at much less cost in cash than in the case of the land indicated by the hon. member for East Edmonton.
The criticism has been made that a settler would only have a home on such a piece of land. That is the greatest thing any citizen could have. There is no person coming from another countiy who would not be glad to have a home, accompanied by security of tenure in that home. In my opinion, and it is also the opinion of very many men more experienced than I am, if the people of Canada would do more to make real permanent homes for themselves and not be quite so anxious in the early years to make money they would get along in the world faster and go farther. That is the consensus of opinion among farmers to-day in the west, and I believe it is the reason why there is so much less credit being used; many people are satisfied to proceed a little more slowly and pav their way as they go.
The criticism has also been made that if this form of aid to settlement goes through assistance ought to be granted to men wishing to go into industry or business. Well, there is this difference between the two sets of cases in my opinion-that wherever there is a business opening, whether it is a retail store, a factory, a brokerage business, or anything else of that kind-plenty of applicants will be found ready to take advantage of the opportunity. Government assistance is not necessary m order to get a new business of that kind established on a small scale. But when it -comes to clearing these rougher lands of good quality, it cannot be reiterated too often that the state should do any little thing it can to make the process of settlement and home establishment speedier. Any steps of that character are proper steps, provided that due precautions are adopted in taking them.
The principle embodied in this resolution is not a new one. Scores of years ago the early settlers who came into Ontario were given assistance in the way of grubstakes, tools and other aids of that kind. The same thing was probably done in the Maritime provinces; certainly it was done in Ontario and, I think, in Quebec. Very little assistance

Advances to Settlers
of this character has been given in western Canada. Much criticism has been heard in past years in Canada in regard to the government doing such and so for men who came from other lands, whereas nothing was done for our own people, and the argument was advanced, "You have us here, but you will not do anything for us. You offer inducements to outsiders to come here." I think we are justified in giving perhaps a little bit more of assistance to our own citizens when they wish to go on the land. We have seen that when lands in the open prairie ceased to be free, men who wanted lands went into the more northerly districts where the land was harder to clear and kept plugging away, with the result that in a few years they had brought more land under cultivation than some of the older provinces have altogether. There will always be a market for foodstuffs. No nation ever had to go to war to sell its foodstuffs. Nations have to do many things to sell their manufactured goods; and much trouble has been wrought in the world by nations hunting for new markets. I do not think you will ever find an instance recorded where nations had to go to war to force their foodstuffs on an unwilling people.
The country is labouring under a great tremendous debt, and there is only one reasonable way in which this debt can be paid off, namely, by increasingly making use of the natural resources and raw materials of the country-developing them and selling them on the world's market. Sometimes in the spring of the year a gardener or farmer will sow seeds in a hotbed and when the plants get old enough to be able to stand out in the open they are immediately moved out there. It often saves time and speeds up the process of growing vegetables to do that; but no vegetable grower or farmer will leave those seeds in the hotbed and expect that they will mature there and reach a profitable or useful growth. By giving a little assistance to new settlers, as well as to old settlers in the country, you will bring these newer lands to which I have referred under cultivation. This will be a good thing for the people who go on these lands and for the Dominion, and will help materially in producing the extra wealth which this country needs to carry its present load. It will also make for greater development all round- greater development for business men and for manufacturers, as well as for the farmers themselves. I feel that this scheme should apply particularly to the five provinces I have named, as well as British Columbia. I am not so familiar with the natural resources or
the vacant lands of the Maritime provinces, but if there is any way in which they can be put to better use than at present, personally I am in favour of it, and I think everyone else on this side of the House would take the same view.


George Eulas Foster: If this resolution upon
which the bill is to be founded had for its object the assisting of settlers to clear land in the areas which I indicated some time ago, there .might be something to be said in its favour. I have listened to the debate and have asked one or two questions in an attempt to find out in what way the settler could secure assistance for the clearing of his land through this particular resolution or the bill which is subsequently to be founded upon it. Frankly I have been disappointed in not being able to secure that information. The hon. member for Brandon said that the settler would work at harvest and threshing in the summer and spend the winter on the homestead. What will he do in the winter on these lands? Will he cut pulpwood? I tried to find out from the minister just after dinner where these lands were, what class of lands they were, and whether or not those in Saskatchewan or the prairie provinces were heavily timbered. If the lands in British Columbia along the existing lines of railway are proposed to be cleared, I may tell the committee that the cost of clearing them will run from $100 an acre up, and the settler will have to expend a large amount of money before he can get the loan at all. If you take sections of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, particularly the northern sections along the branch lines of the Canadian National railway and some portions of the Canadian Pacific railway, you will find that while you have not so much of the heavy timber, you have a considerable portion of it. You have some very good land, I have no doubt, but you will have to pay for the clearing of it. If the location of these lands is where my recollection tells me they are and where the minister indicates they are, it will cost in some cases not $5 an acre but close to $15 an acre, and perhaps even more. I think the minister, who knows the situation, will bear me out in that statement. In the case of the settler coming in there without any money, the labourer working for wages on farms in the west, how is it possible for him to clear that land at a cost of $10, $12 or $15 an acre, build his home, and in general place himself in a position to avail himself of this loan within a year, or, as the hon. minister says, within two years or three years?
Advances to Settlers


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those men will not apply for it.


George Eulas Foster: That being so, who will apply?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The men who are on the prairies, the people from England who under this scheme are coming over, assisted by a grant. from the Empire Settlement League, supplemented by the small amount from this government, to improve the land.


George Eulas Foster: If the men coming from the Old Country to settle on that class of land are advanced $1,500 from the Empire Settlement League and $500 from this government-


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry to have to correct my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: I want to be corrected.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my hon. friend, if he has been in the House this afternoon, could not have misunderstood the statements made by myself and others who spoke on this subject. The bill does not pretend to deal with the arrangement for the 3,000 families in respect of which the $1,500 is paid. This is for the purpose of settling lands contiguous to the existing railway that are not the heavily timbered lands, but cost $30 and $40 an acre to clear. My hon. friend knows that thousands of acres of land have been passed up so far that do not cost anything like that to clear. The settler himself, by his own labour and by what we are proposing to do to help him, can acquire the land and it will not cost him anything like 'that to clear it. If my hon. friend knows western conditions he knows that many of the Scandinavian race have cleared up similar lands; they preferred those lands, I may say, and have cleared them up without assistance. I have known them to go on the lands without a single dollar and make a success of it. It was a slow process, but they have done it, and a little help would have been of very great assistance to them.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not shown me where-


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member want me to explain further? When the settler builds his primitive log home, it is of some value, my hon. friend will admit.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: If the improvement is worth $100 he will be advanced $100. Suppose he clears up five acres of land; in accordance with the value of the improvement of the land, if he is a Canadian, he will receive an advance up to a maximum of $1,000; if he comes from a foreign country he will be given an advance of $500. As he progresses in erecting buildings and making improvements on the land further advances will be made to him. That is the only method that is being adopted here.


George Eulas Foster: Where is that set forth in the resolution?


Charles A. Stewart: It will not be set forth in the bill except in a general way. The resolution is merely what the Clerk of the House takes from the bill itself as an explanation of what the bill purports to be. There are many things in the bill that are not in the resolution, and this discussion might more properly come under the bill itself when hon. members have it before them. As I promised my hon. friend from West Calgary, I am going to suggest some amendments to the bill when it comes down and we will undoubtedly have a good deal of discussion on it. I am trying to get the bill before the House.


George Eulas Foster: The situation is a little
clearer now. It may be that I missed some of the statements of the minister this afternoon; I was busy at some other work. With anything that this government or any other government in Canada undertakes for the benefit of settling this country I am in hearty accord, and I do not want any misunderstanding about that. I know something of the difficulties in securing settlers to go into the various parts of Canada and something of the difficulties they meet with after they get there. If this legislation is designed to assist those people to go on the land and to help them from the start, it has some value and I am willing to be fair and to admit that. But if the settler has to go through all this laboured effort before he can avail himself of this money-and that is the way I understood the matter prior to the explanation just made-I can see very little benefit arising from it. The minister will probably tell us a little later on exactly what is to be done and I shall reserve some further remarks for another occasion. I think he said that 1,600,000 acres had been examined and approved as being land upon which settlers could reasonably be expected to succeed. If the provisions of this bill are taken advantage of to its full extent, an amount of $5,000,000 would take care, at $1,000 apiece,

Advances to Settlers
of only 5,000 people, whereas 1,600,000 acres on the basis of a quarter section to each one will offer opportunities to at least 10,000 people. So, if the minister treats everyone alike, he will have to have at least $10,000,000 for this proposition, the other $5,000,000 coming at a later date.
There is another feature of this proposition that is not quite clear to me, and I am following it as closely as I can, because while we from the Maritime provinces desire to assist the people from the west in the development of that great western heritage in which we claim to have some interest, at the same time we are here as representatives of the eastern part of Canada in the capacity not only of looking after that part, but of seeing that the treasury of Canada is protected so far as our humble efforts will permit, and of seeing also that we are not taxed unduly for the development of one section in connection with matters in which the whole country cannot participate. While this resolution indicates that the bill to be founded upon it and the provisions thereof will be applicable to the whole of Canada, I fail to see how Nova Scotia can take advantage of it. We have no crown lands, so far as I know, that are available for settlement, and certainly wre have no funds in the provincial treasury without resorting to extraordinarily heavy taxation, with which the government may go out and buy lands in order that this provision should apply. Therefore, we may reasonably expect no benefit at all from this legislation save that larger benefit which comes from the upbuilding of Canada.
The people of the eastern section of this country are getting pretty well "fed up'1 on a programme involving $3,000,000 now, $5,000,000 a little later, and $25,000,000 in connection with another transaction, in all $100,000,000 within the next six or seven months or a year, for expenditures in other parts of the country on matters in which the eastern part of Canada will not participate to any great extent. The committee will, I think, agree that in presenting our demands we have been very moderate and very fair. We have asked hon. members and the country to deal with us in the same spirit of fairness that we have shown towards other portions of Canada. As regards the demands we made in the early part of this session we have not heard anybody say that the country was able to assume obligations amounting to even $10,000 to assist in the relief of starving people in Nova Scotia, although in connection with the bill which is to be founded upon this resolution, we can calmly vote $5,000,000 to be expended in the prairie provinces.


Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member stated that the government was being committed to an expenditure of $75,000,000 or $100,000,000. WThere are those commitments being made?


George Eulas Foster: It is a little difficult of
course to tell exactly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friends need not laugh. They have a habit of laughing when anything is said in the House as if that were the only function which they had to perform. As a matter of fact if the bill on rural credits-is to be of any value at all I have no doubt the amount will have to be at least $25,000,000' or $30,000,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is not a direct loan..


George Eulas Foster: I did not mention direct
loans. I said that we were voting obligations and commitments in this House to the extent of over $100,000,000. There is the Hudson Bay railway proposition for which there is an item of $3,000,000 in the estimates. If that is brought to a conclusion it will cost $50,000,000 or more, and it is to be done forthwith. Those-are two: items. The old age pension proposition will involve a sum amounting to $25,000,000 or $28,000,000 as a basis according to, the report of a committee of this House. '


Edward James Young: Is it all going to the west?


George Eulas Foster: I would not say so, but a,
considerable portion of it will go there. In the opinion of many people legislation of that sort could be postponed for a year or two until we reduce our taxation and increase the production of wealth in this country. But we have it at this session of parliament, why?' Because it is the price of office, not the price of power. It is one of the prices that the government is putting upon the taxpayers of this country for the privilege of retaining office.


Malcolm McLean: Is it not possible that some of it will go to the starving people the hon. member spoke of a moment or two ago?


George Eulas Foster: They are able and anxious to work. All they want is an opportunity to work. Does my hon. friend wish to ask any more questions?


Edward James Young: Do they ever
grow old?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, some of them reach
seventy years of age, when they would be entitled to take advantage of the bill which
Advances to Settlers

has been announced to the country. But most of the people of the east are sufficiently thrifty to enable them to take care of themselves when they arrive at that age.


Mr. HEAPS:: If they are able to take care of themselves, does the hon. member not know they will not require the old age pension and so will be no burden on the country?


George Eulas Foster: I said just a moment ago that we had to differentiate in regard to where these people live. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that when this House and this country put a premium on inactivity and lack of thrift we shall have conditions much the same as they are in the Old Country, where they have a dole system and cannot get rid of it. He knows that as well as anybody else in this House.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no dole system in
the Old Country.


William Duff: I think we had better get back to the resolution.


George Eulas Foster: I will in a moment, but
when I am interrupted by such statements as the last it is a little difficult to come back gracefully. I have pointed, out to
10 p.m. my hon. friend that these commitments will reach in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000. When we hear rumours throughout the country that one part of this government was willing to assist the Maritime provinces, and particularly Nova Scotia, in the matter I mentioned a moment ago, and another part of the government would not listen to that, we must conclude only that it was for the purpose of playing a little cheap party politics.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has alluded to the government. Will he kindly indicate the source of the rumour?


George Eulas Foster: It would be difficult to do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought so.


George Eulas Foster: I may tell my right hon.
friend that we pressed the case in his absence in this House, as he knows very well, and we pressed it hard. It was a reasonable case and the statements of the Minister of the Interior would indicate that his heart was with us, but we have not been able to get anything practical done. So we have to conclude that some pressure must have been brought upon the rest of the government which prevented action being taken. I think
LMr. Foster.]
that is a fair conclusion for one to come to in view of the fact that nothing has been done of a practical nature to relieve the actual distress that I have referred to. ,


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension, because as a matter of fact I understand the provincial government have made advances to relieve the distress, and of course under the arrangement this government will have to make its contribution.


George Eulas Foster: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
am not to ibe sidetracked in that way.


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply stating what really happened.


George Eulas Foster: I quite understand that
the provincial government and our people have beggared themselves in an endeavour to assist the miners in an emergency which was not of their own making altogether, though partly it may have been. But the fact remains that we asked this government for its good offices to attain an object which meant nothing more than a charge upon the country of $15,000. We are unable to get that assistance. Now we are asked to vote $5,000,000 for one section of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend cannot get away with that statement because we are on record as having offered to assist in that particular case.


George Eulas Foster: I know they are on record Mr. Chairman, as offering to .assist, but it was in a form that was of no value. What practical use is that? The assistance was offered on receipt of information from the government of Nova Scotia telling this government plainly vrhat the provincial government was able to do and what it could not do. Then we made a real proposition, which meant this government assuming at the outside an expenditure of $15,000. It was a simple matter, but we could not get that assistance. So I say it becomes a little difficult for members from the Maritime provinces who want to be fair to this government or to any other government that may occupy the treasury benches to assist in the upbuilding of this country. I care not what government occupies the treasury 'benches for the moment, I am interested primarily in the upbuilding of this country. I have had as close association with the upbuilding of western Canada and of eastern Canada for the last ten years as has any member of the government. In fact I have sent a great many settlers and a lot of money into that

Advances to Settlers
country to help develop it. I am just as sincerely anxious, therefore, to do all I can in the upbuilding of that country and of the rest of Canada as is the Minister of Agriculture or the right hon. leader of the government or any of his cabinet and supporters in this House. I want the country to understand that I have proven that. So that when I examine this resolution, thick-headed though I may be on some of these points, not having had the experience of other hon. gentlemen in this House, I want the country to know that when we from the Maritime provinces bear our share again and again in these propositions for the upbuilding of Canada as a whole, we have a right to feel that in regard to any moderate requests which we may make of the government of the day, whatever be its political complexion, that government should come forward and say: Your request is a reasonable one, made in a reasonable manner, and it ought to be granted forthwith.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: As it is intended that the natural resources of the three western provinces shall be handed back to them, what is the necessity of going on with this proposal? Why not leave such work to the provinces when they have the lands themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: As already
announced, a bill will be brought down for the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta, but there is no arrangement with the other two provinces; with them the matter is still under discussion. Of course if the bill transferring to Alberta its natural resources goes into effect, I am convinced the province would be perfectly willing to place any of the crown lands at the disposal of the government for settlement purposes. That is why the bill is general in character.
In reply to my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster), for some reason I seem to be unfortunate in dealing with the coal question. I have been perfectly willing to give reasonable support for the transportation of coal both east and west. I have demonstrated that on former occasions by having fairly respectable amounts put in the estimates for the purpose; and we did assist the Nova Scotia movement to some extent. I go further. I am willing to continue that assistance because I am very anxious that Nova Scotia coal should be burned in central Canada. But that is quite aside from the question, and no doubt it will be discussed when the time comes. If hon. gentlemen will H011-122
let this resolution pass, and I have an opportunity of getting the bill before the House, its exact provisions will then be before each member, and I shall be perfectly willing to listen to representations from members from Nova Scotia. I do not want to be sectional.
I come from western Canada, but I want to foster a truly Canadian spirit and assist every portion of Canada. That is why we find here provision for assisting the Maritime provinces to secure settlement. I want to pay my tribute to Premier Rhodes. He has expressed his willingness to co-operate with us on immigration matters. We want to co-operate with every provincial government. This must be a Canada-wide effort, or it will fail. I have to regret the feeling that eastern Canada is always being sacrificed for the west. That is rather an unfortunate spirit to instil in our people. I think it is really because we do not understand one another sufficiently well, for my experience here is that the various provinces are fairly generously treated by every government, judging by the estimates. Of course, unfortunate circumstances always will arise. For instance, British Columbia thinks it is being discriminated against because it is at the extreme west. Now we have this unfortunate circumstance in the east. But it seems to me that we must approach these questions from the viewpoint of having a Canada-wide policy. That is what I have tried to carry out in this bill, imperfect though it may be. I am ready and willing to listen to suggestions that will improve the bill itself, and I hope the resolution will pass so that I may get the bill before the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I spoke this afternoon on the resolution. I am going now to make a few further observations because I think it would be very unfair to the section of the country I represent to assume that the semblance of prosperity which we have at the present time is attributable to any effort of eastern Canada. The real truth is that the three prairie provinces with a population of less than two million people have produced a new wealth during the past year of nearly a thousand million dollars. That, is really the basis of the present semblance of our prosperity, and until such time as there is a frank recognition of that fact on the part of those who reside east of the Great Lakes, we shall be open to many difficulties, much acrimony and a great deal of unpleasant discussion. I do not think this country should be divided into an eastern and a western group. But I do say there are reasons why hon. gentlemen who reside in the country in which I was born and where I

Advances to Settlers

lived the early days of my life might well conclude from the readiness with which principles that formerly were declared to be guiding principles of the party have been sacrificed, because those sacrifices have been asked for from western Canada, that therefore the west is dominating the situation, I do not conceive that to be the opinion of men in the west, and I know what the sentiment there is; I have knocked around a good deal in that part of the country, having gone there as a young man. When you remember how difficult this country's economic condition is, when you remember that we have two and a half billion dollars of a debt, and are obliged to raise close on to $400,000,000 a year, the real problem is where and how we can most readily create new wealth. New wealth is more readily created in the west than in any other part of the Dominion; I do not think there can be any doubt about that. And it is not from any sectional point of view that I make that observation. Every Canadian must be proud of the fact that a population of less than 2,000,000 produced in the year 1925 wealth to the value of $900,000,000. There is no doubt that the purchasing power of eastern Canada has been increased many fold as a result of that money having been made available in Canada at this time.
I am sure that no one will accuse me of being deficient in party spirit; no one will say that I am not a fairly strong partisan. Having observed that, I must say that I do not view this measure in any party light at all. I do not consider it party legislation. This is a demand that comes from a great many people in the west. Last year I was twice in the Old Country, and I was frequently asked by people there why it was that, willing as they are to use their money to assist their settlers in coming to Canada, there was no indication of any willingness on our part to help people of small means to settle properly on the land and to produce wealth from the soil. The minister has not said much about this phase of the subject, having only hinted at it. I do not know whether there is any reason why he should not have alluded to it, but this measure will go a long way towards removing that difficulty. I am satisfied that it will be very much appreciated in quarters that have not been mentioned, for it will enable people who have only enough money to come out here to get settled on a piece of land, not in the woods nor in the wilderness, and not in remote sections of the country where timber has to be cut down at the cost of $40 an acre. There are no inconsiderable areas of land still

available which would be suitable for homesteads-lands, not far from settled communities but which have been overlooked for one reason or another, where wheat cannot be grown as readily as on the more fertile plains, but where the husbandman with a few cows may increase the value of his dairy products. I may observe that in the United States last year the value of the dairy products was greatly in excess of the farm products; the figures issued only last week are staggering in their magnitude. This measure will assist men of the type engaged in this industry to settle upon these lands within fifteen miles of railways in little villages and towns, and with the assistance thus given them they will be enabled to improve their condition, which otherwise they could not do.
I have in mind at this moment two men I know who in the early days had very meagre means, and who, if they had been able to avail themselves of some scheme whereby they might have purchased a few cows, would have prospered much more rapidly than they did, although they have succeeded remarkably. There occurs to me, while I am on this point, a letter which I have received since coming to the House from a man who came over from the Old Country with limited means. He said that he would be able to build a little home, but that he could not do much more than that, and he was afraid that his pathway would be strewn with too many difficulties if he had not assistance of some kind.
It is in no partisan spirit that I approach this measure, for, as I have already said, I do not consider it party legislation. It is a measure, that affords relief not only to the west, but to every part of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see no reason why hon. gentlemen should applaud that statement. The measure says as much: it is available to every part of the Dominion. But the fact that the people of western Canada can take advantage of it more readily than residents in the older provinces is no argument against its adoption.
One other question remains to be considered, and that is with respect to taxation, which so bothered one of my hon. friends. I fully appreciate his difficulty. Where you have a vacant piece of crown land surrounded by settled areas it is clear that if it bears no burden of taxation then the burden placed on the adjoining and surrounding sections is greater. But if you get a settler on that piece of land it is not necessary to build a

Advances to Settlers
new school, as you would have to do in some remote section, nor are there any new roads to be constructed. All you require is a new rural post office box put up, and that settler, if he succeeds, as he must if he has the determination, will be able to make some contribution in the w'ay of additional taxes to the community in which he lives, and thereby reduce the general burden. The effect, therefore, is obviously to lighten rather than to increase the burden of taxation which the community as a w'hole must bear.
I am greatly pleased to hear the minister say that he is not unwilling to reduce the amount. Every word that has been said today as to the serious condition of this country,
I believe. We must realize that there are many projects in which we should like to engage but which we are unable to undertake. Financial considerations are often the measure of our ability. It is not our willingness but our ability to do these things that counts; and if the minister would reduce the vote to a reasonable sum and surround it with the safeguards which he has expressed his preparedness to do, I think the measure should meet with approval. The minister and I differ greatly in our political views, but I want to say that, however wide may be that difference between us, there is one respect in which, I am sure, we are in accord. In his desire to espouse measures that will benefit the country as a whole he has as strong and abiding a faith in his country as the rest of us. If, therefore, he will carry out the suggestions he has indicated, and give effect to them, 3 am satisfied that this measure will have a fair trial and we shall supplement the effort of our kinsmen across the Atlantic to enable immigrants, who perhaps are not rich in this world's goods but who are strong in hope, courageous, and of that virile race that makes the kind of settlers we so much require, to come to this country and become happy and contented Canadians.
I am sorry that we should have drifted in this debate into a discussion of the relative contributions that are made to this country's financial wealth by the east and by the west. I cannot have it said for a moment that the west is second to any part of the Dominion in the contribution it makes to the national wellbeing. I should be glad at any time to sit down and discuss with hon. gentlemen, as I said a little while ago to an hon. member who at present is not in his place, the per capita contributions made to the new wealth of Canada by various parts of the country. After all, the mere swapping of pieces of paper, to use the vulgar language of the street, does 14011-1221
not add anything to the new wealth of a country. I may be able to exchange my share certificate on the stock exchange for a sum of money, but that does not add one single dollar to the new wealth of Canada. On the other hand, if, by any suggestion that I may make, legislation before parliament can be improved and I can thereby do my part to make it easier for one who is coming over to this country for the first time, to till the soil and acquire new wealth, then, indeed, I have assisted him in making a contribution to Canada much greater than anything that might be involved in the mere exchange of pieces of paper for money. He has done something that creates additional wealth, something that did not exist before, and he has thus been able to add something of a very permanent nature to the welfare of the country.
I have dwelt on this point because I felt, as one must feel who has lived as long as I have in the west and who came originally from the east, that I could not have it said that the people in that part of the country were merely sponging on the rest of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no necessity
of applauding the sentiment. Mr. Chairman. It is a sentiment I am sure that anyone who analyzes the figures and realizes the productiveness and the amount of new wealth that those hard-headed and hardworking men and women have produced in western Canada during the last few years will recognize as sound. For that reason may I venture to suggest, not in any censorious sense, that we should all use our combined efforts to assist the minister in making this legislation as practicable as possible, limited in its application for the first year to a reasonably small sum of money, and if it does not succeed let us all bear our part of the responsibility for endeavouring at least to make it as good as we can.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to authorize advances to settlers on crown lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Min ister of Immigration and Colonization) moved that the House go into committee to consider t.ne following proposed resolution:
Soldier Settlement Act
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, and to provide,-
1.	That notwithstanding anything in the act, the board shall be empowered upon the application of a settler who has agreed to purchase any land from the board, who has not abandoned his land, whose agreement with the board has not been terminated or rescinded, and who has not repaid his indebtedness to the board, and where there has been a decrease or depreciation in the market value of such land not the result of neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler, to make provision for the revaluation of the said land.
2.	That application for revaluation shall be considered only when made by a settler residing on and himself farming the said land, and shall be submitted to tha district superintendent of the Soldier Settlement Board for the district within which the said land is situated.
3.	That the application shall be supported by affidavit on forms supplied by the board setting out the original purchase price of the land and the value of improvements effected since the establishment of the settler thereon, and by a written statement of the settler setting forth his belief as to present value of the land and his reasons therefor, and the names and addresses of any persons whom the settler proposes as witnesses to the present value; and the district superintendent shall consider the application and material in support and make report and recommendation thereupon to the board.
4.	That if the board and settler agree upon the amount of depreciation in value of the said land such amount shall be credited by the board to the settler's account as on the standard date in 1925 and upon the settler's account being so credited, the balance then owing to the board by the settler for all purposes shall, at the discretion of the board, be consolidated and deemed to be the settler's principal indebtedness, and the total cost of the property may be amortized over the remaining period of the loan.
5.	That the minister may appoint District Arbitration committees having jurisdiction in such soldier settlement districts as may be necessary, each committee to consist of three members, one of whom shall be an official of the Soldier Settlement Board and one a representative of the veterans' organization in the district, and the members of the District Arbitration committee when appointed shall have all the powers and authority of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, and expenditures necessarily incurred by any District Arbitration committee shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.
6.	That if the board and settler do not agree upon the amount of depreciation in value of the said land the board shall refer the matter at issue to the District Arbitration committee for determination, who w'ill thereupon fix a convenient time and place for hearing. Upon the hearing of all evidence submitted the committee shall decide upon the question in dispute, and its decision shall be final.
7.	That the District Arbitration committee shall forthwith forward a copy of its decision to the board and if it be found there has been a depreciation in the value of the land purchased by the settler from the board, not resulting from negleot or mismanagement on the part of the settler, the amount of such depreciation so found shall be credited by the board as provided by Resolution No. 4 in respect of amount arrived at by agreement.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Was this on the agenda for to-day, may I ask?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Mr. 'STEVENS: It is pretty late. Could we not adjourn now?
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is just a
short resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister make
a short explanation of this measure? It is of considerable importance.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
glad to do that, but perhaps we might first go into committee.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


Charles A. Stewart: The resolution is for the purpose of the introduction of a bill to meet the demand made upon the government when this whole question of the revaluation of soldier settler lands, as well as stock and equipment, was before a committee of this House. Hon. gentlemen who were in the last parliament will remember that that committee reported that a revaluation of the land, in certain cases at least, should be undertaken. Last year we did not meet with the demand of that committee in its entirety, but the House met it to the extent of a reduction of forty per cent on stock and equipment of settlers who had settled between certain dates, and a reduction of twenty per cent in the case of settlers who had settled between certain other dates. That reduction has not yet been completed, but I have tentative figures that would indicate that it will cost the government between five and six million dollars.
The proposal this year is that in certain sections where injury appears to have been done to the settler through having purchased land during the period of inflation, redress will be given if he can prove that the price paid for his land is higher than it would be if he were purchasing under ordinary circumstances at the present time. The regulations that will be thrown around the revaluation will seek to prevent redress being given to the man who may have suffered through his own neglect or incompetence, or whatever it may be, directly attributable to himself. To put it concretely, it is to give redress to the man who had bought his land, say, at $40 an acre, while the prevailing price in the locality at the present time is perhaps not more than $25 or $30 per acre for similar land.
A good deal of discussion has taken place to-night that pretty well enlightens members of the House with respect to the injury done to some of the soldier settlers. Some of them, of course, have had to abandon their lands, and it is impossible by legislation to give redress to them. This measure applies only to those who are still on the land and are still

Soldier Settlement Act
endeavouring to meet their payments and secure the home they undertook to provide for themselves.
It is proposed that every soldier who is located on the land shall have the opportunity of writing to the Soldier Settlement Board indicating that in his opinion the land on which he is located bears too high a valua-' tion, and that he is desirous of having a reduction made. Inspection will be made by the Soldier Settlement Board, and if in the opinion of the board's representative the valuation is too high, having in mind all the circumstances that surround the case, and the reduction the board's representative offers is reasonably satisfactory to the soldier settler himself, no further action need be taken. We anticipate that in a great many cases, far more perhaps than the number that will need to bo dealt with no reduction will take place, because we know of innumerable localities in which the land purchased by the soldier settler is more valuable to-day than when the purchase was made. In such cases, of course, there is no redress to be given. If an agreement can be arrived at between the person who is suffering injury and the Soldier Settlement Board through its representative, an adjustment will take place on that basis. But in the event of a dispute arising between the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler, recourse will be had to the tribunal created for the purpose, as provided for in the bill, and its decision in the matter will be final.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about an appeal ?


Charles A. Stewart: I was going to quote the exact wording of the provision:
If the board and settler do not agree upon the amount of depreciation in value of the said land the board shall refer the matter at issue to the district arbitration committee for determination, who will thereupon fix a * convenient time and place for hearing. Upon the hearing of all evidence submitted the committee shall decide upon the question in dispute and its decision shall be final.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The committees are appointees of the minister and therefore political tribunals.


Charles A. Stewart: It says further:
The minister may appoint district arbitration committees having jurisdiction in such soldier settlement districts as may be necessary, each committee to consist of three members, one of whom shall be an official of the Soldier Settlement Board and one a representative of the veterans' organisation in the district.
The members of the district arbitration committee when appointed shall have all the powers and authority of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister appoints
them all, or rather he selects them.


Charles A. Stewart: They are
selected from different organizations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister selects a representative from those organizations, that is the difference. I suggest that the district or county court judge be the tribunal. If you are going to make this thing absolutely devoid of any semblance of politics, if you are going to create a fair tribunal, do as they do under the Railway Act in cases of this kind, take the matter out of the hands of arbitrators and appoint a district or county court judge to deal with it. Fairness and absence of political pressure are, in my judgment, vital, in order that this scheme may not work any injustice to anyone entitled to consideration. I suggest that to the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend' suggests that the third member of the tribunal be-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I suggest the elimination of these arbitration committees and the substitution of the district or county court judge. For it will be remembered that the county court judges especially in western Canada where many of these farms are, hold their sittings in small sections of the community.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no. particular objection to raise, because the whole object in this connection is to avoid expense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know.


Charles A. Stewart: All I am anxious to do is to provide satisfaction. I really have no desire to make these appointments. I can readily turn that over to some other power, and when the bill comes up I shall be glad to amend it in that way. That is really all I have to say about the matter. It is a very simple process for revaluation of the soldier settlement lands. I simply want to point out it is not a wholesale revaluation; necessity for consideration would have to be shown before .consideration would be given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am strongly of the
opinion that a revaluation of these lands is imperative.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman
speak louder?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was observing that in my opinion, from personal observation and inspection of many of these lands, a revaluation is imperative. The circumstances and conditions under which that revaluation may be made I find it difficult to describe. Fairness is a thing to be aimed at, and I cannot
Soldier Settlement Act

contemplate the setting up of district arbitration committees without abuses resulting, the same abuses that have brought about the purchasing of land at too high a price and its appraisement at too great a value. The very circumstances alluded to this afternoon by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar),, that brought about the payment of excessive prices for land or its valuation by appraisers who were apparently desirous of assisting in the sale, may bring about the very reverse condition if you create tribunals that would be subject to pressure such as I have indicated, which we all must know from our own observation is something to be considered. I venture to suggest that unless we can enlist the services of a district or county court judge in matters of this kind, so that we shall have the advantage of trained, skilled minds accustomed to deal with evidence, of men who have not the remotest interest in the ultimate result, I fear that in a problem of this kind the revaluation will not be effective in accomplishing what is desired. By eliminating this provision and permitting the application to come from the settler in the first instance, and then having the revaluation proceed without expenses-because the district court judges and the county court judges hold their sittings in the smallest sections of their counties-it will not be any more difficult to present the case for revaluation-it may be done by the settler himself before a sympathetic district court judge- than it would be before a district arbitration committee of three, or of .two if they agree, and I submit that the results-


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend suggest it go to the judge at once?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, so as to obviate all this difficulty that is experienced in respect to arbitration. Speaking from some little experience with respect to arbitrations when we used to acquire rights of way for railways, in days when I was more actively associated with that class of work than now, I can say that the amendment to the Railway Act which vested that jurisdiction in county court and district court judges brought about a very great improvement. Not only have the difficulties that used to 'be experienced1 in connection with arbitrations to fix the value of right of way greatly disappeared, but we have much better results by reason of the county or district court judge settling these matters. If the minister will be good enough to consider and if possible adopt the suggestion I make, the result will be very advantageous alike to the community as a whole and to LMr. Bennett.]
the settler himselJf, because in a given community there will be a uniformity of treatment which might not, and in very many instances would not, be experienced if the arbitration was fixed as provided by the resolution. I am convinced from my own observations, from visits to farms and from discussions I have had with the settlers, that the conditions under which these farms were purchased were such that the price was greater than the value warranted. We must face this matter fairly, and although it involves this Dominion in a loss that loss must be borne by the Dominion as a whole. It is unfair that the prices at which lands were then bought should be continued. Many men, as has been mentioned already, found it no longer possible to remain on the lands and had to abandon them because they saw no hope in the future. From my observations I certainly came to the conclusion that it was my duty, had this resolution not been upon the order paper, to urge the government to consider it as a measure of justice and fair play to men who acquired lands at the height of the market, under conditions which made it impossible for them to carry on their contract. They do not desire to be the victims of these circumstances. They do not desire charity, but they wish the country to bear a share of the loss occasioned by reason of the high price paid for property acquired at the very peak of the boom in farm lands consequent upon the high price paid for wheat shortly after the war. But it is not all a loss. It is wrong to assume that it is a loss to the state, it is a gain to the state, for the simple and obvious reason that we have been able to place upon lands men who have become more or less accustomed to living upon farms, men who had left cities, and they have made a very valuable contribution to the wealth of the state by reason of the experience they 'have had in farming and the life they have lived upon the farm. Measured from one standpoint, therefore, I do not regard it as a loss; it is something the state might fairly assume. . If we can approach the matter from the standpoint of absolute fairness and have this revaluation made by a tribunal whose duty it is to do that class of work in connection with railway corporations, in regard to rights of way and matters oif that sort, a tribunal of judges who are dealing with questions of this kind every day, I am sure we will extend a measure of relief to a deserving portion of the population and will do general justice to the exchequer and to the state.

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Do I understand the
suggestion to be that the district court judge would be the arbitrator in all cases, or would the hon. friend still leave the provision providing for the board and the settler themselves to reach an agreement? Would 'he merely have the district court judge substituted for the arbitration committee, or would he have the district court judge hear all cases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would substitute the district court judge in every instance, for the reason that the matter of arriving at an agreement involves at times the raising of questions by one of the parties that a judge would not consider, and in other eases the elimination of factors which should be considered. If we have uniformity within the district, and if the district or county court judge determines in every instance the measure of decrease in value, then I think we have eliminated every possibility of complaint as to the method pursued to reach the desired end.


Charles Avery Dunning: How would the cost be dealt with?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my judgment the cost would be very trifling in a matter of that character. In the appeal board, my hon. friend will remember, the government itself has provided that . a aoldier's friend may assist in the presentation of an appeal, and it might be that some such arrangement would be made in this case. The settler does not require a lawyer to present a case of that character. It sometimes may be very much better done by the settler himself or by his friend than by a trained solicitor for reasons that will at once appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and to my hon. friend. Courts are always considerate of a man who appears to present his own case, allowing for all the difficulties under which he must labour, whereas if the case is in the hands of an inexperienced solicitor the. settler might suffer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I presume the Minister of the Interior has obtained from his representatives in the west a fairly accurate idea as to what is the general rate of depreciation in the value of those lands. I was utterly astonished in the lobby this afternoon to hear soma western members state that the depreciation in the case of some of the lands was at least one-half, and perhaps greater in other. If there has been a general depreciation of one-half, it means a loss to the treasury of $50,000,000, and if that is the real prospective loss it will come as a great shock to many people who believed that the settlement under the Soldier Settlement Act was really of general benefit to the whole country.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is unduly alarmed. Perhaps the most aggravated case is in the constituency of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward)
In Manitoba undoubtedly serious loss will be experienced in the revaluation of land in the district between the lakes, but I would like to stress the point I was trying to make in speaking previously, namely, that in the majority of cases there will be no revaluation at all and that in many cases the land now occupied by the soldier is more valuable than it was when he purchased it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the minister not think that under the terms of the arrangement proposed by the resolution nearly every settler will contend that there has been depreciation and proceed on the idea that the time now has come to make a raid upon the treasury to secure the benefit of the alleged depreciation?


Edward Joseph Garland: The raid was made at the time the settlement took place.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly that was all wrong.
I am not here to vindicate or support anything done by any previous administration; as a new membeT of this House I am not called upon to do that. But, in view of the provision made here that every settler may apply, no specific terms being expressed as to the ground on which the revaluation should be made by the arbitrators or by the district judges, what is the opinion of the Minister as to the prospective loss?


Charles A. Stewart: One factor that will cut down the number of cases to be dealt with is that a very large proportion of the men who were unable to carry on are now off the land. The fact that their land was valued too highly was one of the contributing causes which forced them to leave it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: W7hat proportion of these men have left the land? I understood from the hon. member opposite that a great number of them were still on the land.


Charles A. Stewart: There are 21,600 odd still on the land.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How many left?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not more than 25 per
cent.


Charles A. Stewart: I think not.
Air. STE\TENS: About 29,000 went on the land.


Charles A. Stewart: I think 29-
000 all told went on the land and of those 6,800 have made failures up to date.
Soldier Settlement Act

But the fact remains that there are 21,600 odd still on this land, and you cannot discriminate and say that only John Smith in such and such a locality may apply for revaluation. All must have the opportunity, but that does not mean that all will be dealt with. They will have to show cause why they are entitled to any revaluation. I am somewhat impressed by the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr Bennett). I may say frankly, without reflection on my legal friends, that I am always somewhat wary about the cost of courts and court actions and I was trying to avoid that. But it is important for the settler and for the country that a most impartial tribunal should make the decisions. I am thoroughly in accord with that suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is fundamental.


Charles A. Stewart: I am ready to give serious consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion if it will avoid expense to the settler himself and to the country, but ion the other hand I am just a bit fearful about these courts. I want to do the thing that will bring about a result that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
I want to impress upon my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) the fact that while this proposition may and undoubtedly will run into a considerable sum of money, to speak of a fifty per cent reduction in connection with the 21,000 soldier settlers who are on the land is away beyond the mark. I rather think not more than twenty per cent of those on the land to-day will have their land1 subjected1 to revaluation, in some cases perhaps a fairly considerable reduction, in others, rather a small one. That may be a wild guess, but I am giving my hon. friend my opinion in the matter so that he will not be unduly alarmed at the amount of money involved in this reduction. It is important that every one of the 21,600 odd soldier settlers should be kept on the land if it is humanly possible to keep them there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to join with the
hon. member for West. Calgary in saying that I think something of this character is necessary. I appreciate also the very difficult task facing the minister in drafting proper legislation. There are two points which strike me, first, the one referred to by the hon. member for West Calgary, namely the securing of a tribunal that will have the confidence of both the settlers and the public. That I think can be achieved by substituting for the appeal to the board as suggested in the resolution an appeal to a county court judge.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is now talking about the appeal. My

hon. friend from West Calgary suggested that the matter should go directly to a county court judge. In a case which can be amicably settled between the representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler, would he be satisfied with such a settlement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not be prepared
to express an arbitrary opinion offhand. I appreciate the difficulty. I was going to make another suggestion. Having achieved some understanding on that point, I still see a difficulty, that which perhaps is in the mind of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George. It is this:	Unless you have some
rule or fixed principle upon which that revaluation is to be determined, no matter how clever or just may be the tribunal,, there is a danger of doing an injustice to the public at large. Before I entered this board of legislators some fifteen or sixteen years ago, I was for some years city alderman and we had before us the problem of a new assessment scheme. This may seem a little aside from the mark, but I want to offer the idea to the minister. The question of assessment, whether it is the assessment of land or property in a city or the country for taxation purposes, or the assessment, as is really meant in the case of this property, for revaluation purposes, is always a very difficult thing to arrive at. I remember being much impressed, although I do not know that it was ever carried out in any instance that came to my attention, by a suggestion that was made that when an appeal was entered against an assessment and the price was fixed, as a final test of its justice, if the taxpayer objected that he was still being unjustly treated, the land should be offered for public sale at that figure. That is, if a man claimed that his property was too highly assessed and he intimated that the price oujffit to be fixed at a lower figure, he should be subjected to having his land sol'd at the assessed figure before it would be. reduced any more under appeal. If we applied some such principle as that to this revaluation it might safeguard the country against unfair reductions. For instance, a man who has a farm applies for revaluation and the question of revaluation is in the air, is in the district. There may be in the same district land much poorer in quality or for some reason not worth as much as other land in that district and entitled to revaluation. But the very fact that you lower the price of A's land will warrant B in asking you to lower the value of his. That is going to be the chief difficulty. But if B is faced with the risk of having his land offered at public sale at the figure suggested, let us say, by the court, he may think twice

Soldier Settlement Act
before he will make application, for revaluation or insist that he has been unfairly treated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has to make an
affidavit on forms supplied by the board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I confess very frankly
to the minister that I have not had time to give this very much thought, but I see a great danger and I think it is what is in the mind chiefly of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and others, namely, that by the very fact that we are revaluating, this will spread over a large and extended area and into a very large sum. I would suggest to the minister as my contribution to this debate, first, that as nearly as
11 p.m. possible we should submit these things to a county court judge or some court in existence rather than to a board of arbitration, and, second, that some principle such as the one I have suggested should be applied to prevent the undue influence of local sentiment from entering into this question of revaluation.
Another point that occurs to me which I will just refer to, rather in support of the measure than in criticism of it-and1 I want my criticism to be taken as friendly-is this: We are not going to lose all the amount that will be represented in the figures of reduction in valuation. A large number of soldier settlers are leaving the land now, and every farm that is abandoned by a soldier settler and thrown back on the Soldier Settlement Board means an immediate loss. The board must take the stock and machinery, all of which is greatly reduced in value when it is put to a forced sale, but which if it were in a going concern would still retain a major portion of its value. So that ever}' man who leaves the land causes a serious loss to the country. If by any means we can keep those men on the landi, we will minimize the loss. Furthermore, and of course it is of very great importance, we will assist in building up happy and contented homes, which should be our main object.
Now, in British 'Columbia there are quite a number of people who bought land at high prices. I have in mind some very fine chaps who are striving and struggling earnestly to make good. I know some who have been already driven off their farms. They are those who see the margin of profit reduced to such a low point that they have no hope of paying off the principal sum. But if the property of those who are still holding on were revaluated so that hope might be revived, I think the great proportion of them would stick. On
the other hand, if that last hope is removed,
I think you will find in the next few years a great many will abandon the land, and in all probability the actual loss to the country in dollars and cents will be greater by the absence of this legislation than by wise and careful application of it.


Mr. WARD:: Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as a new recruit to this principle? I might recall his remarks of three or four years ago on this very question, but I refrain, for I am very much pleased to have him with us to-niight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What did he say then
different from what he says to-night?


William John Ward: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to support the attitude taken by the member for West Calgary, but it does appear to me that our difficulty in this very serious matter is due to the fact that in the first instance these lands were valued by some practical man.


John Livingstone Brown: No, that is the trouble.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were not
valued by a county judge, anyway.


Milton Neil Campbell: They were certainly not valued by a practical man.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am inclined
to think there were some practical men around at the time these lands were sold,


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, how would
the hon. member like a farmer to inquire into some legal matter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like a
farmer to inquire into a matter about which he had special training; and I should like to have a matter of this kind investigated by a man who by special training has qualified himself for the work. I am sure if we are safe in trusting all our other disputes to a county judge, we would be equally safe in trusting him with this. We ought to be just as safe as we should be with anybody else under our system. It does seem to me, however, to be a suggestion that should work out with justice to all concerned. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Ward) who so severely reflects on county judges. Possibly one has done something to him which he does not like. At any rate his argument is not well founded.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: This resolution is
one that meets with general approval, but I am not just sure what the minister intends. If I followed his remarks, I understood him to say that every soldier was to have the privilege of having his land revalued if he so desired; and at another time he stated that it was not the desire to have a wholesale revaluation of soldier lands. I am not sure how he proposes in the forthcoming bill to safeguard the Soldier Settlement Board from a very considerable flood of applications for revaluation of lands.
Section 3 of the resolution proposes three conditions to be complied with by the applicant for revaluation: first, that the application shall be supported by an affidavit; second, that the applicant shall give a written statement setting forth his belief as to the present value of the land and the reasons therefor; and1, third, that he shall give the names and addresses of any persons whom he suggests as witnesses to the present value. These three conditions may be fairly satisfactory, but it seems to me that they do not adequately safeguard the Soldier Settlement Board from an inordinate number of applications. With regard more particularly to conditions in western Canada-I am not sure that the same would not apply elsewhere-we have a small local governing body known as the municipal council, which is composed of seven men representing a nine-township unit, that is, a small area of land eighteen miles square. I would suggest to the minister that every ap-

Alleged Fraudulent Companies
plication from a soldier settler should be submitted to that small local body. They are practical farmers. Each farmer councillor represents .a little over a township, and 'he knows fairly well every parcel of land within that compass. He knows its fair value, and he is acquainted also with the soldier settler. He knows whether the case is a worthy one or not, or whether the land has depreciated as a result of indolence on the settler's part. I would urge the minister to incorporate in the bill a provision that throughout the country every application shall be supported by a resolution duly moved and passed by such a small local governing body, whether it be known as municipal council, township council, county council, or whatever the nomenclature may be. So far as the west goes we call them municipal councils.
It may be urged that these small local bodies are under provincial jurisdiction. That is correct. But I have had considerable experience in one of these councils, and if there should1 be any objection to a small body such as this handling such cases, all that is necessary is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the provincial government to send out a circular letter to the municipal officials, requesting that they give every support to such a movement. I am sure that such support would be given.
I suggest to the minister that in section three provision be made in this respect. Otherwise I fear that it will be necessary to move an amendment to the bill when it is brought down to ascertain the views of the committee on the point. I make that suggestion now.
As to the board of arbitration, I am not so sure that the district court judge is the proper officer to handle such cases. I am not so sure, again, that if it comes to a case of arbitration the municipal council is not the most logical body to settle any dispute. They are, in my opinion, better than anyone I can think of in the whole district. They know the lands, they are in touch with the situation, and I have no doubt they would give a fair decision if the matter were left to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As there will likely be
considerable discussion of this important resolution, I would suggest that progress be reported. I think the Prime Minister will agree that the discussion so far has been constructive and helpful, and an adjournment now would be justified.
Progress reported.



GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO RETAIN OFFICE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether
any hon. member in the House is particularly interested in having order No. 6 retained any longer on the order paper. I move that it be discharged.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let it stand until the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) comes back.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Friday, March 26, 1926