1926-04-06

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, to change the name of the Dominion Express Company to "Canadian Pacific Express Company"-Mr. Fournier.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. KENNEDY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.
2126	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
On April 2 there appeared in various newspapers reports of the trial of Baldy Robb at Edmonton, Alberta. He was charged with and convicted of irregularities in the performance of his duties as deputy returning officer at No. 4 poll, near Brule, in the Peace River constituency at the federal election on October 29 last. Mr. Justice Walsh presided at the trial and is reported in the Edmonton Journal of April 1 as having said when addressing the jury:
The fraud which was alleged to have been perpetrated was or.e of a very serious character. In all the history of the Dominion there has never been an instance of such a glaring attempt to deprive citizens of their rights as voters. If this was true, then ninety voters had been deprived of their franchise. Mr. Collins had been deprived of his seat m the Dominion parliament, and the people of this riding had been deprived of their rights in having a man of their choice to represent them at Ottawa. . . . There was the evidence of the 111 people who had sworn that they voted for Collins on that day. This was the foundation on which the crown had built their structure. There was a possibility that these people might have committed wholesale perjury. Personally, said His Lordship, he found it hard to believe that a number of apparently respectable people like these had perjured themselves through fear of their employers.
In order to appeal to my sense of fairness the Ottawa Journal on April 3 in an editorial headed "Should Mr. Kennedy vote" strips this statement of Justice Walsh of all qualification, and makes this statement:
The fraud which was perpetrated was one of a very serious character. In all the history of the Dominion there had never been an instance of such a glaring attempt to deprive citizens of their rights as voters. Ninety citizens had been deprived of their franchise.
The words "If this was true," and the reference to the possibility of wholesale perjury are omitted, and then the editorial is built up to convince me that I have no moral right to sit in parliament or to vote for or against government measures. I intend to do both.
The statement of Mr. Justice Walsh, even if it were as the Ottawa Journal has it, was made at a trial held in connection with one poll out of 278. I claim now and have claimed ever since the early part of November that other irregularities in Peace River cost me more votes than the alleged switching of ballots at Brule cost Collins, even assuming that none of my ballots were switched at that point. The final results of No. 4 poll were: Collins (Conservative) 22; Kennedy, 12; Rae (Liberal) 127. It would therefore appear from the evidence that 89 votes were switched to Rae. I was elected by a plurality of 17 votes over Collins and 41 votes over Rae.
Six neighbouring polls in one district had all the election machinery set up and ballot boxes mailed addressed to the deputy returning officer, but no deputy returning officers

had been appointed. Three of these polls through the initiative of the people themselves were opened and the total results were: Collins, 15; Kennedy, 114; Rae, 15. The other three boxes remained in the nearest post office all day but no poll was held. At the latter three polls 225 persons had the right to vote. Many of them went to look for the polling place and of course found none. My information is that the vote there would have been divided similarly to the vote at the three polls that <vere opened.
The recount in Peace River was completed im December 19. A representative of the Conservative candidate asked me if, in view of the Brule situation, I would not consent to go through the first session of parliament and then resign. I told him at once that in my judgment owing to other election irregularities I had lost at least as many votes as Collins and that the proper course to follow, if they were not satisfied, was to petition under the Controverted Elections Act.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the hon. gentleman tell us the name of that gentleman?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Milner who was
acting for Mr. Collins. Instead of this they appealed to a Supreme court judge to have the poll at Paddle River, where the vote stood Collins, 11; Kennedy, 87; Rae, 5, thrown out, and 103 voters disfranchised on the technical ground that the deputy returning officer was not properly sworn in. It appears that the commissioner was not present when the deputy signed the oath form. In any event with sixty days in which to act under the Controverted Elections Act nothing was done by the Conservatives.
However a petition against my return has been filed in the Supreme Court of Alberta under the Controverted Elections Act by J. B. Page of Coalspur, through the legal firm of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Cross).
If the Conservatives have now any desire to act and Page fails to press his petition I am informed that they can do so.
The petition charges me with everything the election act prohibits and asks that I be completely disfranchised. In view of this fact, even if I were otherwise disposed to resign I would not do so until the matter was disposed of. If no one else does so, I fully intend to press for action in this matter as soon as this session is over.
But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot resign. Chapter 11, section 8, of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1906, reads as follows:
No member shall tender his resignation while his election is lawfully contested, or until after the ex-

Privilege-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
piration of the time during which it may by law be contested on other grounds than corruption or bribery.
Until this petition is disposed of I intend to assume all the responsibilities and exercise all the privileges of a member of the House of Commons. I do not wish, however, to take shelter behind the petition or the law. I would refuse to resign even if there were no petition. I would not resign if I could and could not if I would. And let me say to that section of the press that has alternately flattered and threatened me during these last few days:	I do not value their praise nor
fear their threats. I defy them.
There is a bigger question involved than the Peace River seat or the government in power. Northern Alberta has come through an election that has shown the existence of elements that must be rooted out of our political contests if respect for our parliamentary institutions is to remain. The chief question is how to do this. If I can help, neither the loss of the Peace River seat nor even disfranchisement would worry me in the least degree. And let me say that if this end can be served by unseating me, I will hold no grudge against anyone taking action to do so.


Arthur Meighen: This is a matter that
affects not only the privilege of the hon. member (Mr. Kennedy, Peace River) himself, but the privileges of the House as such. I do not propose to comment at any length on the subject now. The House was not apprised until this very moment of the stand which the hon. gentleman purposed taking; prior to meeting we had only a rumour upon which of course we could not decide, much less act. I should not let the occasion pass, however, without saying that I cannot agree with the reasoning advanced by the hon. member for Peace River, and I must take issue most flatly with the conclusion to which he comes.
It is true that under the House of Commons Act, while a petition stands against him in the courts the right of resignation is not the hon. member's. But the act of resignation is one thing and the act of exercising his functions here as a member and a voter is another. The hon. member now stands in this position, that the official and judicial findings as respects the election in his county show that he was not returned a member of this House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That was not the trial of an election petition.


Arthur Meighen: There is no charge
against the hon. member himself of malpractice, nor is there any charge that there was any dishonesty on the part of anyone else on his behalf. The only fault to be found with the hon. member exercising his functions is that he was not elected. The hon. member argues that but for "other irregularities" he would have been elected, and I must pause to comment on the use of the word "irregularities" which he was benevolent enough to apply to one who has now been convicted of a gross criminal offence against the code of Canada and is in consequence under a sentence to the penitentiary. The hon. member's euphemism may have some significance, but it does not at all detract from the heinousness of the offence. He argues that but for "other irregularities", namely, the fact that certain polls were not voted at all that the government's agents failed to send boxes to those polls, he would have been elected inasmuch as he is able he believes, to read the minds of the voters well enough to know that they would have voted for him. How weak and feeble this is by way of defence is evident on its mere statement. The fact is that from the votes polled the official judicial findings are that the hon. member was not returned, but that Mr. Collins secured the largest number of votes and has therefore the right to sit in this House. Under these circumstances it is difficult indeed to understand how the hon, member can feel himself playing his right part, in relation not only to his constituents but to this House, in continuing to exercise the functions of a member; and still more difficult it is to understand his reasoning by which he throws the blame for the circumstance that he did not obtain enough votes upon irregularities by officers of this government when the fact is. as he must admit, that he owes his alleged return to frauds and crimes perpetrated by a deputy returning officer acting on behalf of the same government. The hon. member represents those frauds in this House to-day, and he represents the men who perpetrated them:	He is here because of them, and I
think he would have done himself more credit had he realized the position, and, pending at least the event of the action under the Controverted Elections Act, retire from membership in the meantime. The subject is one which undoubtedly will require further consideration and certainly this House has the right to pass upon it. It has that right, and at the first convenient opportunity it will be called upon to exercise it.
Privilege-Mr. McPhee

PRIVILEGE-Mr. McPHEE



REPORTED STATEMENT OF MR. BAKER, MEMBER FOR TORONTO NORTHEAST

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I see in one of the Ottawa journals published this morning the report of a meeting held in the city of Toronto on April 5, and before making the observations which I desire to make. I want to read from the article in question:
Toronto, April 5.-Describing Hon. Charles Dunning, Minister of Railways and Canals, as "a fresh lad" who was "trying to run federal affairs," R. L. Baker, Conservative member of parliament for Northeast Toronto, predicted at a Conservative Association smoker here to-night that Mr. Dunning "was going to get in wrong." "I think," he said, "the bringing of Dunning into the House was the best thing that has happened to us."
Arthur Meighen: Is this a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to another member.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I desire to hear the hon.
member's statement.


Mr. McPHEE (reading):: Continuing, Mr. Baker said that the Quebec Liberals would rise up in protest against the government's actions, and that before the end of the session the reins of power would pass over to Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen, Conservative leader.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Washington McPhee: I presume my hon. friends will applaud the next paragraph as vigorously :
He predicted that the upset would come when the budget was brought down.
"I don't see," Mr. Baker said, "how the men from Quebec can stand a fellow like Dunning and the young cubs of farmers dictating a policy for Canada. I think they'll explode. We old ginks aren't going to listen to young cubs tell us where we get off at.
''The so-called government," he said, "is there at the mercy of these selfish grain men from the west. If King had been a man at all he'd have thrown up the sponge."
Reading this report I am reminded ' of the lines from Pope's Essay on Criticism:
All seems infected that th' infected spy,
As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd ejre.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. [DOT]


George Washington McPhee: On behalf of the members sitting on this side of the House who come from Saskatchewan, I resent these slanders hurled against the third largest province in Canada. These insults offered to the representatives from the prairie provinces show a contemptibly mean and narrow concept of Canadianism.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The question-


George Washington McPhee: We refuse-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The question of privilege must affect the individual member. Certainly the member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) is not concerned with this question.


George Washington McPhee: I am coming to that.


Hewitt Bostock: The question of privilege may affect one member individually or it may affect a group of members. In the present instance the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton seems to affect a group of members. He says that he resents the attack made by a certain gentleman upon members from Saskatchewan by calling them "cubs."


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is not
a question of privilege at all because the members from Saskatchewan are attacked.


Hewitt Bostock: I beg to disagree with
the right hon. gentleman. A question of privilege may affect one member individually; it may also affect a collectivity. I do not think the word "cub" is a very serious slight, but it depends upon the grounds for resentment. Let the hon. member for Yorkton state briefly the cause of his resentment. Then the question may be dealt with.


George Washington McPhee: Mr. Speaker, I was going
to say that we are no cubs, and we refuse to be so stigmatized by any denizen of the city of Toronto. One further observation, Sir. I see that the Archives are receiving pictures of an age that, I presume, is now numbered with the past. I would respectfully request that the hon. gentleman who uttered these slanders against us should have his picture placed there as the representative of an antiquated age to which his language would lead one to suppose he belongs.


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the day.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE-1923 RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING SALARY SCHEDULES AND OTHER MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Ordters of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask if the government is prepared to give me an answer to the question regarding the civil service that I propounded about three days before the Easter adjournment?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I will give the answer to-morrow.

Advances to Settlers


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if any secret communications are passing between the hon. gentlemen. We cannot hear anything of what is being said.



TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD-PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask what the latest news is in regard to the tariff commission?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The latest news is that the order in council will be brought down very soon.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: May I ask when the
budget will be brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. Minister of
Finance (Mr. Robb) is not in his seat. I would prefer that he replied to my right hon. friend's question.



ADVANCES TO SETTLERS ON CROWN LANDS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to authorize advances to settlers in crown lands.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, we had a pretty
thorough discussion uipon the resolution itself, and the main objections taken were to the amount to be loaned each year and the absence of a time limit. I have amended section 9 to meet the criticisms offered by-reducing the total amount of loans per annum to $1,000,000. and by restricting the operation of the act to five years. .
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to have the bill go into committee, but I am not prepared to let the statement made by the minister go unchallenged. Our objections are much wider than he stated. Especially I 'wish to raise the question here that the moneys to be applied upon these loans should be voted by parliament, and should not be statutorily taken out of the treasury without being included in the estimates.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, there are some abjections to this 14011-136
bill which I did not express when the resolution was under discussion, thinking perhaps that when the bill was brought down in its amended form those objections would disappear; but they have not. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the definition of crown lands:
Any land suitable and available for settlement, lying within fifteen miles of a railway-
That will 'prevent the operation of the act in a large portion of British Columbia where the crown lands for the most part are in those portions of the province where there is no railway at all. Seven-eighths of the district that I represent are without any railways, but are served by water and a large portion contains land very suitable for agriculture. The same remarks apply to the district of Skeena, except in the northern portion, where the old Canadian Northern line is operating. The same is true to a large extent of the district of North Vancouver, except in the extreme south. I would suggest the introduction of the words:
-or steamer landing
After the words, " within fifteen miles of a railway." I have in mind a particular valley very suitable for settlement which has a steamer service four times a week. It is provincial crown land to a large extent, and the settlers in co-operation with the provincial authorities might take advantage of the act in that district, but if they have to wait until a railway comes there it may not be possible for them to do anythin^ for twenty years. Then there are a number of large and fairly important irfands devoted to or suitable for agriculture-for instance, those lying in the gulf of Georgia running as far north as Prince Rupert. The Queen Charlotte islands have large possibilities agriculturally. It will be a very long time before any railways are built on those islands. They contain a lot of fine land suitable for settlement under this act, but of course their sole transportation from the islands is by water.
Then I see in section 3 it is proposed to:
Make a loan to any settler on the security of improvements made by such settler-
If the exact wording is to be adhered to the act will	be	nugatory, because if	a manhas made a	thousand dollars worth	of	improvements he is fairly- well started and does not need any loan. If, on the other hand, as we are told by word of mouth, it is the intention of	the	government to lend	on	thesame system	as	the progress loans under	the
Soldier Settlement Act, it would be all right, because the Soldier Settlement Board, by their



Advances to Settlers
officials, first outlined the manner in which the money was to be spent. Then if the loan was for say $1,000, they would make progress payments-that is, after the settler had done $200 worth, they would pay him that sum, and so on. In that way he could live while carrying out his improvements. But this intention is not so expressed, and as the section stands it would imply that the man would have to have made a thousand dollars worth of improvements made before he would be entitled to a loan. The first thousand dollars worth of improvements is much harder to finance than the second thousand, because for the further improvements he has greater security to offer. Sub-section (a) provides that the money will be loaned:
To a settler who is a Canadian citizen.
This is the first time that we have had presented a scheme to promote land settlement which applies to those now in Canada; generally it is confined to foreigners coming in. Perhaps such a man, brought up on a farm but now living in a town, would like to get back on the land, having become tired of urban life. I believe if carried out properly this scheme will result in attracting a considerable number of people from the cities back to the land.
Section 4 deals with settlement loan committees. I cannot see much to commend in the establishment and management of these committees. It says:
A settlement loan committee shall consist of not less than two and not more than three persons-
Suppose the two do not agree with respect to an application for a loan, what is to happen? There is no provision made for this contingency. Then it says that these three persons must be in the employ of the Dominion government or of any provincial government, which apparently means that they must- he already in government service in some other capacity, because in a lower section it says they shall not receive any salary or remuneration in addition to that otherwise received. Very well; we will deal with the provincial officials first. Except in the northern part there are in British Columbia no Dominion crown lands at all, and this will be largely a matter of provincial crown lands. The proposition apparently is to employ the services of three provincial officials who are paid for doing something else and whose time is no doubt fully occupied with those duties. This Dominion government-with the consent, no doubt, of the province-is to give those men instructions and orders as to what they are to do. According to the bill one man must be either the Dominion lands agent

or the provincial crown lands agent; in British Columbia the term used is "government agent" and that gentleman has many duties to perform. When he is fulfilling those duties is he to be directed, by some power utterly foreign to that which employs him, to go perhaps a hundred miles away and do something else? He will not feel like hurrying to obey the orders of someone who has no authority over him and is not paving him. I think the wording is unfortunate and that a better scheme could be devised.
Then I see by subsection 7 of section 5 that all settlement loans shall be extended under the direction or control of the minister. Of what minister? I presume it is the minister under this act, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Stewart, .Edmonton), That, in conjunction with what I have already said about the formation of the committees, leads me to this point: I urge the government to deal with this matter through either one department or the other, and not jumble it up between two departments The Department of Immigration and 'Colonization has had practically no experience in the handling of Dominion lands or loans to farmers, while the Soldier Settlement Board has had a very-extensive and somewhat dearly bought experience. They made many mistakes and profited by them, and are much more qualified to carry out the loans under this bill; they have men trained to deal with these very things. Now we are apparently going to take it away from these men-although we are told verbally that their opinions will be asked. That will mean a system of dual control, with the two departments passing the buck from one to the other.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension, if he will permit me to interrupt. The Soldier Settlement Board is now under the Department of Immigration and Colonization, and the minister mentioned in the bill is merely the minister in charge of that board. The board will act in this capacity.


Alan Webster Neill: The ministerial head may be the same but nevertheless there are two distinct departments. If it is to be done by the Soldier Settlement Board why not say so and put the whole power in their hands?
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton): The Soldier Settlement Board will not be curtailed in their functions or powers; they are now under the Minister of Immigration, and the minister is merely mentioned as the head of the department.

Advances to Settlers


Alan Webster Neill: Then why creat these elusive committees? Why not leave it as before, under the Soldier Settlement Board?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no objection in the world; that was not thought of when the act was drafted.


Alan Webster Neill: It is an afterthought, then, to put it into the hands of the Soldier Settlement Board?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that
was the intention all the time. My hon. friend will notice in all these acts that the minister in charge of the department is the minister mentioned. The machinery functions under the board. If my hon. friend objects to the wording there will be no objection to inserting " board " instead of " minister", but in all these departments the minister is in charge.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister is in charge it removes that technical objection, but I do not see the Soldier Settlement Board mentioned anywhere in the bill. I now go back to the constitution of these committees. I would far rather see the machinery put simply and solely under the direction of the Soldier Settlement Board, which is qualified to handle it and which has competent officials already in its employ. In regard to these committees, how are you going to get satisfactory and responsible action from three provincial officials? I would suggest that that be fully considered in committee.


Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond and Arthabaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaksr, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Colonization to one of the clauses of the present act.
Subsection (c) of clause 2 defines crown lands as follows: "Crown lands", means any land suitable and available for settlement, lying within fifteen miles of a railway and owned by the Dominion government or any provincial government. In my county, Sir, there are three parishes inhabited by settlers who have established themselves on crown lands. These people have settled at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the railway, and, should the present legislation be adopted, according to the definition given to the term "crown lands," these settlers would be deprived of the benefits of the present act. I might add, by the way, that in the province of Quebec, if I be not mistaken, most of the settlers are established on lands located at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the railway. It, therefore, seems to me that should this legislation in its present form and as stated in Bill No. 16, carry, the province of 14011-136J
Quebec would be deprived of the benefits of this legislation.
I am aware that the west is ready to accept and admit that this distance of fifteen miles is sufficient; however, this limit must be further extended, if we wish this legislation to be beneficial to the settlers in the province of Quebec.
Again, I want to especially draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Colonization to this fact, and, I repeat it, if this bill is adopted in its present form, the province of Quebec will in no way benefit by it, and a number of settlers especially in my county, will be deprived of the benefits of this act.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). This measure would certainly be inoperative in the province of Quebec, should this fifteen miles limit, be included in this act.
I hafd no intention of discussing the matter on the second reading of the bill. I thought that we might look into this question when we were in committee. However, I deem it more loyal to warn the government and the hon. Minister of Colonization that this provision should necessarily disappear, if the act is to be applied throughout the country.
I think it may be stated that in the province of Quebec all the colonization districts lie, to-day-not in near-by settlements, but taken as a whole-at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the railway. This is true of the northern part of the county I represent, The same may be said for the county of Wright, Hull and, I think, for part of the county of Pontiac. The greater part of the lake St. John district which is available for settlement is more than fifteen miles distance from the railway. And precisely for the reason that, settlers who venture into the bush at a distance of 25, 30 or 40 miles from the railway, have greater difficulties to overcome than those who settle along railways, it seems to me that we should not say to them: "You shall get less encouragement than the others, because you have more pluck and spirit of enterprise."
On the other hand, I admit that when it is a question of colonization, in the province of Quebec or elsewhere, there has been far too much neglect, in the way of concentrating the inhabitants as was done with such good common sense 250 years ago under the French regime, and in inducing settlers to group together before thinking of spreading here and there through the bush and sometimes on
Advances to Settlers

lands little suited for farming. However, to establish an arbitrary ruling as the one which limits the operation of the act to 15 miles from the railway is not likely, in my opinion, to conduce to a very hearty reception of this measure, at least in the province of Quebec. I think the same may also be said for a large section of northern Ontario, where there are already centres for settlement which have been opened up at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the railway. I know nothing of the other provinces. That is to say, that I am not sufficiently acquainted with New Brunswick to know if there are settlers so located; but I would not be astonished if there were in certain sections of the interior of New Brunswick, settlers that are as much in need of assistance as the others, and whose farms are located more than fifteen miles away from the railway.
I do not intend to vote against the second reading of the bill; however, certainly if the bill is to remain as it is, I loyally warn the minister that I shall vote against the third reading.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I would like to support the observations made by the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) and by the member for Labelle (M;r. Bourassa) regarding clause 2, which limits the benefits of this scheme to those settling on land within a radius of fifteen miles of a railway. In the province of Quebec the new settlement has been extended far beyond fifteen miles. In the Gaspe peninsula, for instance, we have settlers twenty and twenty-five miles away from a railway, and they are getting farther away every day. The whole lake St. John region is many more miles removed from a railway than fifteen miles, and the same applies to northern Ontario. If this arbitrary limit of fifteen miles stands in the bill, practically the whole province of Quebec will be debarred from benefiting under this legislation, and I hope the minister, when we are in committee, will see his way to removing this limit entirely, or at least extending it so far as the province of Quebec is concerned.


Mr. ROGERS:: Has the minister made any calculation of the acreage in the three prairie provinces within the fifteen mile limit?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will find that information in Hansard. I am sorry I have not it here at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.

On section 1-short title.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Before we proceed with
this bill I would like to ask the minister how he reconciles clause 4 with the pronouncement he made on Miarch 25 when the resolution preceding this bill was before the committee. At page 1887 of Hansard my hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) asked this question:
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?
And the answer of the minister was:
Yes, that i3 why the provision is put in the bill.
If that answer is correct how is it possible to advise the minister as to the suitability of a settler before he goes on the land? Apparently the bill would suggest that the men who are afterwards to receive loans must be accepted by the minister and by his committee as suitable settlers, and that they, and they only, can receive loans.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite correct. The committee would have the right to accept or reject any settler; it could not be otherwise. It is the same with any loan company that is lending money; the character of the applicant for the loan would play quite an important part, I think, in whether or not he would secure the loan.


Mr. BOYS:: The minister does not mean, reject the settler, but rejects the application for the loan, does he not?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but my hon. friend from Parry Sound was asking whether the committee would have the right to reject the application for a loan from the settler. .


James Arthurs: When the resolution was before the House, the minister also stated that a certain amount would be advanced to the settler immediately upon going upon the land.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.


James Arthurs: Excuse me. At page 1886 of Hansard the minister said that a certain amount would be advanced, and then:
As he improves his land and buildings further advances will be made to him up to a maximum of $1,000.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is mistaken, or at least I did not wish to mislead the committee at all. I tried to make it clear from the veiy first that improvements would have to be made before the money was paid out on the land.

Advances to Settlers


James Arthurs: I will read the minister's exact words as they appear in Hansard:
This-
That is, the amount advanced:
-will enable him to provide for the necessities of life-
It does not say, to improve the property, but to provide for the necessities 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 $1,000.
Then he goes on to say, on the next page that no loan will be made until the man has security equal to the amount of the loan. That seems to put the minister in rather a difficult position.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
make it very clear that there will be no payment on a loan until there is improvement at least to the extent of the loan that is made upon the land.


Alan Webster Neill: Of the whole loan?


Charles A. Stewart: Of the
portion that may be issued.


James Arthurs: Has the minister had
any communication with the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec as to their co-operation under this legislation?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The
provinces all have schemes of their own, but they are all interested in immigration. I cannot say whether the provinces will join in a scheme of this kind or not. My hon. friend knows that under the provisions of this bill the lands would have to be turned over to the federal government; at all events, the mortgage would be the first lien upon the provincial lands. The sole desire is to make this bill apply right across Canada in every province that is willing to come in under the scheme.


James Arthurs: Then would it not be
proper to suggest to the minister that he should have consulted with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec before the bill was brought down, for it is just as important that vacant lands in Ontario and in northern Quebec within the fifteen mile radius should be settled as vacant lands in any other province. The minister is himself suggesting under this scheme that no patent can be issued by the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario until the loan has been liquidated and the full amount returned to the Dominion government. This would suggest to me that the minister would have been in order if he had approached the governments of these two provinces, which, after all, are just as much interested in immigration and in the opening up of their back territories as any other province, as to what action they would take.


Charles A. Stewart: One of the difficulties I have always found in connection with matters of this kind is that until you are able to speak definitely, you cannot make any arrangement with any province. I have tried it before in immigration matters. This is an attempt on the part of the government to treat all the provinces of Canada fairly and equitably, not debarring any of them. They are all interested in immigration and all have crown lands with the exception, I think, of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and they can all take advantage of this scheme if they so desire, but only, of course, if they are prepared to give the federal government the first mortgage upon the lands in question. That is why there are provisions in the act for dealing with provincial officials.


James Arthurs: The minister is perfectly aware there are only a few provinces in Canada that have any crown lands. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have no crown lands.


Charles A. Stewart: Ah, the situation there is quite different.


James Arthurs: Generally speaking the provinces which have crown lands are Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and, perhaps, New Brunswick. I understand the minister has made no attempt' to reach the authorities in these provinces in order to find out whether they will enter into a scheme of this kind or not.


Charles A. Stewart: For the very good reason that I have, as yet, nothing definite that I can discuss with them. But when this bill has been passed I can do so. I am not sure that every one of the provinces will agree to give the federal government a priority of claim upon their lands. I anticipate that is one difficulty that will be encountered. But at the same time, all the provinces are more or less interested in the settlement of these vacant lands, and I am trying to get the consent of parliament to this bill in order that we may bring that about. Not only that, but the chief thing I am trying to accomplish through the medium of this bill is to hold out some hope to the Canadian who finds himself in an urban centre in this country and who is desirous of going back on the land without the investment of a great deal of

Advances to Settlers
money, of realizing that aim. That is the primary object I have in mind. The other object is to thicken up the settlement along the existing lines of railway. In discussing any matter of this kind even if you get one province to agree you have difficulty with another. That is the chief trouble in trying to devise any scheme applicable to the provinces as a whole.


William Alves Boys: Has there been any special demand for this legislation from any of the provinces outside of the three prairie provinces? As a matter of fact, we have in the province of Ontario, as the minister no doubt knows, what is called the Agricultural Development Board where loans are made to farmers at a low rate of interest and repaid in twenty annual instalments. Of course, in such cases they require to have the title which they do not here. At the moment I cannot conceive that there could be any demand for this legislation from the province of Ontario. If I felt the bill was going to be of any special benefit to that province I certainly would want to support it. I should therefore like to know from the minister, speaking to some extent for the province of Ontario, whether there has been any request from anybody in that province, either from the government or from individuals, calling for this legislation. Then comes the further question: Is it the purpose of this legislation to enable men to get advances of money if they have not security, or is it to enable them to secure loans when they have security? Prom what the minister has said, I should be inclined to think it is only when they have security that they can get such a loan. If that be the case why cannot they get money now? I can see, of course, one distinct advantage here, and that is in the rate of interest, and perhaps that is the main purpose of the legislation. If I am not putting too many questions at once, I should like the minister to give me information on that point also, because I do not suppose money can be got at five per cent in Ontario or Quebec or in the west-the interest rate in the west is probably seven or eight per cent, I think I am safe in saying that in the province of Ontario, unless you have what is called gilt-edge security, the rate of interest is 6J per cent. Therefore, there is a distinct advantage in getting an advance of money at five per cent. I am really more interested in the first question I put as to whether there has been any demand for this legislation from any province outside of the three prairie provinces, and if so from whom that demand 
has come? Is this an idea of the minister or of the department, or have there been persistent demands, perhaps extending over the last year or two, which have culminated in the bill before the House?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
fairly insistent demand from people who were residing in urban localities all over Canada that some scheme be devised which will afford them an opportunity to go back upon the land. I cannot say the demand comes from any particular section of Canada.


William Alves Boys: May I interrupt the minister
at this point? Am I to understand that people in the city who are without means are seeking to go upon the land knowing they cannot get one dollar until they have made improvements to the value of $500 or $1,000 and then only to the extent of such improvements? Everybody knows that you must have money to make improvements, and you cannot get an advance under this bill until improvements have been made.	I cannot
really see that much good is going to resulfr from such a scheme as that.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will understand that the homesteading process is a pretty strenuous one, and the sole object in going upon a homestead is to avoid assuming a burden of debt. Otherwise no one would think of going on unimproved land. I am speaking in the light of experience. Now, there are in Canada-not altogether in the western part of the country, although there is a fairly large proportion there-people, farmers' sons for example, who have had agricultural experience. They have gone into cities and wish to return to the land but they find that the purchasing of improved land involves a heavy mortgage indebtedness. That is what they are anxious to avoid. There is always more or less opportunity for labour for such people in these localities where homestead land or crown land is available. They also have the opportunity of getting out and earning a little money in the older settled districts. You cannot hand three hundred or four hundred dollars to people and say to them "Go upon a given piece of land and earn that money." The chances are that in some cases they will be thoroughly honest about the transaction but as regards the remainder you will probably never see the money at all.


William Alves Boys: The minister did not think
I was advocating such a thing as that, did he?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I did
not. I am simply pointing out the difficulties

the department has to meet in trying to devise a satisfactory scheme in order to help the people referred to to go upon these lands. Some labour will be necessary before the lands become productive. The hope is to establish the settler on lands where he can put up a home out of the timber found upon the property-not sawn lumber but logs. He will also have to do some clearing. As he progresses with the construction of his buildings and his improvements, payments will be made, on progress estimates if you will, after inspection by officers of the Soldier Settlement Board. That is all that is involved in this.
I could not say that there has been any demand for it in Ontario or Quebec except that there comes generally to the department the request that something be done to assist people already in Canada to get back on the land. If this bill is not valuable for that purpose and also does not provide against exploitation of the government, I had better withdraw it. I am willing to have all the criticism offered that members of the committee feel like offering to the bill, but we must try, first, to preserve as far as possible the advances made by the government and, second, to render the maximum amount of assistance to people who are desirous of taking advantage of this measure. I do not deny that I expect a much larger proportion of people in the prairie provinces than in the older provinces of Canada to take advantage of it.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think we may take
it for granted from what the minister has just said and also from the discussion which took place when this legislation was before the House in the form of a resolution, that the advantage, if any, to be derived from this bill will be felt chiefly, if not exclusively, in the three prairie provinces, and that the other provinces will be scarcely affected at all except as regards the amount of expenditure chargeable to the Dominion treasury in connection with carrying out this measure. I would be willing to assist in any settlement scheme which is going to produce results in any part of Canada, whether in the prairie provinces or in the other provinces, and if any reasonable result follows the expenditure of this money in the three prairie provinces I will feel well satisfied. So far as I can see this legislation will have little or no application to the other provinces.
Crown land as defined in the bill now before us, is land of the Dominion government or of a provincial government lying within fifteen miles of the railway and it must also be agricultural land. In Ontario any land
which would comply with that description and with those limitations would be in the far northern part of the province where I do not think we have a great quantity of agricultural land unless it be in what is known as the clay belt. That would be the only portion of Ontario that I think would be affected by the. operation of this measure. I do not know what portion of Quebec might be affected, but I would think also in that province the land would be pretty well to the north and land that would not in all probability be settled by agriculturists within the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. If, however, the passage of this measure and the making of these loans results in settlement of crown lands in the west under a system which affords proper safeguards to the Dominion of Canada so that the money will be eventually repaid, there may be some merit in the proposal and I for one would not like to oppose it because it may result in good.
The application of the clauses of this bill will be the all-important question. If this money is to be advanced by a suitable loan committee, by men of business experience, men who are actuated solely by a desire for the public weal apart from political considerations and the like, the matter may end well, but there is in this measure a tremendous opportunity to fall down in that very respect. Loose systems will be inaugurated; favouritism, political considerations and the like will creep in. I fear-and I express only my own fear-that in the result the money will not be repaid to the treasury of Canada. That has been our experience in a good many other instances in this country and I am afraid this $5,000,000 of expenditure which is the limit for any one year-
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton): It has been reduced to $1,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: -one million dollars will
be a matter of loss to the treasury in this way, that it will not be repaid, although if it should result- in securing for Canada any substantial volume of settlers I would not look upon it as actual loss to the country. I agree with the minister that the bill as drawn provides that an advance cannot be made except upon improvements actually effected and I see the difficulty which the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) has pointed out. How is a man who has no money to make the initial improvements in order to get a loan? The difficulty is going to be to find the man who has the money to go on the land and make the first improvements because, if the improvements are to be such as to afford reasonable security, the

Advances to Settlers
settler must in the first instance have some substantial amount to put into the undertaking. Once you have the man on the land with the improvements your scheme may work well, but how you are going to get the initial improvements as security for advances out of this fund, it is hard for one to know.


Robert Forke: We anight just as well be
frank about this matter in commencing, and admit that this scheme will apply more particularly to the prairie provinces than to the other provinces of the Dominion, for the simple reason that the prairie provinces have more land of the character that this legislation will be applicable to. We may take a too restricted view of the matter and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) touched upon it when he spoke of the benefit it would be to the country at large. I am inclined to believe if you can get settlers to go on this land and improve it the country as a whole will benefit more than those settlers.
As regards want of money to begin with, strange as it may seem those of us who were acquainted with conditions that prevailed in the early settlement of the prairie provinces- and I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) knows something about this-know that a great number of homesteads were taken up by people who had just enough money to pay ithe original ten dollars. Yet when I look back over those years and I think of the people who have made good in western Canada, I find in the great majority of cases the people who made good were those verj ones who, to commence with, had only a ten dollar stake in the land they took up. Therefore the fact that a man has no money should not stand in the way. There are always many opportunities for men to obtain employment in the west at good wages; for notwithstanding all that we hear about the lack of work, the demand at the present time for men on the farms cannot ibe filled. That demand always exists, and there is no doubt that any man who is willing to work hard and to adapt himself to his surroundings can advance his material interests by going on the land. He may not find everything precisely to his liking on the farm, but if he is prepared1 to put up with a little hardship he can easily make a home for himself by taking advantage of the conditions offered in this bill.
I have received letters from people of foreign birth who have some doubt as to whether they will come under the provisions of the bill. As I understand the legislation,
I think they will. It is being provided that

" Canadian citizen " shall be defined by the Immigration Act. It seems to me that when *a man has become a Canadian citizen under that act he will automatically become eligible to take advantage of the provisions of this bill. I am not so sanguine as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) about the great work that will be accomplished. I do not think that you will see vast sums of money spent under this legislation, but it is undoubtedly worthy of a trial. I believe, further, that a great majority of the people who will take advantage of it will be either those of foreign birth or the children of foreign parentage. They are the ones who are willing to adjust themselves to the conditions of agricultural life. They are willing to endure more hardship and to make a more vigorous struggle than our own Canadians are likely to undertake. As a matter of fact I question whether the average Canadian of today is really an agriculturist; he looks more to business and to the professions. I am sorry that this is so, but I am afraid that we shall see the same thing take place in western Canada that occurred in the northwestern states; unless there is a change the great bulk of our agricultural people-that is to say, the people who will make a success of farming

will be people of foreign birth or parentage. I sincerely hope this will not foe the case. My own effort has been to elevate as far as possible the whole calling of .agriculture. For that reason I am in favour of the bill inasmuch as in my opinion it will work out to the advantage of the prairie provinces.
I have no jealousy towards any of the other provinces in regard to this legislation. As a matter of fact, as I have said before, anything that will help western Canada to become settled and to make production possible must react to the benefit of the Dominion as a whole. And conditions in the west lend themselves to a bill of this kind to a greater degree than do' the conditions in other parts of Canada.
In regard to the fifteen mile limit, I do not know whether anything can be done in relation to Quebec or Ontario, but certainly I am in favour of that provision for the west. At the same time it is possible that something-might be done in the way of regulation to extend a further limit, if necessary, to the other provinces. On the whole I firmly believe that the bill is a wise one so far as western Canada goes, and I am prepared to. vote for it.


Charles Marcil: I just want to amplify
what I said before in regard to the province.

Advances to Settlers
of Quebec. It would be a mistake to suppose that the inhabitants of that province are not going back to the land at all. We have been carrying on an intensive campaign through the clergy, the press, and our colonization societies and have obtained splendid results. One has only to look at the northern part of Quebec along the Transcontinental railway where the Abitibi settlement has sprung up in the last fifteen years. The district is now represented in the local legislature and in parliament, and it has full judicial machinery. There are now twenty parishes in the settlement, and the clergy look to the future of the district with great hopes. The same thing might be said of the lake St. John district. No part of Canada is at present attracting more attention that that district, which is becoming a magnet of interest to the whole world. A new city is springing up there known as Arvida, where aluminum works, water-power and pulp mills will operate. In the lake St. John district, which is many miles from any railway, a most extraordinary settlement is going on; and the same is true, although to a lesser degree, of the counties of Labelle, Wright and the northern part of Joliette, of Montcalm, and of the region beyond Three Rivers, down into the Gaspe territory. We are opening up at the present time in the Gaspe peninsula, in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, a number of parishes half way between the St. Lawrence and the baie des Chaleurs anywhere from fifteen to twenty-five miles removed from old settlements. I should therefore like to see the province of Quebec take advantage of the benefits of this legislation. We should not leave the country to imagine that only the west will be opened up for settlement.
I can understand the arbitrary limit of fifteen miles being fixed for the prairies, but as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) pointed out on a former occasion, we have changed our system of settlement in the province of Quebec from what it was under the French regime. Under the French regime the original immigrants settled along the waterways, which were then practically the sole means of communication. Now, however, they have gone considerable distances inland, so that we have in the province parishes thirty, forty and fifty miles from a railway. Those parishes are fully organized and the impression prevails to-day, as it has prevailed during a number of years past, that the province through its legislature will be forced by public opinion to undertake some such scheme as this as a means of encouraging the people to return to the land.
We all know that the salvation of Canada lies in a more even distribution of its population as between city and country. If the majority of our people continue to live in cities and urban settlements, I do not know what is going to become of the country in the next generation or two. It seems to me that every possible effort should be made to induce the people to go back to the land. If the minister must of necessity fix an arbitrary limit for the west, I urge him to leave the question open, at least so far as Quebec is concerned, until negotiations can be carried on with the provincial government.
I am sure that the people of the province of Quebec are anxious to take hold of this scheme because the desire there is to have settlers come in. The people of Quebec will go into parts of the country where the immigrant from Europe or from the British Isles will not go. They are typical woodsmen who are quite prepared to settle in the northern parts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, just as the pioneers in those provinces did long ago. I do not think, therefore, that they should be debarred from the benefits of this legislation by any provision compelling them to settle within fifteen miles of communication; the localities that are thus accessible are already settled. In order to have new settlements we must go beyond that limit.


James Arthurs: I rise merely to confirm
in part what the last speaker (Mr. Marcil) said. I am opposed to this bill for the reason that it is purely local in its application, being confined to western Canada, and my opinion has been Confirmed by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), who states quite frankly that he believes that the benefits, if any, will accrue only to that part of the country. There are large territories, both in Ontario and in Quebec, where there are settlers to whom a loan of a thousand or even five hundred dollars would be a decided boon. Those settlers are anxious to remain on the land with their families, and as the hon. member (Mr. Marcil) has well said, they are the best pioneers in the world to-day. They are opening up an empire in the northern part of Ontario and Quebec, and in my opinion this bill, if it is to be effective, should be the subject of negotiation between the minister and the provincial governments who have crown lands of their own. Only on that basis should the legislation be adopted.


Mr. ESLING:: The purpose of this bill is to encourage colonization through the lending of money at a low rate of interest. I think it might go further and extend to all land
Advances to Settlers

within the Dominion. In other words, you are building up at one end by encouraging people to come here, and you are tearing down at the other end by not recognizing those who are already on the land. In that connection I want to cite a very interesting case which was brought to my attention no later than March 20. It is contained in a letter written to me by a man who is a farmer and a member of a farmers institute, so it is evident that he takes an interest in agricultural affairs. We have in British Columbia a Land Settlement Board which is supposed to make advances to and encourage men on the land. We have also the Soldier Settlement Board, a federal institution. So this man had an opportunity to apply to the two boards. He writes:
I have tried the two local establishments, the Soldier Settlement Board and the Land Settlement Board, to raise a loan on my ranch. I thought that the Land Settlement Board were going to advance the money, but at the final stage they decided that as the money was not to be used for new improvements they would not make the advance.
In other words, you are going to lend money to a new settler as he makes his improvements; but the collateral is not considered good enough for improvements that have already been made. This man adds that he has a clear' title to thirty acres, has constructed a five-roomed house, a barn, root houses, cellars, and so on. He writes:
It is my own home, the only one I have, and I want to raise $1,000. I had ten weeks with pneumonia.
Now, you are going to encourage newcomers, but here is a man who has cleared thirty acres, built a house and barn and gone through various trials and hardships. He considers that his ten weeks' illness put him back two years. Worse still, just before recovering he broke three ribs. But that is not the most serious part of his troubles. He goes on:
We had our children sick, two operations in the hospital, and what with doctors bills, and so on, I am about $850 behind.
By this legislation you are inviting men from the city to go on the land, but you are not offering any encouragement to those who are already there. This unfortunate man says:
I am in danger of losing what I have, and after four years and eight months overseas to come back and put every cent I had into a ranch, and then lose it.
You are not doing anything for this man who has put in four years and eight months overseas, but you are inviting some chap from the city or some outsider to go on the land and make improvements, for which you are quite willing to advance him money. These loans should be available to bona fide settlers, the men who by their energies have 
cleared their land and put up buildings; but you are not disposed to consider them at all.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would not the case mentioned by the hon. member be a proper one for a rural credit scheme?


William Kemble Esling: No matter what might be
the proper scheme, the fact remains that in British Columbia both the Land Settlement Board and the Soldier Settlement Board are overlooking such a case as this, and if this is not a worthy case I do not know what is. Certainly in my view no worthier case could come before any settlement board. Let me cite a similar case. Twenty miles north of Bassano which is eighty miles east of Calgary, a man purchased 160 acres. He paid So00 in cash. He and his family moved on to the land, fenced and broke 80 acres and seeded it. Unfortunately, the first year they did not get a crop. The next year that man came and asked me as a favour if I would write to the government at Edmonton to see if some arrangement could not be made to give him sufficient seed. The reply came back that nothing could be done. What was the result? The man simply abandoned his place and he and the three members of his family went over to the States. What is the good of encouraging people to come into this country if you are not going to take care of those already here?


Charles A. Stewart: What year
was that?


William Kemble Esling: In the spring of 1924. I
applied to the department at Edmonton for some relief for the man by way of seed. I submit that it is of far greater importance to take care of the people who are already here than to bring in outsiders.


Mr. MULLINS:: Mr. Chairman, I want to place myself on record as being absolutely opposed to this measure. As a western representative I cannot agree to anything like this proposal

to take a man out of the city and give him SI ,000 or to give a new settler $500 to go on the land. We have had those spoon-fed babies in western Canada and we know something about them. Really I cannot understand the minister bringing in such a bill. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) knows something about conditions close to where he lives. If this measure is passed I can see that the treasury will be exploited, and the security taken for the loans advanced will be practically nil. Take the log house and a few other buildings that a man puts up on his land, they look fairly well, and your inspector comes along and authorizes a loaD

Advances to Settlers
of $1,000; but that man comes from the city, he is not a success on the land, and finally the government will own it. I cannot understand the minister sponsoring this bill knowing western Canada as he does. It may be all right for Quebec-I do not know what the conditions are there-but let Quebec be responsible for part of the commitment. Such a measure may be all right to help settlers in that province, but so far as western Canada is concerned, I would urge the government to do something to help the man on the land get his products to the markets of the world. Then we will have no trouble in getting settlers there.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. This discussion I submit is entirely out of order. We are dealing with the first section of the bill, its title, and it is a well known fact that in committee of the whole the principle of a bill cannot be discussed; that should be dealt with on the second reading. I think we will really get along much quicker if we discuss the various sections as we come to them instead of making general observations dealing with the whole bill.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. member says is strictly true, but I never yet saw the rule enforced, and I do not know how in the world it could be.


Alan Webster Neill: On the title?


Arthur Meighen: What I mean is, you
cannot enforce the rule of not discussing the principle of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: We are dealing with the title only.


Arthur Meighen: But the principle comes into everything, and usually any attempt to enforce the rule takes up more time than would be consumed by the discussion on the bill itself. The objection I have to this bill is that it is no good. There are objections in detail to this clause and that, but what in the world the bill is here for I cannot understand. The member for Brandon says that he supports the bill. We all know that; if he did not the bill would not be here, we would never have had it introduced.


Robert Forke: I might remind the right
hon. leader of the opposition that he assumes to know everything that I know.


Arthur Meighen: It is another tribute to the honesty of the hon. member that he did not deny it. Take the whole of Canada into account; this bill is to be paid for and all the money has to be provided by the whole
Dominion. Leave out the three prairie provinces in the meantime, and you have six provinces left. Can anyone give me any suggestion of a reason why we should plunge into the arena and offer our money by millions to these six provinces? They are not asking for it; some of them have no crown lands at all. To those who have none, it is a joke to think of their coming in under this bill; their only privilege would be to contribute to the raising of the money. That is all they will get, but in the other provinces which have crown lands, the onus and responsibility for their settlement is solely provincial. That responsibility they are discharging and they are not asking our help. Why then should we address ourselves to them and say, "You do not know how to settle your crown lands. Here is some of the overflowing treasury of Canada; take that and see if you cannot do a little better." Is that not what we are really doing under this measure? Is the treasury of Canada so flush; is the ocean so full that we have to find- new channels into which to divert it?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Was not that done in 1919 and 1920, when the highways were built?


Arthur Meighen: Those were equally applicable to the other provinces; there was not any difference in that regard. The whole Dominion is interested in highways, for the reason that the people of one province traverse the highways of another; the people of Quebec are interested in the highways of Ontario and the people of Ontario are interested in the highways of Quebec. Even at that, many a bill has been introduced in this House with more justification than the highways bill of that time, and while I think the grounds were a thousand times stronger than in the present case, the experience of the highways measure was such as to warn us against transgressing even in a case so favourable as this. But here Ontario is not asking for this measure; New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are surely not asking for more burdens, and that is what this measure brings. Is the cry from the west so plaintive and so appealing that we must do injustice to all the other provinces in order to plunge there and try to get more money out on loans? I do not think it is.
Let us consider the bill as it applies to the west. It covers homestead lands at present unoccupied, crown lands within fifteen miles of a railway. In the west it would be more objectionable if it went beyond the fifteen miles-that I admit; so we need not discuss the area beyond that limit. Let us take the
Advances to Settlers

area within fifteen miles of a railway. It is open to homesteading now and has been open to homesteaders for, I should say, thirty years and probably longer. Not a man has gone on that land, or anyone who has gone on has abandoned it as a failure. What is the general presumption as to the character of that land? The general presumption, even on the part of those who do not know it and have not been over the territory, is that it is not good farming land or it would be occupied to-day by men who can get an entry for $10 and have only to make very, very moderate improvements for three years in order to get title to 160 acres. I know from my experience as Minister of the Interior that every quarter section of land that was farmable at all and a fit home for a settler, within fifteen miles of a railway, was continually in demand. I was called upon as the officers of the department were called upon time and again, to pass upon the claims of this man and that man. Many a time those claims were for land not worth farming. Now we are trying to bring in a high pressure policy, to force people to buy these lands as farm lands. Is it wise? We say to them, "We will give you money at 5 per cent interest; we will take it out of the treasury and make the other provinces contribute in order to see if we cannot get someone on that land, to make a farm out of it." I do not see any national object to be served. As a matter of fact you are not going to help that settler; you are going to get him into debt on a bad farm, and if there is any place in perdition worse than that I do not know where it is. Let me repeat; you are going to get the settler into debt on a poor farm.
We have any amount of good land in western Canada; a great deal of it is occupied, and what is not occupied is pretty far from the railway. The objective of parliament should be to create a market for the products of the farm, so that a man on a good farm can make it go. No man on a poor farm can make a success of it; I do not think I have ever known of an exception to that statement. This land, as a rule, is bad land. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) says, "You are going to help the country more than you will help the settler." I would like to ask this committee how we are going to help the country if we do not help the settler. If by lending a settler public money you do not help him, in what imaginable way can you help the country? You cannot do it. You will only get the country into more debt and the settlers in debt, in turn, to the country-a debt which I venture to say at this distance of time will, 
in the great majority of cases, never be repaid.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) argues against this bill in the province of Quebec. By the way, how is it that when the hon. member is criticizing this government he always speaks in French, and when he is supporting it he always speaks in English? I would like very much if he would reverse the process. In so doing we would have a great many more French speeches by him and the educational effect of his speeches in this House would be much greater. I think, really, that that is the best effect his speeches have, at any rate those made in support of the government. The hon. member criticizes this bill on the ground that it will not apply to the province of Quebec because of the fifteen mile limit. For the very same reason it cannot apply to the western provinces, because within the fifteen mile limit the amount of land which men ought to try to farm is so limited that there is no call for the bill at all.
I suggest to the minister that he simplify the whole problem by giving the bill up. Let him add it to the long list of rejected statutory misfits which this government has introduced; add it to the Platinum bill; the Petersen contract; the single transferable vote, and I do not know how many others; add it to the long, long array of abandoned, deserted children of the administration.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very
glad, Mr. Chairman, to see my right hon. friend so facetious this afternoon, and I am also glad to see that he has such a wide knowledge of western homestead conditions. I take issue, however, with my hon. friend on a few points which he mentioned. I am willing to grant my hon. friend the wide realm of knowledge which he has exposed to the committee this afternoon; I am ready to admit that this government, as well as my hon. friend's government, have introduced legislation which has received severe criticism at the hands of members of this House; it might well he said that a very great deal of the legislation introduced by my hon. friend could be subjected to very severe criticism. But when he makes the statement that in western Canada there is no good agricultural land within fifteen miles of the existing railways, my hon. friend is very wide of the mark indeed. He might again visit western Canada and thereby increase his knowledge of conditions as they actually exist.
What is the outstanding difficulty, in western Canada and elsewhere? Is it not that we are entirely over-built with railways? Who is

Advances to Settlers
responsible for that, may I ask my hon. friend? I do not name any particular government, but he will have to take his share of the responsibility, as will everyone else.


Arthur Meighen: Not guilty.
M.\ STEWART (Edmonton):	My hon.
friend need not say that; the government of which he was a member is just as guilty as any other government, and to just as great a degree. We have this situation on our hands, and when my hon. friend says that these lands would have been taken up long ago if they had been of any value, he is again very wide of the mark. These lands have been passed up primarily for the reason that they are difficult to clear, and my hon. friend is quite right when he says that he as well as myself has been appealed to time and again for the purpose of easing up on the provisions so as to allow a man to earn a patent on these lands. For what purpose- for the purpose of getting a loan in order to let that man get on the land. That is the history of homesteading as I know it and as my hon. friend knows it, if he will only cast his mind back over his administration. Invariably when these loans are put on the land, they carry a rate of eight per cent interest, and sometimes more. The sole object of this legislation is to assist the settler who has the courage and the endurance to tackle this kind of land. May I say to my hon. friend that there is a very considerable area of lands within the fifteen mile radius in western Canada that are just as good as any land in western Canada that is now under agricultural development, and it was with the thought of assisting in their development that this bill has been brought down. If it is of no use to meet a situation of that kind, if it is wise to leave these lands that are within a reasonable distance of existing railways vacant and to put a badge of inferiority on them, just let them remain as they are and haul the tonnage past these lands, all right; we need do nothing about it. But my thought was otherwise. My object has always been to create intensive settlement, not to scatter it. I have frequently said in Alberta that if someone had put a fence across the province at the city of Edmonton and prevented people from going into northern Alberta our problems in that province would have been reduced a thousandfold, and probably that applies to every western province.
My hon. friend says that in the discussion of this bill we connot confine ourselves to the sections under discussion. Neither can I confine settlement. Wherever there is open land available for settlement, whether it is ten or
twenty or fifty or one hundred miles from a railway, invariably you will find settlers flocking into that locality. Then we have demands for the building of roads and railways, and all that is incidental thereto.
These lands have been inspected by the Soldier Settlement Board-I am speaking now entirely of the three western provinces-and the board informs me that there is a very considerable area of these lands within fifteen miles of existing railways which have been inspected by them and which will warrant settlement, and warrant advances as settlement proceeds. Rather than have the settler struggle along for two or three years and become, in many cases, discouraged and leave his land, the hope was that with this meagre assistance -it is meagre, and at a low rate of interest as pointed out by the hon. member for North Simcoe-settlement would be encouraged. But if this assistance will be of no help to the settler, then we had better abandon the whole project, and leave the lands, as my hon. friend has designated them, as lands that are unfit for settlement. But I do not agree with him. Profiting from the experience the Soldier Settlement Board have gained in recent years in settling lands that were improved, I think we shall not have the large number of mistakes that were made in the past, perhaps in consequence of more immature knowledge with respect to settlement, and I think the bill will serve a very useful purpose.
With respect to the older provinces, there is no desire to interfere with their settlement. The claim has been frequently made in eastern Canada that this government does nothing, as previous governments did nothing, to assist in the settlement of the older provinces or to keep people there. As a matter of fact, there is a general demand from the older provinces that the federal government assist them to get more settlement; in Nova Scotia, for instance. I notice my hon. friends in the back benches appear to applaud those who opposed this bill. In the province of Nova Scotia there is an active demand that we procure settlers for them. For what purpose? Primarily to settle upon abandoned lands. There does not seem to be any particular demand for labour in those provinces, and that is the demand we get from them, and we have arranged with the government of Nova Scotia to bring in boys, whom they undertake to settle. The governments in the older provinces I am well aware are trying to settle their crown lands, and are making loans upon them. It is true that very few provincial governments are making loans on improved lands in western Canada, with the exception of Saskatchewan, but in British Columbia,
Advances to Settlers

Ontario and Quebec, they are all doing something to try and settle their crown lands. In all probability the fifteen mile limit would be a bar in the case of the older provinces, but I am convinced, as is the leader of the opposition, that we should not go beyond the fifteen mile limit in western Canada.


Mr. HANNESSON:: When this matter
came up by way of resolution in committee, I mentioned some phases of this bill in regard to which I	havp not	as	yet received anysatisfactory explanation. If Manitoba can be benefitted by this legislation, the constituency I represent	may also	be	benefitted	by it.Whenever immigration or settlement is discussed in this House it seems to be taken for granted that the expenditure will be made for western	Canada alone.	I would	like toremind the	committee	that in 1924,	of the90.000	odd immigrants who came to Canada,40.000	stayed in Ontario, and 15,000 in Quebec, so I do not see why it should be taken for granted that only western Canada will necessarily benefit from a colonization scheme, though people of discretion will probably go to the west. Moreover, the government has probably a greater responsibility in connection with western lands, because they still have control of the crown lands.
The suggestion has been made that this legislation could not benefit the settler because he must first make his improvements before he could get a loan. I disagree wholly with that view. If a man who is fitted to go on the land and settle knows he can get a loan when improvements have been made he will be able to find means of staying on the land, and if the land is adequate security for the loan, I would not oppose it on that ground at all. I can conceive of substantial good being done if it is possible for people to get loans as part of a colonization scheme, but the making of loans to individuals is not the government's responsibility, because they should not encourage people to go on the lands who cannot, under the conditions I am going to detail, make a success of farming, either for lack of money or because of certain mental and physical characteristics. The reason lands within fifteen miles of a railway in Manitoba have not been settled in the past is this: By virtue of their not having obtained patents municipal organization has been impossible and without it the settlers cannot do the very things that are essential to make settlement a success. This is the fundamental mistake the government has always made in colonization. They put on these lands people with nothing, or next to nothing, and they

have no capacity by municipal organization to raise the money that is absolutely necessary to provide adequate roads and the drainage that is necessary. A man can work as hard as he likes and then come back to his farm, but that land is going to remain unproductive and he cannot make any headway if there is no municipal organization to provide the essential things the settlement needs. Settlements were made twenty years ago between the lakes. They tried or organize municipalities, and they are now disorganized. The settlers have not been able to make a success, not because they were unwilling to hew down the timber and clear the land, but because, having no municipal organization, they could get no drainage and no roads. Many have abandoned these lands, and unless the government realizes its responsibility in this respect, settlement on these heavy timbered lands, which are generally wet too, will not be a success, and so in connection with any assistance of the kind detailed in this bill the government should provide, as was done away back in the seventies and eighties, for a certain amount of drainage and road building to make settlement possible. Then. I maintain, these people will not need loans, or they will be able to get loans from private sources. That is why I asked the minister whether he was going to make any provision for a priority of municipal taxation, or whether he was prepared to give any undertaking that the taxes would be paid by the settler concurrently with the interest on the loan, and in the event of failure by that settler and the government having to take back the land, whether they would recognize the lien for taxes when they did so. I think these two provisions ought to be inserted in the bill because if you do not make municipal machinery and municipal work possible you are going to create an added difficulty for struggling municipalities so many of which have become disorganized in the last few years and in rvhich the settlers have abandoned their lands. There is one other question I should like to ask and it is this: If the bill carries, would the settler who is now on crown land for which he has not received a patent be entitled to come under the act, and will the taxes created in respect to such lands have priority over the government loan that is now proposed ?


Charles A. Stewart: If the settler is earning his patent he undoubtedly will have the right to make application. If taxes have accrued against the lands they are not collectable anyway, and they could not have priority over a mortgage.

Advances to Settlers


Hannes Marino Hannesson: They would in the
case of an ordinary mortgage.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking now of unpatented lands.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Yes, unpatented lands


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend must remember there is no mortgage on unpatented lands.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: What I want to know is this: When the government propose to make a loan to the settlers, in such cases will they provide for the payment of the accrued taxes in case the settler now on unpatented land should receive a loan? A mortgage company would have to do that.


Charles A. Stewart: They would be in the same position.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: That should be included in the bill.	.


Charles A. Stewart: You cannot in such a bill as this cover all possible cases that may arise. I think it is safe to take it as an axiom that the federal government will not become responsible for taxes on crown lands. We have that difficulty at the moment, as my hon. friend knows in the matter of soldier settlement. Very strong pressure has been brought to bear on the government to assume responsibility for these taxes, but having given the matter very serious consideration, I do not see how it can be done. The only thing for the Soldier Settlement Board to do is to resettle these lands as fast as they can and make them subject to taxation.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Will the government give the same assurance with respect to this bill, if it goes into effect, as they have given to the municipalities in the case of soldier settlement lands, that the taxes will be paid each year while the settler is on the land, and in case he is put off that they will be paid when the land is resold?


Charles A. Stewart: I would want to take taxation matters into very serious consideration before venturing to pronounce any opinion with respect to them.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Will the minister say
that he will give as assistance towards the colonization aid to improvement schemes that will be necessary if settlers are put on these lands?


Charles A. Stewart: Such a thing is not contemplated in the bill at all. As a matter of fact my hon. friend knows that it
is a good many years since the federal government gave assistance to drainage schemes. Of late years we have repeatedly pointed out to the provinces that when they desired to go into drainage schemes involving crown lands we would turn the lands over to them at the price of one dollar an acre. That is the arrangement that was made between the prairie provinces and my right hon. friend who leads the opposition.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The minister does not quite understand the situation. What I referred to was wet lands that had been homesteaded already, where conditions rendered it impossible for the settler to remain on them. I ask. is it worth while to put men on more lands of such a character under conditions that will not enable municipalities to finance the necessary improvements?


Charles A. Stewart: I think I
can say at once to my hon. friend that lands of that character will not come within the category of lands on which loans can be made because it would lead to trouble at once. Why should men be encouraged to go on lands of that character unless some provision is made for drainage?


William Alves Boys: We will assume that the settler has gone on the land, remained there for the required period, put on certain improvements, obtained his patent, and then wants his loan. As I read the bill when the land is once patented it does not apply at all.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Mr. HAY:: Coming from one of the large
rural constituencies in the province of Manitoba, I wish to place myself on record with respect to this bill,1 In my opinion the measure will not help very materially to settle vacant lands within fifteen miles of a railway in Manitoba for the reasons pointed out by previous speakers. Those who wish to take advantage of the provisions of the bill first have to establish themselves on the land at their own expense, and afterwards make application to the government for a loan. I agree with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) that the security for such loans granted to the settlers will be practically worthless. We know that from experience. Those of us who have had experience in pioneering conditions, in Ontario and Quebec as well as in western Canada, know that the men who make good on the land are those who go there on their own initiative. I do not think the present scheme is practicable. I have heard the claim made during this discussion that the western provinces will
Advances lo Settlers

benefit from the proposed' legislation to a greater degree than the other provinces of the Dominion. Speaking for the province oi Manitoba, if I may be allowed to do so, I do not think it has made any demand for such legislation at the present time. That is my opinion. At any rate I have not heard any such demand from my people in Manitoba. I believe the bill will involve an added liability to the Dominion, and at the same time will not help this country to any material extent. Consequently I join in the opinion which has been expressed by other speakers that the bill might very well be dropped for the present.


Mr. WARD:: I may say that I am in
favour of the bill. I was somewhat disappointed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hay) and also the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). I am not surprised at the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I think he has been so long detached from western Canada, and from the conditions there, that he has lost touch with questions of this kind. I stand squarely behind this legislation. A number of hon. members who have spoken have failed to appreciate the difference between the possibilities of settling on a homestead or a new location to-day and those which existed twenty years ago. I venture to say there is not a member in this House from western Canada who homesteaded, say twenty or twenty-five years ago, who will stand up here and say that he would not regard with some fear the possible success he might experience in attempting to homestead under the conditions which prevail at this time. It is impossible for anyone without any money to homestead at this time such lands as are available in western Canada and that is the reason why our people are not homesteading. It is easy for hon. members to stand up in their places in this House and talk about what they did twenty-five years ago. I homesteaded twenty-five, twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago and I know many others who homesteaded about that time and were successful, but I would not attempt to homestead to-day without any money and in the belief that I would be successful. It "can't be did "-that is all. The standards of twenty-five years ago are not the standards of today. When I homesteaded, if I had a good suit of overalls I thought I was pretty lucky. That is not the case to-day. In those days you could purchase lumber for ten dollars a thousand; to-day it costs about sixty or sixty-five dollars a thousand, and other things cost in proportion. It is unfair to expect a

new settler to go back to the standards of thirty or forty years ago.
This legislation is the first approach to anything tangible in the direction of a real settlement scheme. Australia is spending money by the hundreds of millions on settlement. It has been my privilege to discuss the question of land settlement in Australia with members of the Australian government and they tell me it is the finest scheme that has ever been introduced into that country. They have almost to build fences around Australia to keep the people out. We must spend money if we are going to get settlers on the land. I hope this bill passes because it will be a real boon not only to the western provinces but to many other parts of Canada. I am sure any hon. member who has travelled through western Canada and has seen the millions of acres of good land lying along our railways with no settlers on it must be impressed with the necessity of putting people on that land in order to furnish traffic for the railways running through those areas. In fact, I would have favoured a more extensive scheme and I am sorry the amount has been reduced to S1,000,0G0. I think $5,000,000 was little enough; I had hoped the $5,000,000 would all be spent this year and $5,000,000 a year would be expended for a number of years, because I am sure this would be advantageous to Canada from not only a railway but a commercial point of view.


Mr. M ANION:: I am sure the minister after listening to the remarks of the hon, member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) must feel like the man in the desert who has not seen water for a long time, because most of the discussion in this House this afternoon from all sides has been condemnatory of this legislation. The hon. member for Dauphin followed the habit that is becoming rather prevalent in certain sections of this House, of taking the attitude that when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) opposes anything, he therefore is doing so simply for political reasons. I listened very carefully to the speech of the leader of the opposition and he put up arguments that were unanswerable and that have not yet been answered. Furthermore, when the hon. member for Dauphin states that the leader of the opposition has been detached from the prairie provinces, I might point out to him that he is not half as much detached from the prairie provinces as some forty or forty-five Progressive members were detached on October 29 last He is still attached to Portage la Prairie, and besides that he is a farmer on rather a

Advances to Settlers
large scale, probably on a much larger scale than the hon. member for Dauphin. That is by the way.
I have been listening to the discussion this afternoon, and while I do not pretend to be any authority, even of the slightest kind, on settling lands in the prairie provinces, I have noticed that most of the legislation coming in this year is apparently brought in entirely for a sectional reason. Nearly everything that is brought in deals largely with the prairie provinces. Nobody wishes the prairie provinces better success than I do; I want to see them progress with the rest of Canada; but I notice whatever government immigration scheme is brought in it is for the prairie provinces. The tariff is going to be reduced because the prairie provinces desire that; the Hudson Bay. railway is going to be completed because that is the desire of the prairie provinces; this land settlement scheme applies practically entirely to the prairie provinces, and coal is to be brought from Alberta because the prairie provinces will be benefited thereby.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to any of the assistance which we give them, but I think this government is the government of the Dominion of Canada and not just the government of the prairie provinces. Furthermore, I consider this legislation has been brought down in an unprepared condition. The very fact that the minister to-day cuts down the allowance which he is going to spend on this scheme from $5,000,000 to $1,000,000 shows that the legislation was not prepared. To bring in a bill for the purpose of spending $5,000,000 upon a scheme of this kind and then to cut the amount himself at one slash from $5,000,000 to $1,000,000, does not speak very highlv of the preparation given to the bill'.
As regards immigration, I listened as carefully as I always do for educational reasons at least, as. my leader said, to the speech of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), because he speaks his beautiful language in such a manner that most of us, even those who are tyros at it, can follow his remarks. I say that with no disrespect to those who do not speak it as slowly and carefully as my hon. friend. He brought out the point that Quebec wmuld not benefit very much by this legislation. There is a great section of this country -which should be given more attention by this and any succeeding government than it has been given in the past for the purpose -JL settling the land, and that is the great
section of northern Ontario, that gap between North Bay and the Manitoba boundary, which has an area as great as the countries of Germany and France combined and yet which has a population of, perhaps, a couple of hundred thousand people. It contains hundreds of thousands of acres of good agricultural land when it is cleared. It is bush land, land which the good French-Canadian people love to settle upon and which many people in Europe would be glad to settle upon. It is an immense gap extending for some 700 miles between North Bay and the Manitoba boundary where the railways do not get the traffic they should, across which three railways run, and which should be built up if at all possible to provide traffic for those railways in that section where railway traffic is most scarce. That applies also to the northern sections of Quebec. I believe in such questions as this we should bring in bills more applicable to the whole of the Dominion than just, as the minister pointed out himself, to the prairie provinces. He mentioned earlier in his remarks this afternoon that he had not consulted with Ontario or Quebec or the other provinces. He said that he wanted to get this legislation through, to have this bill pass the House, and then he would consult with the other provinces. Might I ask this honourable House if that is the time to consult with Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and British Columbia as to bringing about settlement which will apply to them as well? I would suggest to the minister that the time to consult with Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces, outside of the prairie provinces which are directly affected by this legislation, is before the bill becomes law and not after, and I make the suggestion, with the best of intentions and with no politics back of it, that this bill should be held up; that the minister should consult with Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and British Columbia as well as the prairie provinces, of course, and get their ideas upon some form of a bill which, when brought in, will help to settle those vast lands of northern Ontario and Quebec, which will help to bring back settlers into those lands in the Maritimes and in British Columbia as well as in the prairie provinces. I do not think it is fair to the rest of this country that on nearly all occasions the other provinces should be asked simply to foot bills the effect of which is to settle people only in the prairie provinces. I suggest in all sincerity to the minister that he should hold up this bill, consult with the other provinces affected, and endeavour to bring in a bill

Advances to Settlers

which will be satisfactory to all sections of this country instead of merely to the prairie provinces, and apparently the present legislation is not very satisfactory to them if we are to judge by the speeches which we have heard from all parts of this House to-day.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I want to say a word on two phases of the question before the House. First I desire to support what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion). Listening to the discussions in this House, one would fancy that there were no agricultural lands left in any part of Canada except the prairies; but anyone who knows anything about Quebec and Ontario knows exactly what my hon. friend has pointed out, namely, that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of the very best agricultural land waiting for settlement in the northern parts of those two provinces. At this point let me say that if in working out schemes of this character something were done for the lands referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Mullins), similar to what has been done in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, where the governments, by means of the construction of highways and through drainage on a large scale, before the settler goes on the land, have spent their money to open up the country and make it accessible to men desiring to settle, people would much more readily take up agriculture. I make that general observation in passing.
Coming to the principle of the legislation- I understand we are discussing the preamble to the bill-I want to ask the government how many of these schemes are going to be presented to parliament. When the estimates were brought down some time ago considerable noise was made about the saving that was being effected this year in comparison with last year. Have all these schemes, involving the expenditure of millions of dollars, been taken into consideration in the preparation of those estimates? This is just one bill; there are several others to be dealt with, one with regard to old age pensions, which will entail an expenditure of twenty or twenty-five million dollars, another with relation to rural credits, others in regard to railways, and so forth. These various proposals are to be submitted to parliament, and the haphazard manner in which they are being introduced, as my hon. friend from Fort William has suggested, is evidenced in this very discussion to-day. The minister, after preparing this bill himself, does not know apparently how much money he really requires. On a former occasion he informed the House that he wanted $5,000,000 to carry out the proposals of the bill, but to-day he finds that he 
requires only $1,000,000. How did the minister arrive at that estimate of $5,000,000, when he can be persuaded to reduce it now to $1,000,000? Does not this very fact suggest that we should pause to consider the direction in which we are travelling in the matter of these expenditures? The purpose for which the last, parliament was dissolved and an election held, if the Prime Minister's words mean anything, was that the peoples' representatives might deal with such outstanding problems as railway transportation, taxation and questions of equal importance. And this is the way in which we are dealing with those great problems: we are solving them by bringing in slipshod measures to which mature consideration has not been given,-measures that will mean an addition to the burden of debt under which the people of the Dominion are-now suffering.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say
in reply to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that what has been said in regard to the efforts of the government in the past to secure settlers for western Canada is-undoubtedly true, for the reason that the desire then was to fill up the western plains. That that settlement has been profitable to the rest of Canada no one will deny. But the same thing is not true to-day. You cannot have now a colonization policy that does not apply to the whole Dominion. Considerable sums have been spent to move settlers from Quebec into northern Ontario, and if my hon. friend will consult the representatives of that part of the country, he will find that a large migration has taken place in that direction.


Robert James Manion: Has the money been spent by this government?


Charles A. Stewart: To some
extent.


James Arthurs: Voted in what way?


Charles A. Stewart: This government, has spent some money although not to-any great extent.


James Arthurs: Under what vote?


Charles A. Stewart: Under the
immigration vote. No one can travel through northern Ontario, as one must do to go to western Canada, without realizing that there is a vast area of agricultural land in that section of the province. That land wre have tried to advertise just as well as other lands in the Dominion available for agricultural' purposes, and it is not true that people from the Old Country are all going to western Canada; many of them are going into the

Advances to Settlers
northern parts of Ontario and Quebec It was to assist generally in such settlement that this bill was prepared. My hon. friend (Mr. .Xicholson) is critical because of a reduction in the amount asked for. I was asked a pointed question the other night by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), whether in my opinion we required $5,000,000. It is apparent, I think, that we shall not require and cannot spend any considerable amount during the present year. It was therefore with a desire to secure the support of the committee in something that did not appear extravagant, but which nevertheless would be effective, that II reduced the amount. 1 assure the committee that this government does not desire to spend a great deal of money; one of the things that we seek to avoid every day is unnecessary expenditures. It is however our wish to assist in the development of the country in order to increase our population, particularly on agricultural lands, and our expenditures are all aimed at that object. If development can take place on the land, then the whole fabric of industry is bound to feel the beneficial effects. Having that in mind I reduced the amount. I rather resent, being criticized for having tried to meet the wishes of parliament. Of course, I have no objection to make if hon. gentlemen are of the opinion that the bill is no good and will not serve the purpose for which it was introduced, although I take issue with that suggestion.


Mr ARTHURS:: We did not say that.


Charles A. Stewart: Some hon.
gentlemen have been saying it,


James Arthurs: The purpose for which
if was introduced might be a different matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I leave that
to my hon. friend. If he has an idea that any ulterior motive is behind the bill, he is welcome to say so. But I wish to assure the committee once more that, it was my sincere hope in introducing the bill that it would meet a situation which we have not met previously. I repeat what I have pointed out on several occasions, that my information is that the lands which will be benefited by this scheme and which have been inspected by the Soldier Settlement Board lie within fifteen miles of existing railways, are good agricultural lands, perfectly suitable for settlement, and lands which men can develop if they are given an opportunity. If the bill does not meet the requirements I shall be surprised, but I think it will. That is my opinion, based even upon my own knowledge of the situation.
14011-137J


Arthur Meighen: Both the minister's
former speech and the present one are intended to convince the committee that there is a field for the application of the bill in what are known as the scrub lands of the west, lands that are hard to cultivate and hard and very expensive to bring into a state in which cultivation is possible. I am afraid the minister has not convinced me. I do not think there are lands in quantity within 15 miles of a railway which are not either so heavily scrubbed as to be valueless for homesteading or for some other reason are not security for $500 or $1,000. In the first place, neither $.500 nor even $1,000 will go very far towards clearing these lands. The minister may get his man on the land and leave him to put the $500 of his mortgage to this purpose or that. But when he goes back next year he will find the scrub there still and the mortgage on it, too, and it will be a pretty scrubby mortgage. The minister will find that he will lose this money. I speak rather feelingly on the subject because I have had some experience myself. You cannot get those lands cultivated by a system of government subvention. I will put the case in a nut shell this way: Do not try to help the settler by helping him into debt; help him to get out of it. If you get more people into the district, then it will be far better to sell the land at $1 an acre or anything you can get for it at auction; for the man who buys it will have to see that is cultivated pretty soon or his taxes will eat him out of house and home. If you get people into the district, then the economic conditions will invite cultivation of land like that; but to try to force cultivation in advance by government loans means loss of money, and it does not get settlement. .The minister knows as well as I do that in western Canada, in Ontario even-I doubt not in. Quebec, although that is likely there; certainly in the Maritime provinces-there are large acreages of abandoned land now, and a lot of it is pretty good land. I have seen in Prince Edward Island just about as nice a farm as one would want to live on, abandoned, the farmer gone. There are doubtless several reasons for it; but in the face of that situation, with land privately owned that can be bought for almost nothing, how can you justify taxing those people in order to force a premature cultivation of heavily scrubbed land in the west? And especially how can you justify taxing the owners of land in western Canada-of fairly good land which cannot be made to pay even to-day; at least you cannot get people on
Advances to Settlers

it-how can you justify taxing those people in order to force new land under cultivation?
Now, I know Saskatchewan and Alberta have not been invaded by the modern weed quite to the degree that Manitoba has, but it is moving in that direction, and instead of seeking to force virgin land under the plough by this piece of legislation and that, by this subvention and that, it would be far better to intensify work on the land already under cultivation-and there is far more of it under cultivation today than we are getting results from-I say. it would be far better to intensify cultivation on that land and by assistance restrict the inroads of these weed pests. The more land you bring under cultivation the harder that problem is.
I do not believe in trying to anticipate the future, in trying to get more and more land here, there and everywhere under the plough. As a matter of fact what good is it going to do the farmer to get more farmers there? Get people to use the farmer's products, and you help him. How is it we are exerting ourselves so much to get somebody else to produce more grain?. Everybody seems to agree-some on this side of the House-that we ought to concentrate on getting more people on the land. Well, I never had any sympathy with that view at all. I want to get more people of all occupations into this country. From the standpoint of the farmer, the more people you get in other occupations and the fewer in his the better for him. You are not helping the farmer by adding to his competition, while at the same time those who consume his products are dwindling. I do not believe in this special legislation to coax, cajole, bribe people to go on the land. They will go on the land if you make conditions such that it will pay them. We will make the land pay by our policies, which would add ta the population of the country. Now, there may be other policies aside from those which we habitually press upon this House; doubtless there are. But one of our policies is not to take hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the treasury to force into premature cultivation lands that are not needed to be under cultivation at all, because of the great excess of lands that are already under cultivation. Scores of thousands of acres of land, even in our western country, have already been rescued from the scrub; millions of dollars have been spent to bring the land into that condition, yet to-day it is not half cultivated. This is still more true, let me repeat, of the older provinces. Under these circumstances it surely is not a wise policy, it certainly is not an economic policy, to be making provision at this time of day in our legislation for
[Mr. Meighen.l
millions of dollars of public money to be loaned in these ventures on very hazardous security.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, the
House has already twice committed itself to the principle of this bill, first when the resolution was before the House and to-day when the bill was given second reading. Yet the discussion is along the line of the whole principle of the bill. Now that we are in committee of the Whole there are a number of details in the bill that I think I could agree to change myself. So why hold up the bill at this stage when we can now discuss it section by section and see if it can be improved in any respect? As I say, the principle- of the bill has been endorsed twice by the House, yet the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) would apparently now like to see the bill thrown in the waste paper basket.


Robert James Manion: We endorsed the principle
of the Petersen contract, too, and kicked it out afterwards.	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: We are not discussing that just now. The gentleman concerned in the contract, for obvious reasons, could not proceed with it any further.


Robert James Manion: After it was kicked out.


William Richard Motherwell: The right hon.
leader of the opposition says that by no system of subvention are you going to succeed in settling these lands. Is this a subvention, Mr. Chairman? Is it not a loan? My understanding of the meaning of "subvention" is something given as a grant or bonus or subsidy. This is a loan, and it might just as well have been said of the system adopted by the United Kingdom over a hundred years ago-of assisting men by loans to settle in Ontario-that it could not possibly succeed. But it did succeed. And the same system is just as applicable in these days. At no period in the history' of this country during the last hundred years has there not been some assistance given to men to go on the land. During the last forty years on many occasions the government of the Dominion has granted seed grain loans to homesteaders to a larger extent individually than the extent of the loans provided for in this bill.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister state what money was loaned by the British government for land settlement in Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: The assistance was
given to individual settlers before there was representative government here.

Advances to Settlers


Arthur Meighen: Assistance was given to
the Empire Loyalists by the Canada Company, but the Canada Company was not the British government.


William Richard Motherwell: Immediately after
the Napoleonic wars ex-service men were assisted to come out to Canada. And my right hon. friend opposed assistance to exservice men the other day.


Arthur Meighen: That is another bill.


William Richard Motherwell: All of a sudden it
has become an offence to assist land settlement. My right hon. friend seems to be filled with suspicions to-day. Everything is construed to have some sinister purpose. We are to gather political support by means of these loans, it is said. As a matter of fact we are carrying out in a different way the same kind of assistance that has been given as long as I can remember. I know as far back as 1870 seed loans were granted to the farmers of the west, and similar loans have been made a dozen different times since then. Now that it is given in the form of a settlement loan we are told it cannot succeed.


Henry Alfred Mullins: How much money of his
own would the minister put in a proposition of this kind, knowing the west as he does?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not a moneylender at all, but I know that assistance to men at the stage of their experience contemplated by this bill, if given wisely, is productive of magnificent results. But to oppose indiscriminately the whole principle of assistance astonishes me. I do not know my right hon. friend's genealogical tree, but I venture the guess that his progenitors were assisted in some way to come to Canada. I know mine were, and I think very few of the old timers in Ontario did not receive some form of assistance. You see some of the old logging apparatus lying around the farms yet.


Arthur Meighen: My people were not assisted, and I will put the results of that policy against the results of the other.


William Richard Motherwell: Look at what Canada would have lost if the forefathers of my right hon. friend had not come to this country. I do not know what has happened to my right hon. friend to-day, but he has taken a different course from any he has ever taken before. I do not want to attribute any particular motive, but now he does not want this bill after it has twice been endorsed by the House. I am not much on order or orthodoxy, but I think this is a most promiscuous way of dealing with the question. Why not start
at section one and see where we agree and where we differ?


Arthur Meighen: We have heard many
charges against the British government in days gone by, but until to-day I never heard that they were responsible for the family of the hon. Minister of Agriculture coming to Canada. I have wondered for some days what this system of British government loans on farm lands in Canada was, to which the hon. minister referred. I cannot speak with the authority of antiquity which my hon. friend can command, but I never heard of it before. I know there was assistance given on the principle of a reward to the soldiers, especially those who came to this country during the war of 1812 and who wished to stay, but. we are now told that there was a system of loans on lands for the purpose of settlement, made by the British government. If there was such I must frankly admit that I have never heard of it. In the district from which I come, which is some distance from the district of the minister, there was a system of loans by the Canada Company-I think that was the title of the company-but I do not know of any relationship between that company and the British government. From that company the settlers of western Ontario obtained loans; it was a loan company only, and I think if my hon. friend will go back and trace the family Bible of the Motherwells he will find that there was no assistance of any other kind in eastern Ontario or in the county of Lanark.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. there was.


Arthur Meighen: Unless it was given to
soldiers, and that is another matter. There is just one other question on which I would-like to touch, and that is the argument that this measure has been endorsed twice by the House. The minister will remember that when the bill was before the House, so many suggestions were made going to the root of the matter which the minister promised to take into account, that we let the bill have first reading. It was then thought better to go to the second reading in order that these proposals could be discussed. The ministerhanded me the only proposal, so far as I know, which he intends to incorporate in the measure. I would give this word of advice to the minister-that he withdraw this bill. I do not think he is in much danger, but I do say that if he is minister five years from now he will rue the day he ever urged this measure upon parliament.


Mr. EVANS:: While not enthusiastic for
the bill I do think there is need for this class
Advances to Settlers

of legislation. Apparently it is opposed today by a number of hon. members because it is thought to be a measure for western Canada, and anything of that nature is opposed as a matter of course. It is taken that this measure is for western Canada entirely, and some hon. members have already expressed themselves as being tired of supporting the west by legislation of this kind. The people of the west have not particularly asked for it, but I do think that if a man wants to get on the land he should be assisted to do so. There are many such men to-day in the cities; they would be glad to go on a piece of land they could call their own if they could only be sure of having sufficient provisions until some improvements are made. That is a most worthy ambition, and I think it should be supported.
So far as I can see by the bill the loans will be given in instalments, as improvements are made. I really think this measure is needed; any scheme that will put the people back on the land should receive support. Why such a scheme is needed is, of course, another question. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) admits that if the industry paid its way there would be no need of such assistance. I only wish the right hon. gentleman would apply that principle to all industries in Canada. If an industry can pay its way. surely plenty of people will go in for that industry. The fact is that with the exception of agriculture all our industries have been built up by subventions, if my right hon. friend cares to use that word. I quite agree that you cannot 'build industries on subventions, as the right hon. gentleman has stated in this House many times during this session, and just now the industries so built are tumbling down on every side. This is a different scheme, simply a loan which is to be paid back within ten years, I think, of the time the settler makes entry.
I would like to answer an accusation which was made by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) when discussing this bill the other day. The hon. member seems to think that the more settlers there are in western Canada, the more the east will be called on to pay for the hauling of their wheat to the seaboard. He said that $6,000,000 was lost last year in that way-a statement made in utter ignorance of the facts. He also said that the east has borne the burdens of the west, long enough, but such is not the case. Anything that has ever been done in western Canada to further the settlement of great tracts of land has been to the benefit

of the east, and surely there can be no particular opposition to this bill, which -is so small in its scope. It will not be generally taken advantage of. In my estimation $1,000,000 would pay the first year's instalments, and I do not think more than that amount would be required in any single year. I do not think this country can do better than encourage our own people to go on the land and stay there. Other governments have been accused of being more willing to help foreigners than to help real Canadians, but here is a scheme which will put real Canadians on the land, and it certainly puzzles me to hear it opposed. I hope the minister will not see fit to withdraw the bill, and I trust that it will receive the support of the House.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I hope the minister will be good enough to withdraw this bill. Charming as is his personality, and able as he is to get legislation through this House, I can assure him that this is a measure which does not appeal to the House or the country. The great thing the people of this country are desiring to-day from the government is economy. People are burdened and sick of taxation; it bears down upon them, ruining industry and diminishing the employment of labour. Yet this government does not seem capable of realizing in the least the necessities of the hour.
Some hon. members have said they can sec no virtue at all in this bill. Looking at il from the standpoint of the Minister of the Interior and the political necessities of the hour, I can see considerable virtue in it. In the first place, the settler has to be approved by the minister or by his agent. Secondly, the improvements he makes on the land have also to be approved by the minister or by his agent. Thirdly, after he gets his loan sanctioned by the minister, the minister and his agents are going to step in and tell him how he is going to dispose of the money. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that no self-respecting man is going to bow the knee to any government or even accept a gift from them of one hundred or one hundred and sixty acres of land, with five hundred or one thousand dollars thrown in, and have himself tied up to the government in that manner that this bill would tie him up. It is an infringement on his liberties as a citizen of this country, and it is something the average man will not stand for.
This bill is lacking in two essentials to any successful settlement scheme. The first essential is to get the proper individual; that I think is the greatest asset in any undertaking.

Advances to Settlers
The minister says in effect: I am going out into the highways and byways to gather up men and put them on these lands. I am going to give them a hundred or an hundred and sixty acres of land and five hundred or one thousand dollars in money. Hon. gentlemen opposite are indeed living up to the name of their party and trying to prove themselves liberal. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this scheme was condemned as a failure when the minister informed us where he was going to get these settlers. Farming to-day, as everyone knows who has had anything to do with it-and I have spent some years on a farm myself-is not an occupation that anybody can make a success of, yet the minister says he is going to pick up, in the cities and towns and villages, people who have been failures, more or less, or they would not be leaving; transplant them on farms which he himself admits are second or third class farms and where the settler will have no earning power for the first three or four years. And he expects these people to make a success. The thing to my mind is utterly false in its conception, and in its operation will work to the detriment of this country. I am not a prophet, but if this scheme goes through I venture to say that it will have the soldier settlement scheme beaten by miles in the losses heaped upon this country, having regard to the capital invested. What has the settler to do? He goes out and locates a bit of land; he does a bit of work on it. The next thing he has to do is simply to get an inspector to pass on the land, and that is not very difficult. Then he gets his loan, and once he gets the money, what will he do? If he is sick of the farm, he will put the money in his pocket and walk off, and this government will be loaded with the loss.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the minister ought to withdraw his bill. There has been no demand for it from any of the provinces, unless probably the province from which the minister comes. It is unworkable. It is unfair relatively to the different provinces. I submit that it is also unfair to any man to put him on land where his earning capacity is going to be at a minimum for three or four years, load him with debt, and expect him to make good. I say here in the House of Commons, as I have said before, that the greatest curse that can be put on a young man is debt. I do not care whether he is in a profession, in business, or on the farm; the greater the debt you heap upon him, the greater injury you are doing him. Invariably you destroy his manhood, more or less, and destroy his power of developing, mentally at least. You are doing that man one of the greatest injuries
that you can possibly do to any man. I submit that in a country like this, with the millions and millions of acres of land that wre have, schemes of this kind are absolutely irrational and useless.
Mr. iLiETELLIER:	With your permission,
Mr. Chairman, I should like to inform the Minister of Immigration of the great advantage I derived in attending last fall a farmers' convention in the city of Montreal, under the auspices of the Catholic Agricultural Association of the province of Quebec. I am proud to say that this question was brought up at the convention by some of the real farmers of the province of Quebec. Fathers of large families had been asking whether it would not be possible for the association to pass a resolution urging the government to pass legislation with a view to helping those farmers who were anxious to establish their sons on farms in areas where the timber had been cut by the industrial companies and where the land was really first-class for farming. Many of them claimed that if they could obtain the least help from the government they could keep their sons at home, and I know of many families in that situation, Mr. Chairman, in my constituency, especially in Martinville, Compton, and Marsboro. I really believe that if this legislation is passed and well administered, if the settlers are chosen in good faith, if farmers or the sons of farmers who have been brought up on the farm and have learned the most practical way of farming are put on these lands, the government will obtain the very best results.
Some hon. gentlemen have referred to mistakes that have been made in the past in connection with legislation similar to this. As an illustration I would mention the case of a number of returned soldiers who were established on farms. Many of them were without any real qualifications for farming and were lacking entirely in experience. A number of cases, illustrating their utter lack of experience, came to my own notice where the soldier settler paid as much as $125 or $150 for cattle that were not worth $60. In the case of the present legislation it would seem that the mistakes of the past have been guarded against. I would ask the minister, therefore, to insist upon the bill going through, and would urge hon. members to support the measure. I am sure that if the settlers chosen are men of experience in farming and the legislation bill is well administered, it will be productive of the happiest results.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Advances to Settlers

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: There has been a good deal of discussion of this proposition both in the resolution stage and on the bill as it is now before the committee. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that our discussion in the resolution stage was not more full and complete than it was. I propose to discuss in a general way the object which this bill has in view. It appears to me to be one of those schemes that look very well on paper, but when we come to apply it to actual conditions and to see just how it will work out, we find many defects and weaknesses in it. The minister has given the House and the committee a great deal of information, but I do not recall that he cited any schemes like this that had ever been tried out and had proven to be successful. We would be more ready to receive the proposal favourably if we had not recently been called upon to consider the revaluation of soldier settlers' land, in connection with a scheme which was originally well conceived, which was surrounded with all the precautions that could possibly be taken and which had the very worthy and desirable object of settling our returned soldiers on the land. We are now called upon to make a revaluation of those lands, and there is no doubt whatever that we are facing a very large reduction in the indebtedness due to the Dominion in that connection.
What is the scheme that is now before us? It is a plan to settle people upon lands that have been found undesirable, lands that have been passed over, lands that are inferior to other lands in the same locality. I cannot think of any greater handicap that could be placed upon a settler than to induce him to go upon land that is not likely in the near future to yield him a reasonable return, land that will be difficult to develop, difficult to cultivate and difficult to make productive. A second handicap is placed upon him by setting an indebtedness against that land. If a farmer is to succeed, the first essential is that he be placed upon land that is good in quality, that is easily developed and that will speedily bring him a return.
There does not appear to be any real general demand for this legislation. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no province has made any special request for it, and there have been no petitions or anything in the nature of a volume of public opinion asserting itself in favour of it. The further we go the more lukewarm we become in our attitude

toward this proposition. There is another objection which I think is pretty generally admitted by all parties in this House, namely, that several of the provinces will derive no benefit at all from the proposal because of the conditions prevailing in those provinces. I think that if any money is appropriated for the purposes set forth in this bill it should be divided among the provinces on the basis of population, and there should not be available for anjr one province any more than its fair share on that basis. The amount first suggested, $5,000,000, has been reduced to $1,000,000. That sum, if apportioned in this way, is so small as to produce practically no desirable results.
The scheme is full of complications and of difficulties, and in a way is in conflict with provincial jurisdiction. Priorities of claims and all sorts of liens for taxes and other equities and rights arise, all of which will be difficult of settlement. It does appear to me however, that the greatest, the most serious objection of all is that we are undertaking to place settlers on undesirable lands, thus handicapping them: we are inducing them to undertake a venture in which they are not likely to succeed. And more than that, we are placing them under an obligation from which it will be difficult for them to free themselves. For that reason I do not feel inclined to support the scheme just now.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I do not
intend to speak at any great length in opposition to the measure, but I do feel that it is not one that will serve the purpose of securing settlers to take up land. I do not think that $1,000 in the way of loan to the average Canadian citizen is going to assist in getting the right sort of man to go on the land. I do not know anything about the nature of the soil in western Canada, -where this scheme proposes to place settlers, but I do know that the average man who wants to go on a farm and cultivate it will not be induced to do so by the prospect of getting a loan of $1,000 from the Dominion government, even at the low rate of interest of five per cent. And so far as getting immigrants from outside is concerned, immigrants from the continent of Europe, I hardly think that a loan of $500 will be the means of bringing into this country the kind of agriculturists we desire. I believe, of course, that we should make every effort to secure more immigrants, for undoubtedly we need an increased population. At the same time, we want the right kind of people to come in and not merely those who are to be assisted in

Advances to Settlers
this particular way. Any man coming from the Old Land who has not sufficient money to start farming on his own account will certainly not be assisted by a loan of $500. Such an advance will not place him in a position to cultivate land in the Canadian west, or, for that matter, in any other province of Canada. It seems to me therefore that, as a means of colonizing the country, this measure will prove utterly futile.
I would stress another point which I have mentioned before. It is this: The farming community is about the only section of our population that desires competition and more competition in its particular business. That is something that is being discussed in this House. Members of the Progressive group, when they first came into this House in 1921, frequently referred to the necessity of getting more people to take up land in Canada, but I am interested to observe of late that there is a tendency on the part of these hon. gentlemen to ignore that aspect of the question. They are not talking the same way now. I suspect that they are coming to the conclusion that there are other spheres of activity in Canada in which immigrants would be of more use to the country, especially when we are producing from the land more than the people can consume.
In my opinion the government will only be adding to the debt of the country by putting this measure into force. It will be absolutely of no avail in building up a sound yeomanry that could be of value to the rest of Canada.
I am therefore disposed to vote against the bill. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) seems to be satisfied that this legislation will advance the interests of the west. He probably knows more about that than I do and I should take his word, to some extent at all events. I think, however, that it is possible for even a minister of the crown to be mistaken.


Mr. PISH:: The object of this bill is to
secure settlers for just two or three of the provinces, for I cannot see how it will get settlers to go on the land in other parts of the Dominion. In the older provinces the conditions are to-day, as they have always been, such as would readily lend themselves to legislation of this kind to encourage immigration. I can speak, of course, only for the province from which I come. In that province the settler can obtain land merely by applying for it, and the conditions under which he gets his title are very simple. Practically all he has to do is to make a home for himself : he builds a house on the land, clears a few acres, and that gives him his title.
I do not see how that province can be assisted by means of this bill in the matter of securing immigrants.
We had in our province some years ago an act which I presume is still on the statute books, but which has fallen into disrepute. At any rate it is no longer invoked. That act provides that the government shall advance money to settlers to enable them to clear their land for cultivation. Let me show how it has worked out-and my opinion is that the legislation now before us will have the same effect. In passing, I may observe that I have not yet acquired that confidence in my fellowmen which, judging from the debate that has taken place in this House this afternoon, seems to prevail among certain members of parliament. The individual is apt to be unreliable when it comes to collateral security, and in addition to that he is well endowed with ingenuity. Now, if under this bill money is advanced on the basis of weak collateral, what will happen? The government will be saddled with lands that are of no use. We already have an illustration of that, in the case of the rural credits system. Why is it that so much of the money lent out under that system has not come back to the provinces? Simply because the collateral is weak, and you cannot force payment. That is just what is going to happen here if I can read the bill aright. We are to advance money on land to a farmer or a person of any other occupation, and he will use that money just as he likes. The government probably will not have any control over the money, but he will. Whether he ever returns it or not will depend a good deal on how matters go with him; if easy, he will return the money, otherwise he is not likely to do so. In the case of our provincial government, as I mentioned a few moments ago, this happened- and it will happen in this case I guess-numbers of settlers had been on the land for several years and had cleared up five acres or more, but they had never done enough work to get their deeds. When the rural credits scheme came into force some ingenious men saw' a chance to make money, and they gave those settlers a hundred dollars or less, and they soon got title to their lands. Then what happened? Why, it was no trouble to go to , the board and get anywhere from $500 up to $3,000 and more, with the result that to-day the province has got those farms. There is another phase which I may bring to the attention of the committee. The province was granting land to practically any man that would ask for it provided he complied with the requirements, the most important of which were that he must be a. resident of the prov-
Advances to Settlers

ince and be twenty-one years of age. Such a man could get land virtually for nothing. Subsequently he got his title to the land and borrowed money on his holding. The government soon found they had better get out of the business; they did so, but not without a good deal of scandal. To-day the province is out of pocket and somebody else has got the money. That to my mind is just what is going to happen under this bill.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will my hon. friend tell me what province he refers to-New Brunswick?


Charles Elijah Fish: You did not know I came from there! I would not say anything about the prairie provinces or the Maritime provinces generally, or for that matter the older provinces, Quebec and Ontario, that I aru saying about my own province. I do not think Quebec will benefit very much by this measure, for it has already a splendid act of its own. In New Brunswick we hope to get similar legislation at this session of the legislature. The gist of the Quebec act is that when you accept a man's application for a homestead you allow him ten dollars an acre to clear it, and I am sure that is better encouragement than lending him money. If he works and clears his land he gets ten dollars an acre, which helps him to live while he is preparing his farm for cultivation; afterwards he can provide for himself.
Now, with regard to the fifteen mile limit, it would not be of any use in my province, nor for that matter in any of the older provinces, because there is no good land anywhere near the railways but what is owned now. When you talk of having miles to travel in the prairies, I do not think you really know anything about distance. Many of our farmers are fifty miles away from a railway, but they rarely buy automobiles to get backwards and forwards.


Milton Neil Campbell: How do they bring their wheat to market?


Charles Elijah Fish: They bring their produce to
market by water. So I think that so far as my province is concerned this bill will be practically of no use whatever. After all, what is it going to amount to? At one time the amount to be advanced was placed at 85,000,000. Well, if I can judge aright, I do not think that would be too big a sum, for everybody will go after easy money. We will all take a hand in it, we will be there at the beginning while the money is available, not at the end when it is about exhausted. But what then, who is going to take the burden of debt that will be left on our 
shoulders? I think it would be well to confine the operation of this measure to the two or three provinces that are going to specially benefit by it.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I have provided an amendment to meet the objection raised by the older provinces. I propose to insert in subsection (c) after the wordis "Dominion government" ithe following:
-or any provincial crown lands within reasonable distance of transportation facilities.


Mr. BURY:: Who is to settle what is a
reasonable distance? That will rest with the minister, I presume?


Charles A. Stewart: The board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May we have the amendment read, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 2 as amended will read:
In this act, and in any regulation made under the provisions of this act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)	"Minister" means the Minister of Immigration and Colonization.
(b)	"Settlement loan" means a loan made to a settler under the authority of this act.
(c)	"Crown lands" means any land suitable and available for settlement lying within fifteen miles of a railway and owned by the Dominion government or any provincial crown lands within a reasonable distance of transportation facilities.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the minister, I do not think that the mere addition of the words "within a reasonable distance" will put it within the power of the board to settle what a reasonable distance is. I think it will be only in the power of the court to decide.


Charles A. Stewart: I had to
draft this amendment hurriedly, and I might ask that clause (c) stand until I have had an opportunity of examining it carefully, to see just how it will work out.


Robert Rogers: I would like to suggest to the minister that he keep away from the courts as much as he can.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I intend to.


William Duff: Subsection (c) of clause 2 stands.
On section 3-Loans to settlers.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Before clause 3 is carried may I say that although I have no confidence in the bill, I suppose it is our duty to do what

Advances to Settlers
we can in order to make the legislation of as little harm as possible. Under the wording of clause 3 it is quite possible that the powers of the board will be exhausted when they have made one loan to one settler. When the resolution was being discussed in committee I understood that it was intended to allow the settlers to get new loans as soon as they had paid off the old ones, or to increase their loans as soon as the improvements had increased in value. The section now reads that tbe minister may make a loan to any settler, and when he has made one loan his powers in respect of that particular settler, under the bill, will, in my opinion, be exhausted.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand what my hon, friend's point is; that is all we intend, that a settler shall receive one loan from the board. What has my hon. friend in mind?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: When the resolution was being discussed the minister explained that a settler, when he had made say $100 or $200 worth of improvements, might get a loan to the amount of the first improvements. When he had made further improvements, to a total of say $500, he might apply for and receive a loan of $300 in addition; he might secure a series of loans, to a total of $1,000. Under the bill as it is now drafted, the minister can make a loan to any settler, and when he has done that I suggest that it is at least questionable whether his powers in respect of that particular settler will not be exhausted under the act.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a
rather fine point of law. The bill was drafted
by the Department of Immigration and Colonization.


James Arthurs: That happened under the other act more than once.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite admit that. The idea is that loans will be made according to progress.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It does not say so here, but of course it is the government's bill and the government's funeral.


Robert Rogers: As clause (c) of section 2 is standing, perhaps 'the minister will allow this clause to stand also, to see whether an amendment can be made.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to ask the minister on the basis of what proportion of the value of the work done he proposes to lend money. Is it proposed to lend to the extent of 100 per cent?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in the initial stages. That is, his first loan would be practically to 100 per cent of the value of the work done, but not the subsequent loans or advances. If his first loan amounted to $200 it would be practically for the amount of his improvements, in order to encourage him to keep on improving. But that would not be so if he borrowed the full amount; the ratio would then be reduced.


Peter McGibbon: Just a further question. In subsection 7 of clause 5 the minister is taking authority to state how these loans are going to be expended.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: How does he reconcile
these two clauses? If we are going to lend a man money on work already done, it must be for the work he has accomplished.


Charles A. Stewart: He will
have to make application for his loan. This is very similar to the practice pursued by the insurance companies, and is in fact the practice of the Soldier Settlement Board now. The supervisor will visit a given farm and an agreement is made-


Peter McGibbon: I am afraid the minister does not understand my question. You are giving a man a loan on the strength of the work he has done, and you are then reserving the authority to tell him how he is going to expend the money so borrowed.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean that he should be permitted to expend his money as he sees fit? With that I agree very largely, but I want to point out that when the application is made, discussion naturally takes place as to what improvements the settler will make in order to earn, let us say, the first instalment. When that is completed the instalment is advanced to him and undoubtedly, if he is progressive, he will make provision for the next instalment. The money he earns on the first will naturally carry him over the second period.


Peter McGibbon: But the minister is reserving the authority to tell this man how he is to expend the money.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my
hon. friend not agree that you have a certain amount of risk in the moral character of the man? I will admit that it looks somewhat drastic, but I must also admit that the security is meagre, and supervision counts for a very great deal. The Soldier Settlement Board have learned that by rather costly ex-
Advances to Settlers

perience. I know a great deal of criticism was offered to the suggestion that you should interfere with the money a man has earned by his own labour, but at the same time the man is still a risk so far as the government is concerned. I think my hon. friend will agree that some reasonable-I do not say unreasonable-supervision should be exercised.


Peter McGibbon: I do not catch the idea of the minister yet. Let us say a man does a certain amount of work and on the strength of that he is loaned a certain sum of money. That money is loaned for the work already done. At the same time you are telling this man how he is to spend that money. Is that not correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
just catch the last part of my hon. friend's remark.


Peter McGibbon: Let us say a man has done a certain amount of work and on the strength of that work already accomplished he is loaned 1300 or $400. The minister then steps in and says, " Although you have earned this money by the improvements you have made, I am going to dictate how you are to spend it."


Charles A. Stewart: Would it
not be fair to say that if, as was suggested by two or three hon. members this afternoon, the soldier settler could pocket the first instalment of the loan, and leave the land? As a reasonable iprecaution it is surely not unfair to say that the settler should give some undertaking that he means to continue on the land. There should be some reasonable supervision over the expenditure of the money. I do not mean to say that someone is going to sit there and watch the settler spend that money, but after all that is part of the security held by the government for the loan.


Peter McGibbon: Suppose a man is hard
up and owes a lot of money, after he completes a certain amount of work. Is the minister going to deprive him of the right of taking that money and paying his debts? Is he to be told that he must put that money into further improvements? Are the hands of the settler to be absolutely tied at the will oi the minister or some of his agents?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no;
that has not been the case at all. If, as my hon. friend supposes, the settler incurs some liability in earning the first instalment, naturally that would be taken care of. But to

make it possible for him to take the whole of the advance, as I pointed out before, and simply walk away with it, is not sensible, and it fallows reasonably that there should be some supervision.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister be
good enough to read subsection 7 of clause 5, and explain it to me?


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
very glad to do so when we come to it.


Peter McGibbon: It has a direct bearing
on the question now before us.


Charles A. Stewart: Subsection
7 provides:
All settlement loans shall be expended under the direction or control of the minister.
The minister simply means the board, which is making the loan. The whole operation of the act, every particle of it, will be under the control of the board. If my hon. friend will look at section 7, he will see that provision is made there for making various regulations; he will find the same provisions in the Soldier Settlement Act. While nominally the minister is the head of the Soldier Settlement Board, he seldom interferes with its operations; in fact, the only occasion on which I have had to interfere is when a soldier settler has appealed to me direct that he is not receiving decent treatment.


Peter McGibbon: The point is this: This takes away from the settler his initiative to do what he thinks is in his own best interest, and hands control over to the board, or to the minister, whichever you call it. The settler is deprived of all initiative to spend that money in the manner which he thinks will best advance his financial welfare, and it is handed over to the board. To be quite frank with the minister-I do not accuse the government, or the minister in particular: that is the last thing I would do-this scheme to my mind might lend itself to becoming one of the greatest political organizations imaginable.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is
the case, the Soldier Settlement Board could have been used for identically the same purpose. But I hope no one will accuse me of using the board for political purposes, because I have never changed an officer of the board. They were all appointees of the government that preceded this, and the same is true of every supervisor, so far as I know. I am proposing that the Soldier Settlement Board shall operate under this act because that board operates all over Canada. Its officers have

Advances to Settlers
received training at the expense of the government and have now considerable experience in settlement work. So far as a political organization is concerned, I want to assure my hon. friend that is the last thing I have in my mind.


Peter McGibbon: I do not want the
minister to misunderstand me; that is the last .thing I would suggest, because, as I said this afternoon, he is one of the charming personalities of this House. But we must judge this legislation on its merits, and it does deprive the settler of his initiative to plan his own future welfare in the manner he thinks best. That 'is all turned over to the board, which is going to dictate to him how he shall pursue his business. It is an impossible situation.


Charles A. Stewart: That might be all right if the government was taking no risk, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the government is taking a very substantial risk. I admit that at once' myself; I do not for one moment intend to argue otherwise. If I did not believe that this legislation would facilitate settlement of these particular lands, I would not be in favour of this bill, but I believe it will. I am not going to suggest that there may not be some losses, but I do think, inasmuch as we have the Soldier Settlement Board, with its five or six years' experience in settlement work and the loaning of money-it has been costly to the government of this country, and is going to be more so-surely we can use the board in settling these lands. I have been bombarded by boards of tradel and public bodies claiming to be interested in immigration from one end of Canada to the other, saying that this government has never provided any facilities to get men on the land, and it was in response to that universal request that I had this bill drafted. I thought I was providing only proper safeguards in the bill, which was brought in to meet what in my opinion was a universal request.
As to the objection that if we make an advance to a settler we are precluded from advancing him any more money, my hon. friend is a lawyer, and it was a lawyer who drafted this bill, and if he made that mistake it is the mistake of the legal draftsman.


Air. McQUARRIE:: He is a doctor. You
should not be so complimentary. .


Charles A. Stewart: I was speaking at the moment of the hon. member for East Edmonton. Any body, public or private, which is lending money, looks to two things,
and I think the greatest stress is placed on the moral character of the individual who is receiving the loan. My hon. friend will agree that the moral character must be satisfactory before the applicant can get a loan.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Not in Alberta, after you
took away the personal covenant.


Charles A. Stewart: Do not let
us get drawn away' to side issues. I am sure my hon. friend will agree that the moral standing of the individual is perhaps the best security on which a loan can be made, and secondly comes the material security. In this case, we shall have to depend very greatly on the moral security, because there is no asset other than what the crown own themselves. The crown already own the land, and surely it is only reasonable to go one step further and exercise some degree of control over the expenditure of the money until the maximum amount is loaned to the individual, because that is all the security you have for repayment of the loan.


James Arthurs: Then the minister admits that these loans are solely upon lands owned by the government themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely,
owned by the Dominion or provincial governments.	.


Mr. CLARK:: Then why does not the
minister substitute the words "moral security" for the words "security of improvements"?


Charles A. Stewart: The improvements have to be placed on the land; there is no question about that. Otherwise there would be no loan.


John Arthur Clark: What security can possibly
be offered by the improvements?
Mr. STEWART .(Edmonton):	My hon.
friend will agree that as soon as a piece of property is improved it becomes of greater value.


John Arthur Clark: But the land belongs to the government anyway, and however much you improve it, no matter what you put on it, it still belongs to the government. It does not form any security for the government, so the words are meaningless.


William Alves Boys: I rise to supplement what has been said by my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). The minister although not a lawyer, will only 'have to read clause 3 himself with care and he will see at once, I think, that if it is the purpose to make a series of loans, not exceeding in all
Advances to Settlers

$1,000 in the one case and $500 in the other, the language of the section must be changed. It provides, it seems to me, quite clearly for one loan. As I understand it, the purpose is, as the improvements are made, to issue- I think the minister himself used the word

a sort of "progress certificate," so to speak, thereby the settler might get $100, then another $100 after that, and so on. This provides for one loan, that loan is in the one case to be as high as $1,000, and in the other case to be as high as $500. It seems to me if that is the intention of the bill the minister should change the second line by striking out "a" and making the word "loan" read "loans."


An hon. MEMBER:: "A loan or loans."


William Alves Boys: That perhaps is a good suggestion to make, "a loan or loans." Then, when you come to subsection (a), "an amount not exceeding $1,000" and in subsection (b), "an amount not exceeding $500." A building is not a separate thing from the land. As soon as a building is placed upon land it becomes land, and the title to the land being in the department it remains in the department. The settler has nothing whatever to give security upon. If he had the title when he made his own improvements on the land he might give a mortgage upon that and secure the department. But the land belongs to the department, and when he puts a building upon it the building is part of the land and he cannot give any security thereon. I suppose you could specify that in addition to the duties and obligations which belong to him, the settler shall, before receiving a patent, pay off any indebtedness that he may owe to the department in connection with any advances that might be made to him.


Charles A. Stewart: He cannot
get his advances.


William Alves Boys: An hon. member (suggests
that that is in the act regarding provincial lands. But in the case of the province, as I understand it, the department-


Charles A. Stewart: They cannot get a patent.


William Alves Boys: No, the province has to get a
patent and when it does the loan is then made by the department on the security of the land for Which there is a title. But I am not for the moment directing myself at all to lands on which loans are made to the province. I am dealing with this other question.


Mr. DUNNING:: Take subsection 6 of
section 5.


William Alves Boys: I do not think that helps us in the slightest degree. Subsection 6 of section 5 reads as follows:
When a settlement loan has been made upon improvements on Dominion crown land, the patent shall not issue until the loan and all interest charges thereon have been paid in full.
I am quite aware of that provision, but I am not dealing with that. I am dealing with section 3, which reads:
For purposes connected with settlement, the minister may make a loan to any settler on the security of improvements made by such settler-
And so on. I am asking the minister how he is going to take security in the form in which it has to be given. It cannot be a chattel mortgage, because the building is not a chattel. It cannot be a land mortgage because the settler does not own the land and there is no question that the building forms part of the land. It seems to me that the method which the draftsman had in mind of providing the security is all wrong. However, I will go this far and say that, with some changes, the idea that was in the draftsman's mind when he drafted subsection 6 of section 5 might be worked out. I do not see how you are going to take security under subsection 3. However, I think the other feature is more important. I do not think you can take security, yet I realize you have a certain protection because you do not give the settler his patent as long as there is anything against the land, and you have your protection there. It seems to me that if you want to make a series of loans you must change the wording of subsection 3.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I understand my hon. friend to say that by striking out "a" and making the wording read "loans," the objection will be met.
Mr, BOYS:	The minister will appreciate
that naturally I just glanced at the bill while sitting here. At the moment it would appear to me that those changes would meet the intention of the minister. Anyone who has been devoting his attention to this bill and is quite familiar with the subject could make the bill a great deal better than it is, so long as he has caught the idea. But at the moment, in the absence of anything better, I think the suggestions advanced might meet the case


Charles A. Stewart: I think if is well'understood that the security is in the ownership of the crown, but the underlying principle is that the advances shall be made on improvements to the crown property. The settler would have no security to offer, be-

Advances to Settlers
cause every improvement he puts upon the land-and there I agree with my hon. friend -the erection of buildings, the construction of fences, or the clearing of the land, would be the property of the crown. The advances, therefore, could only be made on the improvements made by the settler to the property of the crown.


William Alves Boys: How are you going to take security? When you take security you take it by virtue of some document; it may be a mortgage, it may be a chattel mortgage, or something of that kind. That is the ordinary meaning of the word. If that is not the intention, why put it in? If the intention is merely to provide that these advances may be made but that the patent shall not issue until these advances with interest are repaid, there is no question of security about it. He does not give security in that case. He has nothing to give security upon.


John Arthur Clark: If it is true that these improvements form no security, then the whole wording of the section is misleading. It does not mean anything, and the word "security" should not be in the section at all. The section should read "for purposes connected with settlement the minister may make loans to any settler without security", or "may make loans to any settler on the moral security"-because there is no security whatever, on the minister's own admission.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I think my hon. friend is slightly misconstruing the section. The settler is the individual who enhances the value of the crown's property. I quite admit that the settler could have no claim on the crown property upon which he could give security.


John Arthur Clark: That is all very clear; we [DOT]agree there.


Charles A. Stewart: Now, from the simple fact that he is the entrant he has at least this security, if it can be called such: he has a prior claim on that land, provided he carries out his agreement to settle on it and earn the patent. That is all the security he would have. However, I am not going to enter into any legal argument with my hon. friends. Perhaps the draftsman has made a mistake in inserting the word "security". But what we have very clearly in mind is that if the settler improves the land, if he goes on and carries out his agreement with the crown, he will earn the patent and own that land, which will be subject, of course, to the claim of the crown for loans made to him.
That would be the interest he would have. The advances are not altogether on security, but rather on the improvements he makes to the property. I do not think we would be improving the matter by suggesting that he give his moral security.


John Arthur Clark: I think the whole thing is ridiculous.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I agree with the minister that the man has an interest in the land. It is a kind of inchoate interest, an equity to become possessed of the land under the Dominion statute when he has fulfilled certain conditions. It is contingent. Still, he does possess an interest in the land the moment he becomes an entrant. It is a defeasible interest which may be ended by his neglect to perform the conditions of homesteading, but if he does not neglect, if he fulfils the conditions of homesteading, that defeasible interest becomes an indefeasible interest and he gets a patent. The minister would get out of the difficulty if he would say "on the security of his interest in the land,'' whatever that is, instead of "on the security of improvements", for the reason that you cannot distinguish and separate the improvements from the land. We recognize that. What you want to put the loan on is all the interest the man has in the land, whether in the soil or in the improvements, and if the minister will change the wording of his bill to make the security the interest the man has in the land, I think he will cover the'whole point.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Referring to the same clause, the minister will remember I asked him to-day whether those who were now on unpatented lands could take advantage of this legislation. The first words in the clause, "for purposes connected with settlement," seem to presuppose that the entrant is a new one. That ought to be made clear by defining the word "settler" in clause 2 when it is redrafted, so as to make sure that the term "settler" would include the man who is now on unpatented land and who had not fulfilled his duties; because to enable him to effect his improvements would be of great value and I understood from the minister that he was to be included. I also suggest that the term "crown land" in that paragraph is improper, because under, clause 6 the minister provides for the purchase of lands that are not crown lands.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a separate clause altogether.
Advances to Settlers

Mr. HANNE8SON: But clause 3 is the only lending clause in the bill and when the minister provides that loans can be made only on crown land, he is defeating the purpose of
clause 6.


Mr. CANTLEY:: As regards the second line of clause 3 I understand the minister has in contemplation a loan or loans. If he deletes the five words "a loan to any settler" and replaces them by the three words "loans to settlers", will that not simplify the matter and better enable the minister to carry out his intention? With regard to the security referred to, would the case not be met by deleting the words on the security of improvements" and substituting therefor the words "not exceeding the value of the improvements"?


Charles A. Stewart: While suggestions are important and very useful, my experience is that it is never safe to trust to suggestions for amendments to a bill without carefully considering them. Now that we have had a pretty full discussion of Clause 3, I would ask that the clause stand, and I will have it redrafted in accordance with the objections raised.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the minister keep in mind the suggestion I made about the wording of that part of the section which deals with the security?


Mr STEWART (Edmonton):: Yes, I have that in mind.


George Brecken Nicholson: If I have been able to catch the minister's intention it is that loans will be made after the improvements have been carried out. The minister assents to that. That brings back the question raised by tire hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) with relation to the provision of subclause 7 of clause 5. If a man goes on the land, spends his own time and money making certain improvements, and increases the value of the crown domain to a point that justifies t'he minister in advancing a loan to him, is the minister going to send somebody to say to that man: You can do just this and that with the money we are giving you now for the work you have already performed? The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario raised the question and it bears out what was said by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) this afternoon, namely, that you could not get men to go on some of those lands unless you gave them some inducement. If the prospect of this loan is an inducement, the probabilities are that the man who goes on the land will incur liabilities to

someone else. He will effect loans; he will secure supplies from merchants to enable him to carry on until he makes those improvements. After the improvements are made the minister comes along under another provision in the bill and says to the man: We are going to direct you as to just how you are to spend the money; you may pay this indebtedness and leave the other one unpaid, and so on; or you may not pay any of them but you piust go on anid make some more improvements. There is the confusion in connection with this matter. The difference between this legislation and the plan under which the soldier land settlement was carried out is that under the latter the money was advanced for the purpose of making improvements, to buy stock and so on. In this case the man goes on the land the crown assigns to him, spends his time and money and improves it up to a certain point that causes the board or the minister to feel safe in making him a loan on the strength of the improvements already made. Surely if he was capable in the first instance of directing his own affairs and making improvements to the point where he could secure a loan, he should be given a free hand to go ahead and spend the money advanced. If he runs away with the money, the government 'have already the improvements on the land. I can readily understand the minister does not expect anything of that sort; nevertheless he is imposing that unfair hardship on a free man, and so long as you undertake to keep these men in a state of vassalage

that is exactly what their position will be-they are not going to be free men. If you find the man who is a sufficiently good moral risk to justify a loan, surely you have the Canadian citizen whom you can trust to spend the money you lend to him in the same way that he has spent his own money in making such improvements as justified the making of the loan in the first instance.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: While the minister is taking that into consideration, he might also consider the case of a man who was in the habit of playing poker and had incurred debts of honour in that regard.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would the minister consider the clearing of bush land, say in Quebec -work which is of course of a valuable character-as an improvement coming under the provisions of this bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I
thought I made the position fairly clear before to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I know there is considerable aversion to supervision of the activities of any man. Most of

Advances to Settlers
us like to be free agents to do what we please, but I have yet to know any man who borrowed money-I do not care how he borrowed it-who was a free agent. I think any hon. member will agree with that. My hon. friend may be able to go into a bank and obtain a loan without difficulty; probably he is endowed with sufficient of the world's goods to persuade the banker to let him have it. But I can tell him that in my own case 1 had to submit to a good deal of cross-questioning before I could get a loan, and the bank had to be assured that it could repose confidence in me. It wanted to know that I was going to spend the money in the way I proposed; otherwise I could not get t'he help I required. I am prepared to admit that governments and government officials can be autocratic and unreasonable, and while I have had reports of such action on the part of field supervisors in the administration of the Soldier Settlement Act I would remind hon. members that, if it were not for a firm stand in our dealings with the settlers, the losses of the government would be much heavier.
I have tried to make it clear that while there should be no unreasonable interference, at the same time it is impossible to eliminate the element of supervision from the provisions of the act. We might simply say to the man, "You have earned 8200 and we will therefore advance you a like sum". If the individual had incurred debts in the earning of that 8200 there would, of course, be no question in the world about his being authorized at. once to pay those debts with the proceeds of the loan. But let us suppose, as has been suggested, that he has incurred some other debts of a questionable character: would my hon. friend question the right of the government in that case to see that its interest was protected? We must remember that the government has a very vital interest in the man. I do not argue that the supervision should be carried to any undue extent, but I do urge that we should have some rights in that direction.


Peter McGibbon: Would it not be better
to have some equity reserved in the land? The minister is paying the man practically 100 per cent of the value of his improvements, and I suggest that both the government and the country would be safeguarded if the act reserved some equity in the land. So long as you pay the man 100 per cent of the value of the land, it does not matter-


Charles A. Stewart: I suggested
that only as the initial payment.


Peter McGibbon: Well, suppose we do
consider it an initial payment: what will keep that -man on the land if he chooses to walk off? I repeat, it would be far better to reverse the procedure and pay him probably' two-thirds or three-quarters of the value of the improvements as a start, increasing it as time went on. The settler then would have an increasing equity in the land and a greater desire to remain on it. If, on the other hand, you pay him 100 per cent on his improvements, he may pocket the money and walk off.


George Brecken Nicholson: The minister has said that one of the grounds upon which the loan will be made is the moral character of the settler. Possibly the characteristics indicated by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) would suggest pretty clearly the moral fibre of the man upon which one might base one's justification for making the loan; but I do not believe the minister takes that view. If I have been able to interpret what he has said, he intends to make these loans on the strength of the improvements that have been made. Judging from the experience which he says he has had with banks, perhaps the minister has noticed just what I myself have observed. At any rate, I know what the bank requires. If you have created a certain amount of wealth as a result of clearing land and carrying out other improvements you may obtain a loan from the bank on the strength of that security that then exists, and they do not ask you any further questions. But when you are applying for a loan from a bank for the purpose of carrying on some business in order to create new wealth, they naturally want to know what you intend to do with the money. Now, if the minister saysi that these loans are to enable the man to clear his land and make improvements, well and good. In that case I should say that supervision was justified. But if the loan is being made on the basis of something which the man has already done, the situation is different. The man, I take it, must originally have had some money or he could not undertake to cultivate the farm. 'If therefore he has Spent his time and money in effecting improvements upon the government's property, surely he can be trusted to go ahead and use the loan for the purposes he has in view. If that is the type of man the minister has in mind, he would have something to go upon and something by means of which to apply his initiative if he were given $1,000 in a lump sum and allowed

Advances to Settlers

to go ahead. Obviously you cannot have a pauper and a virile Canadian walking around in the same suit of clothes. And the way to make virile Canadian citizens is to show them that you have confidence in them.


Charles A. Stewart: What my
hon. friend says has been amply borne out in the experience with soldier settlers. Perhaps it would help the discussion if we followed through from start to finish the process of securing the loan. The settler first of all enters upon the land and after clearing it makes application for a loan, having the property investigated by a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board who passes both upon the character of the applicant and upon the nature of the land itself. It follows as a natural consequence-


George Brecken Nicholson: Is that the plan proposed in this bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; I am
trying to describe the process in detail.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then I suggest that
the wording should be amended, because that is not what the bill says.


Charles A. Stewart: The regulations will of course make the necessary provisions. Naturally the applicant gives some indication of what he intends to do. He may build a house or erect a stable or put up a fence upon the land; or he may decide to improve five or six acres. When the work is done he asks for an inspection and he is visited by the soldier supervisor, who passes upon what has been done and recommends to the board the advance to be made. Of course, he is going to earn more money; he is not going to stop with the first hundred or two. The supervision is nothing more or less than an agreement between the two as to what, the nature of the improvements shall be, and the seeing that those improvements are carried out; the money being advanced from time to time. I can conceive that the settler will incur certain debts and responsibilities while he is doing this work. These will have to be paid, but the supervision is to ensure as far as possible repayment of the money.


George Brecken Nicholson: If that is the case I have nothing further to say. But that is not the position the minister has taken throughout the discussion of this clause. If where a man makes application for a loan, the supervisors say to him, "When you do thus and so we will give you a loan," that is a different 
case altogether. If that is the method, then I say this clause certainly requires to be redrafted, because it provides that the loan is to be made on the strength of work already done.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think the section needs redrafting. I simply described in a concrete way how it w'orks out, No money could be paid over until completion of the improvement, whatever it was.


Peter McGibbon: Surely, Mr. Chairman,
the minister does not say that every man who applies with the intention of settling on land has first to get the board to inspect his land, lay out the prospective improvements, and tell him just what has to be done before he can expect a loan?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton!:	Not necessarily. He may make all the suggestions himself. All he does is make application, w'hen he will be visited on his land by a representative of the board.


Peter McGibbon: After the improvements
may have been done?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. In that case the board's representative would pass upon them. I do not want my hon. friends to get it into their minds that this is any autocratic or Mussolini method of doing business. Please bear in mind that the other party to the agreement and the most important party, is the government. Some precaution must be taken to protect the government's loan.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand from the minister that there are to be a number of regulations, w'hich are referred to later on in the bill-that the idea is that the full value of the improvements will be advanced on the first loan?


Charles A. Stewart: I merely say that, to help the settler over the rough spots when he is starting-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not concerned with the reasons in the minister's mind; I merely want to get the facts. I understand the intention of the bill is that the applicant shall at the outset get one hundred per cent of the value of his first improvements.


Charles A. Stewart: No; h^ may get it, I would not want my hon. friend to say that the government were under compulsion to lend one hundred per cent of the value.

Advances to Settlers
Mr, BURY: What I am getting at is this Apparently there are a number of regulations in which are to be embodied the really important parts of the bill. For instance, what a settler will get on the first improvements on his first application, and the suggestion of the minister that on, the second application on later improvements he will not get as much. Then other matters have been referred to as being embodied in the regulations. It seems to me that we ought to know whaf the regulations are. From what I can gather from the minister the regulations are the chief part of the bill.	*
Mr. FORIvE: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister knows that any settler coming under this act will have to earn a good deal more money than the $1,000 that he is to get by way of loan. That sum is never going to carry him through until he obtains his patent; and the government will get a great deal more security than the amount of the loan if he ever does get his patent.


Peter McGibbon: Suppose he never gets it?
Mr. FORIvE: I do not think there is very much difference of opinion as to the wording of the act. Anyone could have sat down and said just what is intended by the bill, but I really do not know what is the exact meaning of its wording after all this discussion has taken place. I think the intention of the minister is very much along the lines of the amendment offered by the opposition. But I repeat, any settler who takes advantage of this legislation will have to find some other way of earning money in addition to his loan before he obtains his patent. He will have to go out gnd work. Any farmer who knows anything about spending money knows exactly what $200 will do towards equipping a farm. It is a mere fleabite in comparison with what he has to spend before he gets his farm in such a condition that he can make a living on it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, I take it the minister only intends to lend money where the department is satisfied that the loans are going to be repaid. Of course, it is impossible to be absolutely sure you will get repayment of any loan, but I assume the minister does not intend to make a present of the loan to the person who takes up land, but that it is a business proposition and that the government are going to have what they consider to be security for the amount advanced. I take it that two elements will have to be taken into consideration; one, as to the man's standing in the community and his suitability for this kind of work. That is 14011-13%
really not a security at all, for the man may die the day after he borrows the money. The other element is as to the suitability of the land itself. Well, I take it that most of these loans will be made on lands which would not otherwise be considered good security. Consequently it comes down pretty much as stated in the bill, the making of loans on the security of the improvements.
Something has been said about the views of lawyers in the House. I wonder if the minister knows that our big loan companies at the present time are absolutely refusing to make loans on farm properties. I know that is the case out in British Columbia; they will lend on city property, but not on farms. The reason, I presume, is that farming, unfortunately, owing to the policies of this government to a large extent, I think, has reached such a condition that farm property is an unsafe security. Now, if the government really wish to help men to get on the land, I suggest that they should go at it in a different way altogether, that they should do something to help the man who is on the land now. Let them help our farmers out in British Columbia so that they will be able to make a decent living for themselves, and their farms will be considered good securities for loans.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister in tiying to satisfy the committee in framing this bill. On the one hand fear is expressed that the security will not be sufficient and that the government will lose a lot of money; on the other hand, the minister is exhorted to use all means to enable settlers to secure money with the greatest facility. If the minister tries to harmonize these two views I do not know where he is going to end. I am in favour of the principle of this bill, but I am distinctly opposed to the policy of its application. I expressed that view on a previous occasion, and the minister will pardon me if I express it again. At the outset, however, I may congratulate the minister on the fact that this is the first attempt ever ' made in this House, it appears to me, to bring forward any policy to assist settlers in getting on the land. I can at least congratulate the minister on that, and for the very reason that I sympathize with the proposal, I am most anxious to see it on a sounder basis than it is at present.
I agree with a good many of the criticisms that land which is not suitable for cultivation, land not suitable to be taken up at all. is the kind of land that will be homesteaded under this scheme. A settler who will not take up homestead land at present, looking od this
Advances to Settlers

loan as a bonus, will take up some of this land and endeavour to make some improvements on it, and it appears to me that the homestead land available for settlement in western Canada to-day is not of a very good quality. There is very little of it except in some districts that have recently been opened up by branch 'lines, in which cases I 'believe there is some good land. I believe I can speak with some authority on this question, because a large .part of my constituency borders on the bush land, and I know something about the settlement in those districts. There is no doubt that a great many men under the stimulus of these loans will take up some of this homestead land but I venture to predict now that within five years at least 50 per cent of those men will have abandoned the land. I think there is no question about that. If the minister occupies his present position five years from now, I feel perfectly safe in predicting that he will come back to this House and admit that this scheme is a failure, from two standpoints. It will be a failure from the standpoint of assisting settlers, and from the financial point of view as well. But because I am anxious to see something done to assist settlers I would plead with the minister as I pleaded with him on a previous occasion, to make this act apply to purchased land, where facilities are already provided; land close to the railways, where we have schools, roads, elevators, stores and everything already there. We have millions of acres of that kind of land in western 'Canada, where everything is already provided.
The minister stated in 'introducing this resolution that the main object was to thicken up the settlements. That is the very thing this bill is not going to do; it will spread the settlements out into the hinteriand a little further than they are to-day. I believe if this were made to apply to purchased land, and if assistance were given settlers in buying land, not only would ample security be provided, but something would be done in a substantial way to assist settlement.
I know the question will 'be asked' as to how we can make a loan on land purchased with very little, and in some cases perhaps nothing, paid on it. Land can be secured in western Canada to-day 'by very small cash payments, and if those selling the land are prepared to assist in the operation of this plan, they will be prepared to permit the government to take a first mortgage on the land for $1,000 or whatever amount is advanced. and take security themselves by a

second' mortgage. In every case of that.kind the land will be worth a great deal more than the money advanced 'by the government, and the security will be better than the security at present held by most of the loan companies.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Would the hon.
gentleman be willing to do that himself if he were selling land?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes, I would. I may
tell my hon. friend that a great deal of land is 'being sold in my district to-day without the payment of a dollar in cash; the vendor has confidence in the ability of the purchaser to pay for the 'land on a crop basis. But if the government offered to advance $1,000 on a first mortgage it would be of great assistance to the settler. The loan would be spread over a long period of years at a low rate of interest, which would assist the settler in a very material way. In thousands of these cases the vendor would be prefectly willing to follow that course.


Edward James Young: Would it assist
the vendor?


Milton Neil Campbell: I believe it would. In
this case the government would have the first mortgage and the vendor the second mortgage. The government would be perfectly safe.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the vendor would get the money.


Milton Neil Campbell: The vendor would get
the money, but the government would have a first mortgage and you would thicken up the settlement in the districts where settle* ments have already been started.


Charles A. Stewart: May I interrupt to ask a question?


Milton Neil Campbell: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: If the vendor got the money, what would the settler get?


Milton Neil Campbell: The settler would be in a better position than he is in to-day. I assume, of course, that the settler would pay a small amount, also.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend forgets that these settlers have no money. Furthermore, may I just ask another question? I know my hon. friend is a practical farmer, but I think I am safe in saying that no man will buy property on a crop basis without having a fairly substantial amount invested in equipment and stock,

Advances to Settlers
which is a very important factor before he can farm at all. We have that problem on our hands to-day. and are trying to meet it by bringing into Canada from the Old Land 3.009 families, to whom the British government give $1,500 in order to start them on these farms. The plan of my hon. friend would soon run into a very large amount of money, if it was undertaken.


Milton Neil Campbell: It would be very much better to have a small scheme worked out in that way successfully than to have a large scheme like this result in utter failure.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend forgets one thing. He says there is practically no good land to be settled. That may be true in his own locality; it may be true in the province of Manitoba, but my information-and it is from the 'Soldier Settlement Board-is that there is a very large area of land within fifteen miles of the railways. It is good land, brushy perhaps, but really first class agricultural land when it is cleared. It is upon that class of security and that class of land that the loans will be made, not upon these third or fourth rate agricultural lands that are sandy in character when cleared. If these precautions were not taken I may tell the committee that I would not be sponsoring this bill.


Milton Neil Campbell: The land in my constituency to which I referred is as good a class of homestead land as is available in any part of Canada. The proof of that statement is in the fact that men who have travelled all over western Canada looking for homesteads have settled and are now settling in my constituency. The statement of the minister in regard to the necessity of having a certain amount of money before settling on land of the character I referred to is perfectly true, but it is just as true of the homestead. If you expect a man to go into the wilderness fifteen miles from town, on a brush homestead, without a dollar in the world, it is only another evidence that this scheme is doomed to failure. I quite agree that no man can go on a homestead without a small equipment of farm machinery, horses and so on; he must be able to provide food for himself for a certain length of time; he must be able to put up buildings; he must be able to go to the necessary expense of breaking some land, buying cattle and fencing his land. He must have a little money, and unless he has some money there is no use sending him out on a homestead.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
hon. friend admit, then, that seventy-five per cent of the homesteaders in western Canada had little or no money when they commenced operations? That was my experience, and I think I am settled in a locality equal to any in Alberta. Those settlers made good, but the first thing they did after securing their patent was to borrow money on it. Why? Because they had incurred liabilities during the three year period when they were earning their patents, and it was to pay off the liabilities incurred by the purchase of the odd cow, the horses and the machinery that they had accumulated in that time that they required the loan. All I have in mind here is to avoid the necessity of doing that. The man will be starting on land where he does not require a large number of horses or a large outfit of machinery, but can start in a very moderate way. That is all I had in mind, but please remember that it is not contemplated to lend money on poor land.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why should the government lend $1,000 to a Canadian citizen and only $500 to a man who is not a Canadian citizen? How does the difference affect the security?


Milton Neil Campbell: What the minister says
is perfectly correct, that the bulk of the homestead land in western Canada was taken up by people who had very little money. But I want to point out this, that this homesteading was done at a period when we were building thousands of miles of railway in western Canada, and a great majority of these homesteaders simply filed on their land and then went out and worked on the railway or with a building gang, building elevators or stores in the little towns that were growing up all over the prairie. In that way they were able to earn enough money to give them a start on their homestead. There are very few men who have made a success in western Canada who ever went on their homestead without any money to start with, unless they were able to stay with it by going out in the summer time and working elsewhere. I have been twenty years in western Canada, and I have pioneered in many new districts, and I know very few men to-day who when they first came in and homesteaded were able to establish themselves on the land without going out and earning money in the summer time. But those conditions do not obtain in western Canada to-day. We are not building any more railways now, and instead of there being a shortage of labour, there is a surplus. Very
Advances to Settlers

little new building is being done in the towns, and there are very few opportunities for a man to get work of that nature; so different conditions altogether obtain. If a man has a little money and is located on land within a reasonable distance from town he can get land that is partly broken up and have a crop the first year, and get something to go along with, but if he takes up land ten or fifteen miles away from a railway, it will be years before he can make that farm pay at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before the minister redrafts the clause, may I ask him with regard to provincial crown lands for which temporary titles are given by the government which do not carry the full ownership which letters patent do. Then if the settler does not comply with the requirements of the depart-mennt, his title is forfeited. He may have made some improvements on the land, but all that is lost to him. Now suppose a new settler comes in and is prepared to take up that land; would he be entitled under this' law to a loan on the improvements made by his predecessor which have advanced the value of the property, but which of course were not made by the present settler on the land when occupied by him? I think the present wording of the clause would prevent the loaning of money to any new settler who would take over a partly improved crown land farm that had been abandoned, because the improvements would not have been made by him when occupying the land. If he received the encouragement of a loan he might go on with the improvements and finally make of this land a real homestead; in fact, we have many homesteads in the province of Quebec of that nature. It is said, in fact, in many regions that the first settler is never the permanent occupant of the land. Very often the letters patent are taken out by the new settler who comes in and inherits the improvements made by his predecessor, but, after all, he continues to improve the land, and implants there a family, and finally the Whole community benefits by it. I know of many lands in my own constituency, as well as in other parts, that are presently crown lands because the letters patent have never been issued; the lands were taken up by settlers some years ago, and abandoned. Those lands could be reoccupied and a loan made, but not if the wording of the clause remains exactly as it is now.


Charles A. Stewart: Mv lion,
friend has raised the same point as was raised by the hon. member for Selkirk. Under the provisions of the Dominion Crown 
Lands Act, where a settler makes improvements to a homestead or crown land while he is in occupancy, these improvements are always valued if he surrenders the homestead or abandons the land, and the next settler is charged for the improvements. The provincial crown lands would be in the same position where the settler had received a loan and had abandoned the land. That is why we say we are making advances on the improvements. If the provincial government were prepared to give the federal government first claim upon the property, as they would have to do under the provisions of the bill, an advance could be made to that settler upon provincial crown lands.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the words "by
such settler" should be dropped, so that the benefits of this legislation would be applicable to the present settler.


Charles A. Stewart: I am going
to satisfy myself on that point, in view of the contention raised by my hon. friend from Labelle and by my hon. friend from Selkirk.


Thomas Cantley: May I draw attention to the two classes of loans contemplated under this legislation? One is for an amount not exceeding $1,000 to a man who is a Canadian citizen, and secondly, an amount not exceeding $500 to a settler other than a Canadian citizen. Surely we have gone far enough when we have made loans to men who are Canadian citizens. If settlers on land are not willing to incur the obligations of citizenship I do not think we should advance them any money.


Charles A. Stewart: True, it
applies to the foreigner, but what we have chiefly in mind here is that we shall be able to make arrangements with the Overseas Settlement Board for an additional $500 for the British settler. I do not think British settlers will take advantage of this legislation to any considerable degree until we have completed the three thousand family scheme. We expect this year to settle with British settlers twelve hundred soldier settlement farms, under the three thousand family scheme; last year we settled five hundred. My hon. friend knows that under this three thousand family scheme the government of Canada provides the land and the British government lends the settler $1,500 to establish him on the land, and that money is expended under the supervision of the Soldier Settlement Board. If this scheme proves a success, and British settlers take advantage of it, we hope to get an additional $500 for

Advances to Settlers
the British settler by arrangement with the Overseas Settlement Board. My hon. friend's contention is that we should not lend money to anybody but a Canadian citizen. Is that his idea?


Thomas Cantley: I thank the minister for the explanation. No. That is not exactly my point. What I thought was contemplated was that loans up to $500 could be made to settlers who were neither Canadian nor British. I have no objection at all to extending the full amount to settlers of British nationality, but I am opposed to making loans to settlers who are neither Canadian nor British. That is my point.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course
the settler cannot get a .patent unless he is a [DOT]Canadian citizen. My hon. friend will realize that he could not come into full possession of the land unless he is a Canadian citizen and naturalized.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister referred to- the British settler as a "foreigner."


Charles A. Stewart: I never did. I hope my hon. friend is not trying to leave an inference that I did not intend to convey in the slightest.


William Garland McQuarrie: I asked the minister a question a little while ago and he did not *answer. I thought perhaps he would answer this one. I understood him to say something a few moments ago about "a foreigner" and "loans. to foreigners." Do I understand now that loans will not be made to foreigners at all?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, loans
w-ill be made up to $500, but I was pointing out that the man could not earn the patent and come into title until he became a Canadian citizen.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister not
think this is discrimination against the British subjects whom we are trying to get into this country?


Charles A. Stewart: How does my hon. friend get that notion?


William Garland McQuarrie: When you lend $1,000 to a Canadian citizen and only $500 to a .British subject who is not a Canadian citizen. Is that not discrimination?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why is it not?


Charles A. Stewart: For the
simple reason that we hope to be able to make an arrangement with the Overseas Settlement Board for three thousand settlers, and they will participate in this scheme as settlers coming from the British Isles.


William Garland McQuarrie: There may be a man. a British subject, who does not come under this scheme at all, yet he may be a most desirable person to have in Canada because of his qualifications.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
likely that many such cases would occur.


William Garland McQuarrie: Such a man has come over without any assistance at all. Surely he would be a more desirable man to have in this country than somebody who has been assisted by the British government to leave iGreat Britain?
Mr. STElWART (Edmonton): If he happens to become a Canadian citizen within five years he comes within the provisions of the bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: If he chooses to wait twelve months. He will have to wait twelve months before he can take up land anyway.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend thought he had discovered a mare's nest, did he not? The man would have to go through the process of taking up a homestead and making improvements upon it, and if during that period he became a British subject he would be eligible for the loan.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have no doubt there will be mares' nests in this matter before we get through with it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the minister whether I understand him correctly that the intention of the government is to change the bill so as to enable a settler to get a loan on a preceding settler's improvements?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton).: They would not be the improvements of the preceding settler.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If they be purchased.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no .purchase. I think my hon. friend must have misunderstood me. The question asked by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) had reference to abandonment of the property and its reversion to the crown, the subsequent settlers thereon applying for a loan on the improvements.
Adi-ances to Settlers


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is, on the preceding settler's improvements.


Charles A. Stewart: The improvements on the land. These improvements may not be made by the actual settler himself, but they are improvements made while he is in occupancy and the only applicant on the register for the patent for that particular land.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I did not quite catch what is the government's intention. Suppose a man goes on land, proposing to get a patent, makes improvements upon them worth $500 or $600; they go back to the government and later a second entrant cqmes into occupation. Can that second entrant get a loan on the first man's improvements? That is what I want to get at.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, they would undoubtedly be the first man's improvements, but the first man has gone.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Certainly, and the lands have become the property of the crown.


Charles A. Stewart: And the property of the later occupant.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: They are not the property of the occupant until he gets his patent; they are the property of the crown.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite true. I think I follow my hon. friend. He wants to know whether in the event of these improvements not being the actual improvements performed by the settler himself, he can get consideration?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Precisely, because that is the wording of your bill, "by such settler". Does the government propose to go back on the wording of this bill? Because if so, it is going to introduce a totally new principle.


Charles A. Stewart: I told my hon. friends that so far as I am concerned I thought such a case would come within the category of the bill. I also promised both the hon. gentlemen in question that I would look into the matter and see whether the wmrding of section 3 provided for it.


Edward Joseph Garland: With respect to the point taken by the hon. member for East Edmonton, is it not true that in the event of a homestead being improved, the person who had originally applied for homestead having abandoned the land, any-
one else could secure the property by paying an amount in lieu of the improvements already made? It would be most unlikely', therefore, that any incoming immigrants would be in a position to take advantage of the bill in such a case.


Charles A. Stewart: It is true SO' far as Dominion crown lands are concerned, but I am not sure about the provincial regulations.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister is not going to open the door wider than it is at present. If he does that he is going to give any' other man who wants to settle on the land the benefit of improvements previously' made. That would open the door to frauds of all kinds. Surely the minister will not seriously consider such a suggestion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the improvements are there and the government advances loans up to a certain amount, it is not going to consider whether John or Thomas has made those improvements. If the provincial government reports that the land is clear so far as title is concerned, even though those improvements have been made by a party who has not fulfilled his obligations to the government, I do not see what difference it makes. It is just the same as any other property that has been mortgaged.


Peter McGibbon: The minister has said
over and over again to-day that the greatest asset is in the man himself. Now, there are hundreds or thousands of claims in northern. Ontario where improvements of a certain kind have been made. There are buildings on them, the lands have been cleared, fences have been erected, and then the people settled on those lands have gone away. Does the minister tell me he is going to let anybody go in there, settle on those lands and claim $500 or $1,000, as the case may be, for clearing and other improvements that have been carried out by other people? If the government lends money on the strength of such cases as that, the door will be opened to frauds of all kinds.
' Mr. GEARY: Am I right in my recollection that this loan of $500 would be by way of encouragement to immigration, the hope being entertained that the Imperial government would advance an equal sum? That is the-case, I think.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.

Advances to Settlers


Mr. GEARY:: How is the immigrant to get $500? Because he must make the improvements himself, and the loan can be made only on such improvements. The immigrant is in England and can by no possibility have made any improvements.


Charles A. Stewart: He could
not be in England. He would have to be here, an occupant of the land.


George Reginald Geary: Then he is a Canadian
citizen.


Charles A. Stewart: He is after
five years.


George Reginald Geary: Then he gets $1,000, so that the minister is not helping the British immigrant to the tune of $500; he is putting him in a position to get $1,000. I do not see* where the differentiation comes in.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
practically no differentiation, but we are hopeful that the British government will join us in this scheme, as they have in all other schemes of this character.


George Reginald Geary: I am still curious to know how he is to get the $500 when he is not here.


Charles A. Stewart: But he will have to be here.


George Reginald Geary: He will have to be here
within the year.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend knows a good deal of recruiting is done in the Old Country for placing people upon the land. I speak particularly of soldier settlers. The initial stages are all taken in the Old Country. The same thing would apply in this case. If the settler comes here entirely unhampered, as a matter of course he becomes a Canadian citizen in five years.


George Reginald Geary: An immigrant cannot get a loan under this bill, and no immigrant is going to come here and borrow $500 within a year if he can stay one week over the year and get $1,000.


George Brecken Nicholson: The minister, in answer to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who, I am sorry, has gone out for the moment, has taken a position that, as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) says, throws the door open very much wider than I think he contemplates. What the hon. member for Labelle said is, I think very largely true, namely, that the original entrant or settler on crown lands in a large part of northern Ontario and northern Quebec is not the final settler and the man
who gets the patent for the land. There is a very definite reason for that. I will speak more particularly of northern Ontario, because I have lived there for almost forty-five years. Men go on the land there not for the purpose of settling on it at all, but in order to take off during this period the most valuable crop that the land will ever have on it, and that is the timber. A settler on crown lands in Ontario and Quebec is entitled to all the timber on the land, spruce, maple and so on, excepting white and red pine. These men go on the land; they 'make a certain amount of improvements; they build a house or put up a camp to live in while they are there, and they cultivate a certain quantity of the land; but instead of their work constituting an improvement they have very much depreciated the original value of the land by removing the timber. If the minister is going to lend money to the second entrant in a case of that kind, he is not lending money because the value of the land has been improved. The land is not as valuable as it was before. As I said a moment ago, the most valuable crop the land can have on it in any one period of time is the original crop of timber. There are thousands of such cases where the timber has been removed according to an enumeration which was taken across all northern Ontario; and my information is that the same condition prevails very largely in northern Quebec as to the timber on the land and as to the type of settler who goes in there. The timber exploiter in many cases takes off the timber, and instead of the crown having an added security, it will never again get on that land anything as valuable as what the man has taken off. If the minister is going to give somebody else a loan on the strength of that, he is not getting any security at all.


Charles A. Stewart: I think a
very much wider construction than is intended is being put upon the bill, judging from the questions that have been asked with respect to the second entrant upon crown land. What I had in mind was simply a case where a homesteader, as we call him in the west, goes upon land and abandons it. That happens in a considerable number of cases. If there are upon the land improvements which are always of a meagre character, we charge the second entrant with those improvements. I can conceive of a situation all through the older provinces where, just as my hon. friend has said, the most valuable crop the land will ever produce has gone and the lands are abandoned. I can say at once that no loan of any character would be made upon land of that description. The land itself must be good land.
Advances to Settlers


George Brecken Nicholson: This is the best of
land.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know the circumstances, but if they are the best of lands it is a strange thing that they should be lying idle with no one in possession of them. The lands must be good lands before they come under the provisions of this legislation. It is likely that there will not be many cases in which consideration will be given for a loan to a second entrant, because as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has pointed out, the intention of this measure is to get new settlers on new lands. I can conceive of cases where 160 or ICO acres of land have been taken up and abandoned, and if it is good land someone else #will immediately apply. Improvements of some value may have been effected that the present applicant will have to improve further before he will be given consideration for a loan. As regards widespread applications, hon. members will please forget that, because that is not the intention of the government under this legislation.


William Alves Boys: The minister himself seems to
be in some doubt as to the construction to place upon the matter we are now dealing with, namely, the words "on the security of improvements made by such settler." One would think, from a reading of the section that the intention was that nobody could make application other than the settler Who himself, or by his agents at all events, had made the improvements. I am aware that if this legislation has to be construed in the future any declarations or statements that we make in this House will make no difference. But if there is any doubt about the matter- and from what the minister says there seems to be some doubt about it-it should be placed beyond peradventure.


Charles A. Stewart: Since this
discussion has arisen-and I see the possibility of its spreading out into wide dimensions-as that is not the purpose at all I may have to come back to the House and confine the provisions of the bill strictly to first settlers and crown lands.


William Alves Boys: I would not say that it
should be made applicable to first settlers only.	It seems to me that the only
person entitled to a loan is the settler who makes the improvements, whether he be the first or the second entrant. But I would certainly be opposed to the legislation if it was to entitle the second entrant, who has done nothing whatever upon the land but who gets possession because of an abandonment,

to get a loan of $500 or $1,000 on the strength of what somebody else has done. That would be absurd. As I read the bill it does not mean that, but I am making this criticism because of the more or less indefinite attitude the minister has taken upon it. He seemed to think that the door was open to that construction. I certainly do not think it is, but if there is any doubt about the matter and if the clause is to be redrafted, as I understand it is, it ought, I think, to be made perfectly clear that it is to relate to the improvements made by the applicant and by nobody else.


Charles A. Stewart: The act
clearly was to apply to the first entrant upon a given piece of crown land. I can see where we might make it apply to the second-
* Mr. BOYS: Why not?


Charles A. Stewart: The intention was of course to settle unoccupied crown lands.


William Alves Boys: Very well; and if the land is abandoned it is unoccupied.


Charles A. Stewart: That is true. The difficulty is that in giving way in one particular, pressure is brought to bear upon you to give waj' further. I am thoroughly in accord with the suggestion that the idea was to. confine it absolutely to the original applicant, and to unoccupied crown lands.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It does not necessarily follow that it should be confined to the original occupant, so long as it is confined to the improvements that have been made by the present applicant whether he be the first, second, third or fourth person to occupy the land.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend knows of course that Wherever a homesteader has settled on land he has made some improvements.


William Alves Boys: There might be misrepresentation.


Charles A. Stewart: Not always. The applicant, generally speaking, makes improvements for which usually he gets no credit.


William Alves Boys: The minister misunderstands
me. There might be some misrepresentation by the second or the third entrant in regard to improvements he alleges to have been made by himself. He might suggest that he had made some improvements wrhile in reality he had made none. '

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Charles A. Stewart: When you confine it definitely to the improvements effected by the applicant himself and by no one else, you are apt to have trouble. Clearly, as I see it, the intention of the bill as drafted is that the provision shall apply to unimproved crown lands, and to the first applicant.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: Subsection
(b) of section 3 provides for a loan:
To a settler, other than, a Canadian citizen, an amount not exceeding five hundred dollars.
Is it the intention to make a loan to a foreigner coming here to settle on land before he has taken out his papers and become a naturalized British subject?


Charles A. Stewart: I must
answer that question rather carefully. I think I am correct in saying yes, but I may add that the settler cannot obtain his patent until he is a British subject. That safeguard is provided. .


Alexander McKay Edwards: The minister, I think, said that before, and I understand that part of it. My objection would be to making the loan to such an applicant at all. I do not think that any man coming to Canada should come within the provisions of this bill until he has become a naturalized British subject.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall look into that point carefully. Before making application. however, the settler is required to declare his intention of becoming a British subject.


William Kemble Esling: How would this provision
affect orientals and Doukhobors? Usually the Poukhobor is interested mainly in getting the timber off the land, which he then abandons.


Charles A. Stewart: The oriental does not come under the bill.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Marine and Fisheries-Ocean and river service: maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,500,000.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This vote is the same as last year's; in fact, the same vote has appeared in the estimates in previous years. It provides for the maintenance and operation of vessels employed in the icebreaking service in the St. Lawrence and the gulf, in construction work as required, and in the supply and maintenance of lighthouses, fog alarms, buoys, beacons and similar aids to navigation.


Robert Rogers: What expenditures have
been made in connection with icebreaking at Port Arthur and Fort William?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a contract for $30,000.


Robert Rogers: All expended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of the contract has been paid.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is there any provision for icebreaking in Hudson bay?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


Robert Rogers: What is the nature of this contract for $30,000? Is the money paid whether their break any ice or not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That $30,000 comes under another item No. 231 for the breaking of ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation.


William Alves Boys: What was the amount expended last year in connection with this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to February 28th., there was expended $1,403,000 for the maintenance of all these boats.


Alexander McKay Edwards: How many of these steamers and ice breakers are owned by the Dominion?*


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are 27 vessels engaged in ice-breaking and looking after the maintenance of buoys, lighthouses, and so on.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Are the
captains and crews employees of -the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):	If that is
so, what was the reason for paying $30,000 on a contract for ice breaking at Port Arthur?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These vessels are operated
particularly in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Pacific coast. There are also some on the lakes., but I am informed we have no vessel on lake Superior capable of breaking ice.


Alexander McKay Edwards: How much money has been spent for ice-breaking by steamers and ice-breakers other than those owned by the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the only amount,
$30,000, which is covered by another vote, as I have just mentioned.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Outside the million and a half?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply*-Marine and Fisheries


John Arthur Clark: What was the expenditure
under this item in 1924-25?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $1,390,000.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What work was the Thiep-val engaged in at the time she was wrecked on the west coast of Vancouver island?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She was engaged in work
for the Department of National Defence.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Was she engaged in protecting the fisheries at that time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not
that information at hand.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What department paid for
the repairs?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of National Defence.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	How many months of
the year are these ice breakers in operation?
Mr. LAPO'INTE:	The winter months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exnmination of masters and mates, $20,000.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Is this
examination conducted by the Civil Service Commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the examinations are
conducted by captains appointed by the department,


Robert Rogers: How much does each
examination cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say.	In
Halifax we are paying Captain Mitchell, Supervising Examiner, a salary of $2,580, and his stenographer $1,260. He held twenty examinations for masters, thirty-one for mates, and thirteen for second mates. We have an office in Halifax that looks after these exami

nations.


Mr. SHORT:: Are examinations held at any other place in Nova Scotia besides Halifax?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, at Yarmouth and North Sydney.


Harry Bernard Short: Who is the examiner at
Yarmouth?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The position is vacant, the examiner having died last year.


Harry Bernard Short: Is it intended to appoint
a successor?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. Of course the appointment will be made by the Civil Service Commission.


John Wesley Edwards: How frequently are these examinations held?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Whenever there is a sufficient number of candidates.


John Wesley Edwards: This particular examiner examined sixty ail told, if my addition is correct, and received for his services $2,500, his stenographer being paid $1,200. In addition,* I suppose, there was office rent as well as other expenses. I presume he would examine five or six candidates at a time, so that would be a little over one examination a week. What did he do to earn his money in the meantime? And what did his stenographer do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The figures I have given
represent those who passed the examinations Of course a greater number of candidates failed to pass. As to the rent, these officers are occupying a public building in flalifax, and we are not paying any additional rent,


John Wesley Edwards: How many
tried the examinations? With this information we will be able to estimate his work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is any examination fee charged?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, but a small fee is
charged for issuing the certificate.


William Alves Boys: Are no other duties performed
throughout the year by this official? If so, here is a wonderful chance for the minister to practise a little economy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is so small
that you cannot cut it very much.


William Alves Boys: I am not suggesting the minister is responsible. I suppose this position has been in existence for a number of years, but if someoiie is getting $2,500 a year for simply presiding over a few examinations two or three times a year altogether too much money is being paid, there is no doubt about that, and I think the minister might well look into it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Although this man possibly has not to work ten or fifteen hours a day, he has to be at hand to examine candidates whenever they make application. Of course, as my hon. friend suggests, this office has been in existence for a. very long time. I may add that the Civil Service Commission fixes the salary and classification. It is very important

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
t-o continue this work in order that we may have men properly qualified for navigation. It is classified by the Civil Service Commission.


William Alves Boys: I was under a misapprehension; I gathered from what I had heard that these men presided at examinations. Evidently, that is not so. Is it that they are in an office and that at any time a person may present himself for examination, and they must be there all the time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All the time.


Robert Rogers: How many men have you?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Halifax we have Captain Mitchell, who is presiding examiner, and there is a stenographer. That is all we have there.
Mr. iBURY:	May I ask the minister if
these officers could not do other work? I know that the officers of the merchant marine in the Old Country who conduct the examinations in mercantile marine are working captains, who are carrying on their profession. They do not sit on a stool waiting for officers to present themselves for examination; they are working captains, getting paid for their regular duties. Then there is another question : is the salary fixed or are the examiners paid so much for every examination?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These salaries are fixed,
and I must say to my hon. friend that he is wrong in his contention that these examinations are held in England by regular captains. The examinations are held by officers of the board of trade, and not by captains.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: They are held by officers representing the board of trade, who are themselves operating captains.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not my information.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: They used to be, at all events.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the minister uses the term "presiding examiner" does he mean that there are other examiners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the title, and this
man at Halifax supervises the work at Yarmouth and North Sydney as well. Probably that is the reason why he has been classified as a supervising examiner, but of course this title has been given him by the Civil Service Commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do I understand that this supervising examiner devotes the whole of his time to this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do the other
examiners not so classed devote all their time to the work? What salary do they receive?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not in North Sydney; in North Sydney Captain Sutherland works eight months as examiner. He has a regular office, as in Halifax, but receives a salary of only $600. In Yarmouth the examiner receives a salary of only $1,440, and there is no other employee under him.


John Wesley Edwards: What do
they do, in North Sydney and Yarmouth, in the other four months? My hon. friend says it is necessary to have a man in Halifax all the time, to be ready in case anyone comes in and wants an examination, but in Yarmouth and North Sydney it is only necessary to have a man during eight months. It strikes me that a certain time might be set for this examiner to hold his examinations in Halifax, say once a month or once every two weeks, and he could go to North Sydney and conduct an examination there; to Yarmouth, and conduct an examination there, and so on. It seems to me, from what has already been stated by the minister, that there is not enough work to occupy even a small part of the time of this gentleman and his stenographer, who between them cost about $3,500 or $4,000 a year. This is an excellent opportunity to cut down expenses. The situation is not answered at all by saying that these men are appointed by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission makes an appointment when they are requested to do so by the department, so the blame comes back to the department for recommending the appointment of more men than are really necessary to carry on the work properly. I quite agree with the minister that it is very necessary to have competent examiners; this is important work and these men should be qualified before receiving their certificates. That is all very true, but for a good part of the time these officials cannot possibly have anything to do.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister tell us how many examinations were held in Yarmouth last year by the examiner there, who received a salary of $1,400?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
position has been vacant during this last year.


Harry Bernard Short: No examinations were held there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.

Supply[DOT]-Marine and Fisheries


Harry Bernard Short: To whom was the $1,400
paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has not been paid.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell me what the balance of this $20,000 is for, besides this officer and his stenographer?


Mr. FRASER:: Has the minister an examining board at the Pacific coast?


Peter McGibbon: I would like an answer to my question.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are establishments
of the same character in other parts of the country. We have spoken so far only of Halifax, Yarmouth and North Sydney, but there is an officer at Quebec, although he receives only $720 a year. There is another establishment at St. John, New Brunswick; another in Montreal; another in Prince Edward Island, and one in Toronto. There is a supervising examiner at Toronto, receiving the same salary as the officer at Halifax; he also has a Stenographer. Then there is another establishment at Collingwood; one at Port Arthur and one at Selkirk, Manitoba. This last office is vacant at the present time.


Robert Rogers: What about Goderich;
have you none there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. In regard to the western division there is an establishment at Vancouver; another at Victoria and there was one at Nelson, which is vacant at present. At Vancouver the salary is about the same, $2,340; at Victoria the salary is $1,500.


John Anderson Fraser: Is there just one official at each place?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a stenographer at Vancouver as well as the examiner.


Peter McGibbon: Could not some of these offices be closed. Is it necessary to have two or three offices in Ontario to examine a few mates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that these
establishments have been provided because of requests made by people interested in navigation matters; they are for the convenience of those people.


Peter McGibbon: But the minister has the responsibility. I am asking if he cannot cut them down. It does not matter what his predecessors have done; we are here to enforce economy as much as possible, and it appears to me to be absurd to have two or three officers in this province with practically nothing to do.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister stated that
there has been no examiner at Yarmouth for a whole year. Could not that $1,400 be very well dispensed with? That is a small item, perhaps, but if these other men could do the work that amount would be saved.


Ernest Lapointe: Maritime rights!


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In answer to my hon.
friend I am informed that the examiner at Halifax has been requested several times to go to Yarmouth. I would hesitate to close this office, because I am informed that the people in that vicinity are anxious to keep the office, and it has been profitable and advantageous to those interested in such matters. At all events, I am ready to take into consideration the very friendly representations made by my hon. friends opposite.


John Anderson Fraser: What does the minister
think about the position at Nelson?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That position is vacant at the present time.


John Anderson Fraser: Has it been vacant during the whole year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Then the same thing which applies to Yarmouth would apply also to Nelson.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the $1,400 was not paid at Yarmouth this year, how comes it there is no difference between the $20,000 of the previous year and the $20,000 of last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are asking for the same amount as last year, but this does not represent the expenditure.


Robert Rogers: What amount was expended last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We spent $15,952, up to
February 28th last.


John Arthur Clark: How many vacant positions
were there?
Mr. CARDIN':	Three, one at Yarmouth,
one at Selkirk, Manitoba, and one at Nelson, British Columbia. The salary at Nelson and Selkirk is small, only $600. At Yarmouth it is $1,440.


Harry Bernard Short: What does the examiner at
Yarmouth do to earn $1,400? The place has been closed a year. How many examinations did he have to make?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the number of
examinations which he made last year.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I
observe from the Auditor General's report that the amount spent last year was $19,994.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is for 1924-25.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister state what the duties of the supervising examiner are? I understand that candidates for the positions of mate and captain come before examiners, and are examined by them. What is the work of the supervising examiner, who does not see the candidates at all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The supervising examiner
checks the papers of the examiners at the other places. The examination papers at Yarmouth, for example, are forwarded to the supervising examiner at Halifax, who checks them up. He supervises the work of the officers in the smaller ports, like Yarmouth and North Sydney.


Donald Sutherland: Are the certificates that are granted issued by the supervising examiner?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: :	The examiner at Yarmouth, for example, sends in his report to the supervising examiner at Halifax, who checks the papers and forwards them to Ottawa, and the certificate is issued at the department here after all the documents have been passed on and approved by the supervising examiner at Halifax.


Donald Sutherland: Could there not be some competent officer in the department here to do the supervising, instead of the supervising officer who does not see the candidates at all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have officers in the department checking even the reports of the supervising examiner.


Donald Sutherland: If
the supervising examiner does not see the candidates at all, it would seem to me that some of this work must be superfluous, because the report he makes to the minister has to be examined by officials in the department.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the work of the
supervising examiner at Halifax, for instance, is that of checking the reports of the men who actually examine the candidates, then forwarding them to Ottawa for rechecking, surely instead of having one supervising examiner at Halifax with an office and an office staff and another at Toronto with an office and an office staff-not actually examining candidates but simply scrutinizing fifty or sixty examination papers annually, sent in to him by the
men who actually make the examination-the minister could save a little money by having only one supervising examiner stationed at Ottawa, to whom all these reports could be sent in the first place. Why send the papers from Yarmouth to Halifax, and from Port Arthur or Collingwood to Toronto, to be checked, and then send them to Ottawa to be rechecked? Set the examinations, if you will, and then at Toronto, Collingwood, Owen Sound, and other places where you have scores of captains doing nothing when their ships are laid up, and who would be glad to act as examiners, have these local men do the work and send in their reports to one supervising examiner at Ottawa for the whole country. The minister could save a little money here, at least, and the virtue of saving is a very good virtue to begin to practise at some point.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Even if we could find
somebody in Toronto and elsewhere to take charge of the examinations, they would not work for nothing; we should have to pay them. I might point out that these supervising officers not only supervise the reports of other officers, but they also act as examiners themselves; in fact their most important work is taking charge of the examinations in the more important ports. They supervise, in addition, the work done in the less important places, but their main duty is to carry on a very much greater number of examinations themselves.


George Brecken Nicholson: Is there a greater
number of applicants for certificates as masters and mates in Toronto than in Port Arthur, Fort William, Sault Ste. Marie, Collingwood, or any of these ports out of which boats on the Great Lakes run? Why should it be necessary to have a supervising examiner conduct the examinations at one port, and an ordinary captain-for that is what they are, practical men who know their business-make the examinations at some other port? The class of work done in both cases is just the same, so why should one man get $2,500 a year and be given a stenographer and an office, and another man somewhere else be paid only half that amount-because the minister has stated that the salary ranges from $600 to $1,450 and so on? Why make this variation? If you want a supervising examiner, why not have one at Ottawa for the whole country?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The supervising examiners
have much more work to do. The supervising examiner at Toronto, for instance, has recommended the issuing of certificates for 43 masters, although he has examined a greater number than that, and 25 mates. In Kingston, for example, eleven masters and fourteen mates passed their examination compared with forty-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
three masters and twenty-five mates, at Toronto. At Port Arthur only two masters passed the examination and only one mate. So the wo.rk the examiners have to do at these smaller places is not so heavy as the work which has to be performed in a large city like Toronto.


Peter McGibbon: I should like to ask the
minister for the third time if it is not possible to cut out some of these places? There is an examination held in Kingston, one in Toronto, one in Collingwood, one at the Soo, and one at Port Arthur.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The supervising examiner
for the Great Lakes division not only conducts the examination at Toronto but also visits other places in the province. At Collingwood we have Captain Coles, but he receives a salary of only 8600. Outside of conducting examinations he gives lectures on navigation.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister does not seriously contend that all these officers are kept busy examining students during the twelve months when there are only forty candidates at one place, twenty at another and thirty at another. Why, there is not enough work combined to keep one man busy two months. I should like the minister to take this matter a little more seriously. It is a small matter, it is true, but there is a duplication of offices and salaries in .Ontario at least that is absolutely unwarranted. The minister simply receives the suggestion with a shake of his head, as though it were of no importance whatever. If he has an examiner in Toronto who goes to Collingwood, a distance of only three hours by train, why is it necessary to have another examiner in the latter port? What is the sense of this duplication at every little port around the lakes? After all it only represents about one man's job for a year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid I could not
venture to close the office at Toronto without incurring very serious criticism from the navigation companies. They are desirous of maintaining the office so that they may obtain properly qualified masters and mates. The Toronto office is really doing a very important work.


Peter McGibbon: I am not asking you to close the office at Toronto, I am asking what is the sense of maintaining seven or eight of these offices in the province of Ontario.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is really only one office having jurisdiction over the Great Lakes, and that is the Toronto office. But

the supervising examiner holds examinations at smaller places.


Peter McGibbon: Did you not tell us that you had an official at Collingwood?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is one there.


Peter McGibbon: And at the Soo and at Port Arthur?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is only one at Collingwood. That official receives a small salary and, as I have just stated, delivers lectures on navigation outside his other duties.


George Reginald Geary: Is it not a fact that the minister has not increased his staff since 1924-5? You still have a man with a stenographer in Toronto, and you have a man in Collingwood?
. Mr. CARDIN: Absolutely.


George Reginald Geary: And the chief examiner conducts examinations at other points in the province?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The examiner at Toronto does.


George Reginald Geary: The provision made does not seem excessive.


Peter McGibbon: If there are only two
men, why the need of estimates to the amount of $20,000?


Ernest Lapointe: That $20,000 is for the whole country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, $20,000 for the whole work.


Peter McGibbon: You have been telling us that two men only are doing the work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that was the work of the Great Lakes division of Toronto.


Ernest Lapointe: We have to defend the interests of Ontario against my hon. friend.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: What is the cost of the Port Arthur office?


George Reginald Geary: What class of stenographer have you in Toronto? The salary you pay is $600. That does not seem enough for a stenographer in that city.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The salary is $780, the salary of a regular stenographer.


George Reginald Geary: That is not as much as other stenographers get in government departments.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount has been fixed by the Civil Service Commission for the work performed there.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


George Reginald Geary: Is the stenographer employed all the time, or just temporarily?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All the time.


George Reginald Geary: It is a very low salary.


Thomas Cantley: I rather sympathize with the minister in his efforts to enlighten my agricultural friends behind me.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Thomas Cantley: There would be no objection in the Maritime provinces if the minister closed up all these offices on the lakes. They are only fresh-water sailors up there, and perhaps seldom out of sight of land. For the enlightenment of my hon. friends behind me, and of others, I may say that the offices in the Maritime provinces are necessary. Let me illustrate why. A young man goes to sea. After he has been at sea for a year or two years he goes up for examination as second mate. He takes a month, two months, or three months as the case may be to attend a navigation school, and then he goes up for his second mate's ticket. If he passes the examination he gets his ticket. He goes to sea again and after having served a certain length of time and obtained a certificate that he has served for that period as second mate, he again goes to the navigation school for whatever time may be necessary. Then he goes up for examination for his first mate's certificate. Having succeeded "in obtaining his certificate he goes again to sea and passes a certain specified time as first mate. He comes back with the required certificate and attends the navigation school for a further period. Then he presents himself for examination and in the event of his being successful is given his ticket as a master. These offices in the Maritime provinces are absolutely necessary. A man may have been at sea on a foreign voyage for six or nine months and then his ship goes into Sydney or into some other port in the Cape Breton district. It is not reasonable that he should be required to go to Halifax to undergo examination. It is for that reason that examining offices have been established at the outports of Sydney and Yarmouth. The only objection I have in the matter is this: If the office of examiner at Yarmouth was vacant during the whole of last year it is something which should not have happened -it is a positive hardship. I object to any reduction in the vote for the Maritime provinces, but I am not concerned to any extent whatever as to the fate of the Ontario examining offices.


James Dew Chaplin: I asked the minister previously what the cost of the Port Arthur office was.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no office at Port Arthur. The supervising examiner goes there and conducts the examination himself.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
sends a man there to examine two or three people, I understand, two masters and one mate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Who is the supervising examiner at Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Captain L. H. Lindsay.


John Arthur Clark: How long has he held the
office?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Two years.


John Arthur Clark: Who was the former officer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Captain Eddie.


John Arthur Clark: What is the salary paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


John Arthur Clark: Does he hold any other position under the government?
M'r. CARDIN: No.


John Arthur Clark: Does he give his whole time to the work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: He is not allowed to do
any other work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Investigation into wrecks, $6,000.
William Alves Boys: Will the minister explain this item? The reason I want to know is because I have been trying to have a little wreck removed at the mouth of the Nottawasaga river, and I want to make sure that has been provided for this year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed it has been removed.


William Alves Boys: I am glad to be able to congratulate the government on accomplishing one thing at all events.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Advisory Board
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 7, 1926