1926-03-30

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons lebutes
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 30, 1926

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: I draw the attention of the Prime
Minister to the following report from Ottawa in the press of Saturday, 27th March:
It was learned here to-day on the highest authority that the personnel of the commission to investigate conditions in the Maritime provinces would be as follows:


Mr. FORKE:: Speak louder please.


Murray MacLaren: I continue quoting:
Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, Kent, England.
Dr. McGill, of Winnipeg.
Judge W. B. Wallace, of Halifax.
Hon. W. E. Foster, of Saint John.
Can the Prime Minister confirm this report given to the public?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There has been no order
in council passed appointing a commission. I do not know from what source the information has come, but I can assure my hon. friend that up to the present time no appointments have been made.



AUSTRALIAN BUTTER-DUMPING CLAUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Yesterday I put an inquiry to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) with regard to the duty on dairy products now being imported into this country, particularly from Australia. I pointed out that the minister had stated on the 25th of February that butter imported into Canada from Australia will be subject to the provisions of the dumping clause. The minister said on that occasion:
The official in my department holds that there will be a dumping duty of approximately fifteen per cent on any butter that enjoys that privilege.
I desire to point out that upwards of one million pounds of butter have been imported from Australia during March of this year, and
I should like to ask what duty is being collected on these imports. I understand from the Department of Customs that it is the duty of one cent per pound provided for in the trade treaty which has been and is being collected.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: If my hon. friend will place his question on the order paper I will give him a correct answer.


Donald Sutherland: I
put a question yesterday and received a reply that was no answer at all. The reply was that the information asked for would be given in answer to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) and it is not there.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 25, consideration in committee of the resolution to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919-Hon. Mr. Stewart-Mr. Duff in the chair:
Mr. HANNESSON:: When this matter was last before the House I felt that I ought to say something on it. The question is one of some importance and urgency, particularly in the west, and I trust that we shall consider it from the point of view of doing justice to the returned men, and not from any political or self-seeking standpoint. You will remember, Sir, that when demobilization took place the government of Canada was faced with a very serious problem. During the war there was a tremendous expansion of industrial development in Canada, and when the hundreds and thousands of men at the front were being returned to this country the government was faced with the problem not only of keeping in employment those who already had occupations, but of absorbing into our civil life all those who were coming back from the front. It was generally thought that the best way to meet this problem in the case of the returned soldiers was to place as many of them as possible on farms. That view was strengthened by the general policy that all parties had adopted to further agricultural development. The motives which

Soldier Settlement Act

actuated the returned soldiers largely in going on the land were chiefly these:	In the first
place, during the war high prices for agricultural products had prevailed; and in the next place, unless the soldiers had occupations in the professions or in industry to return to they had no alternative open to them. What I want to point out here is that although the soldier settlement scheme primarily was for the purpose of assisting the soldiers during the period of demobilization and reconstruction, other people in Canada received direct and immediate benefit from it. In the first place it lessened the competition for employment; in the next place it largely solved the unemployment question in Canada and in the third place it gave to people that had land holdings in the Dominion immediate cash for lands that in former years they had not been able to sell. What is now asked for is not a further bonus or relief for soldiers, but a recognition of the fact that so many of them were charged prices for land bought on their account by the government far beyond their actual value. It is not a bonus, but a recognition of a wrong done to them, and remember that many of the men who received those prices are the men who to-day complain that they are paying too much in the way of taxes in Canada. That money was not lost to Canada. It was largely paid out to people in Canada.
Another phase of the matter to which I wish to refer is that the soldier settlement scheme was of immense value to the Dominion of Canada. As the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the other day, with his customary fair-mindedness, the soldier settlement scheme increased the value of lands in Canada above what it would otherwise have been and added to the present wealth and productive power of Canada. Some of the lands had been used at a prior time by farmers who had actually tilled them, but a large portion was new, virgin soil. These lands were brought into production but they would not have become productive had it not been for this scheme. For seven or eight years, these soldier settlers have been adding largely to the wealth of Canada. I desire to point out to this House that year after year, government after government have spent large sums of money for immigration, the expenditure having been principally outside of Canada. They are today adopting other schemes for settlement in Canada which involves the outlay of money. I maintain that even if the treasury takes a loss with respect to part of the price paid for the land. Canada still will have a bigger

return than she has received from the money spent on immigration or will receive from the proposed expenditure for securing settlers on the land.
I wish to give the House some figures with regard to the settlement scheme. As a result of the scheme 30,846 men were placed on the land. Of this number 24,342 were placed as a result of loans advanced, and 6,504 on soldier grants. Of the number so settled on this land 819 have paid their loans in full, 6,635 have been foreolosed or have abandoned their farms, leaving approximately 17,000 settlers still on soldier settlement land owing money to the government. The total paid out under the scheme was $105,750,831. Something like $23,000,000 on account of principal and interest have been paid, and the principal now owing under the whole scheme is $88,228,890.65. Of the foreclosed land 1,789 units have been sold-that is land and chattels-at a profit to the Soldier Settlement Board of $625,949.35. Then in the case of 168 units where the land without the chattels has been sold, giving a surplus to the government of $19,396.75, and 182 units have been sold-'but the sale not closed yet- with a prospective profit to the government of $6,293.43, there remained 4,496 of the units of the foreclosed lands still undisposed of. Last year this government made a bargain with the Imperial government to set aside for them 2,500 units for the empire settlement scheme. Five hundred families were brought out last year, and it is hoped to bring out 1,300 this year. These lands under the empire settlement scheme have all been revalued, and I am credibly informed that, although in some instances they have been sold for approximately the amount of the debt, in a large number of other oases they have been sold for one-half the amount owed by the soldier settler or less. The soldier settler has to pay the whole and is ejected from the land if he is unable to pay it. But in addition to the loan advanced by the Imperial government of $1,500 per unit, Canada makes further advances to the empire settler which are added to the purchase price.
From the foregoing several things are quite evident. Every time a unit was taken back from a returned soldier as a result of abandonment, or by foreclosure, there was a direct loss of productive power in Canada to the-extent of that unit. In the next place there was a loss in the value of that unit. As soon as the land was abandoned or left, it reverted and became wild land again. Last year I understand some effort was being made to-lease some of these lands. The next best.

Soldier Settlement Act
lands to those sold before have been taken under the empire settlement scheme or reserved for it, and we have in addition almost half of these foreclosed lands, which undoubtedly are the poorest, on which Canada will suffer a further loss. If Canada can afford to take a loss in the manner I have described, to give a rebate to the empire settlers, surely she can afford to re-value the land and give some consideration to the men who have been on it seven or eight years, giving of their best, paying 10 per cent to begin with, and brushing, breaking, fencing, building and struggling. A new man, with no knowledge of conditions in this country is almost sure to make some losses for the government under the empire settlement scheme. Surely Canada can afford to do the right thing with regard to the men who were unfairly treated when the purchases were made.
I realize that in some cases there may not be a loss and revaluation is not necessary, but I desire to bring to the attention of the House some cases where there is a crying injustice. Two of these cases occurred near Teulon. In one case within my knowledge- the Soldier Settlement Board have the record of it-the man never went on the farm. He was a clerk in one of the offices engaged in selling lands to the Soldier Settlement Board. There was another case where a man made merely a pretence of going on. That land was taken back. In several cases the price fixed was two, three and four times the actual selling value at the time. Another soldier settler from the Petersfield district, came to me and told me about the course that was being followed by the Soldier Settlement Board; and he told me about men being driven off the farm and asked me to go and meet the soldier settlers who occupy the territory between Teulon and Winnipeg Beach. I attended the meeting and at that meeting these men drew attention to several things. The lands in that district were bought at from $15 to $31 per acre. Last year I sold a half section of land of the same character and was glad to get $5.50 per acre for it. I know of other lands in that district and very similarly located that were sold for $3.50 per acre. These soldier settlers paid tremendous prices. It is too late to criticize this feature now, but there is not the slightest doubt that they were induced to go on that land as the result of incompetence or something worse on the part of those who certified to these values. The land was practically all brush land, and wet, which meant an immense amount of work before they could begin to
produce anything on it. They have gravel roads in the neighbourhood now which have ditches draining the lands, but when the men were put on those lands they were valued at a figure that they could not for a long time approximate. The men had to clear practically every foot of the land. It was at least two years before they could make any headway. The maximum improvement loans advanced amounted to one thousand dollars each and they were wholly inadequate to enable these men to get a start at all. I have seen some of these lands and I visited one location in particular that I propose speaking about. The least brushing done by any man on his unit is about a hundred acres, and brushing costs about five dollars an acre although the man does the work himself. Breaking cost at that time from twelve to fourteen dollars an acre, although the cost at the present time is only seven dollars an acre. None of the men to whom I have reference has done less than $2,000 to $3,000 worth of improvements on his land.
In 1923 when they were just beginning to get a start they were unfortunate enough to meet with rust following floods in the spring, and in 1924 that the crop of the whole district was frozen. The wheat was frosted in the blossom as Mr. Freer, superintendent and expert who was brought out from the Manitoba Agricultural College, stated. The result was that these men were left with absolutely nothing in the fall of 1924. They asked the Soldier Settlement Board for assistance in the way of seed grain in the spring of 1925 and they were informed that there was no provision for further advances in the way of seed grain. Some of the men were forced to leave their farms in order to go out and work as they had only a few cattle and they could not grow any grain that year. Others stayed on because they were fortunate enough to get advances from private sources. The credit of a soldier settler is not very high, because everything is tied up to the Soldier Settlement Board which has a preference over all claims if it desires to exercise it.
In the fall of 1925 the board told these soldier settlers that they would have to pay up their arrears or the board would seize the whole crop. Some of the men refused to do this because, as they said, they had to pay their seed grain advances and their store bill, and after going through the formality of making seizures and endeavouring to get the surrenders from the soldier settlers, the board said: We will pay the seed grain and the store bills if you will give the crop to us. This has been very discouraging to these men
Soldier Settlement Act

and I want briefly to make some reference to what happened at the meeting which I attended and to certain letters which I have since received. At a meeting at which some forty-five settlers who are still indebted to the board were present, a resolution was passed. It was signed by some twenty-six settlers-I could not wait for any more signatures at that time. This resolution was as follows:
We the undersigned having met at a public meeting at Petersfield, Manitoba, to discuss the problems of the soldier settlers, have passed the following resolution :
Resolved that we ask parliament of Canada to revalue all soldier settlers loans to the extent of fifty per cent with no discrimination as to what year he settled on the land.
One point which they brought out at the meeting was that the value of the land must be reduced to an extent where they could carry on. Next year they will have to pay interest although that has been waived for a number of years. They also maintained that having spent seven years on the land and having made considerable improvements and gained experience, they should be given a preference in regard to reductions over the British Empire settlers. They further urged that no more soldiers should be put off the land till something definite has been done in regard to revaluation. During the last year several of these men have been put off their land, although last session this House was considering revaluation which was also promised in the last election. They further urged that the board must help the soldier with seed grain where help is needed, as their outside credit is impaired. That is a problem which we must face because, in case of hardship, the settler has no credit that will enable him to go to a bank or even to a private individual in view of the way in which all assets are tied up to the board.
I have several letters from settlers giving further particulars, one from two Hermanson brothers who claim that after they had struggled along for seven years, an endeavour was made last year to put them off their land. They state that they cannot carry on with their present indebtedness. They have families; one of the boys is suffering under a disability, and yet threats are being made to put them off for empire settlers.
I have a letter from another man named Oliver, also at Petersfield, who claims that last fall after he had borrowed money in order to be reinstated, they came to him again and said that he must pay S500 or sign a surrender which, however, could be revoked later on. They called it a readjustment, and so as to have some control of his crop and to

be able to pay his store bills and that kind of thing, he signed it. He is a man who has 150 acres broken and more improvements made than have been paid for by advances from the board. He has a large family and last year after paying the thresher and his store bill he had $267 left.
A man named G. A. Willis in that district who has 220 acres broken had a notice served on him last fall because he wanted to pay his seed grain and store bill. The same was the case with a man named Smallwood who had 160 acres broken. These men all have large families and are men who served throughout the war. I come now to a man named Mackenzie who could not borrow money in 1925 to do his seeding. His brother lives on the next farm. He had fall ploughed his land; he left his brother to look after the farm and the cattle; he left his furniture in the house and he went out to look for employment elsewhere. The board has seized that farm although that man had lived on it for seven years. I visited that farm and over 100 acres had been brushed and ninety acres broken and fall ploughed by his brother last fall. This winter under the empire settlement scheme, although his furniture was still there, they entered the house and put in new beaverboard walls which they painted. They say they are going to paint the house this spring and they are putting an empire settler on the land at exactly half the price that Mackenzie was charged. That in spite of the fact that last fall he offered to give them $175 in cash and 400 bushels of wheat. I might also cite the case of a man named Schofield whose land was bought by the board at $3125 per acre and sold to empire settlers at $15 per acre.
That is all I propose saying with regard to the general merits of the matter, but I wish to point out two things in connection with this resolution. According to the first clause of the resolution the revaluation proposed is only for those who have not abandoned their land. That, I take it, would include those who have been driven off the land. I suggest that an amendment must be made to that provision so that any man who has been on the land for four or five years, who has done a certain amount of improvement that may be stated in the act, who for instance has broken fifty or sixty acres and who has made permanent improvements of a value of not less than $1,000, should have the right to go back and redeem on the same terms as an empire settler could buy. A provision of that sort should be in this measure.

Soldier Settlement Act
I may point out that the Soldier Settlement Board in their report issued on 31st December recommended revaluation and I would suggest that it should be carried out in this way. The board themselves should do the revaluing because I think any other method would take too long and there is urgent need of this being carried out as expeditiously as possible. I then suggest an appeal to a county court judge before whom shall be the complete file of the Soldier Settlement Board and before whom shall be taken into consideration the value fixed by the board on any land in the same neighbourhood. I suggest the appeal to the county court judge so as to remove all suspicion of unfairness or partisanship. My hon. friends to the left objected to a county court judge primarily because he was a lawyer. Let me point out that they are almost the first people to seek the advice and assistance of lawyers. Indeed, one member of their body, when he was one of the commissioners appointed by this House to investigate the customs charges, sought the appointment of special counsel for himself. Now this matter would come up before the local county court judge, and as he is trained to weigh evidence and is removed from all suggestion of bias or partisanship, I do not know of anyone who would be better fitted to deal with cases of this kind. Furthermore, all assessments in Manitoba and, I believe, elsewhere in western Canada are revised before the county court judge, which would indicate that he is probably more intimately acquainted with the actual values of lands and with all the local circumstances than anybody else would likely be. A county court judge would be better qualified than almost any farmer who could be selected either from the Progressive group in this House or in the country.
In connection with the appeal before the county court judge, I suggest that the soldiers should have a special representative of their own, paid by the government. The question of cost has been referred to, but we must remember that the returned soldiers who are up against it now cannot afford to engage counsel. All the circumstances should be gone into exhaustively, and to this end it is imperative that counsel should be provided to act on behalf of the men for the purpose of presenting their cases before the judge. I trust there will be no division in the House on the question of revaluation; Canada as a whole has received large value from the services of these men. It is not a matter of giving the returned soldiers a bonus or a grant; what is needed is to remedy an evil
from which they are at present suffering. For seven or eight years these men have shown their confidence in the country, and I believe that if a favourable opportunity were afforded them they could successfully carry on. As things are to-day they are labouring under adverse conditions that are almost unbelievable. In very many instances the wife is obliged to go out and work in order to secure the necessary groceries and other provisions for the family. It would be far better, in my judgment, to make it possible for these men to stay on the land than it would be to get new settlers to come into the country to displace them. Those returned soldiers who have put in four or five or six years and have made substantial improvements on the land have shown that they are fitted for farming and they should be given an equal opportunity to come in under this scheme.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: As the hon member has been the first speaker this afternoon, I would put a question to him. In order to shorten the process of dealing with the question of readjustment by the representatives of the Soldier Settlement Board, what would he think of creating a board consisting of the district judge as chairman, the board supervisor in the district, and a representative of the soldiers themselves, the last named to be paid by the government? The judge and the supervisor would of course receive no salary. I offer this suggestion as it is possible that this readjustment could be very quickly made throughout Canada in that way, inas- ' much as the cases could be heard in eveiy judicial district practically as speedily as the soldier supervisors might be available. That would shorten up the process of readjustment. Perhap the hon. member would give the committee his opinion of that suggestion.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am always reluctant to have the majority of a board make the decision if there is no review of the matter.
I think it would be satisfactory to take the board's valuation, which could be quickly made by the district supervisor or the superintendent of the board, provided there is to be a review by someone who is above suspicion of partisanship or as having any special interest in the matter.


Mr. STIRLING:: This question of revaluation of soldier lands is one of the most complicated before parliament to-day. The conditions are exceedingly varied in this great country-varied as to the nature of the soil, varied as to the crops grown, and consequently as to the marketing of those crops, and varied
Soldier Settlement Act

again as to the men themselves who are employed in this work. One can find every description of man among the soldier settlers to-day in whatever part of Canada one may go. There are those who had previous knowledge of this kind of work, and others who had not. There are those who have been physically able to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the work and to reap a certain measure of success; while there are others who, while they have endeavoured just as much to attain success have been unable to reach it owing to various circumstances outside their own control. But the provisions of the act have been carried out under both administrations and so far as my experience in British Columbia is concerned, they have been fairly observed. A really earnest attempt has been made on the part of tne officials of the board, at least, in Yale of which I can speak, to help the soldiers in their difficulties and to endeavour to assist them in making it go. But they have been met with serious obstacles. I think I am qu.te right in saying that the officials of the board themselves have foreseen for several years past that a revaluation of land must come but of course,-hitherto they have been quite powerless to do anything in that direction. Last year when the question of revaluation of stock and equipment was before parliament there were appeals from all parts of the House to the government to include therein a revaluation of the land. The government was reluctant to undertake this. I remember my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) pointing out towards the close of that debate the very thorny question which we should some day have to tackle with regard to this revaluation. The difficulty is no less to-day than it was then. Indeed, if anything it has been rather aggravated by the intrusion into the question of the settlement of British government assisted immigrants.
Now, we do not know for lack of any pronouncement on the part of the government just under what conditions these immigrants are being placed on the land. I remember that the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) asked the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) for certain information. If I remember rightly he asked the question on two occasions, and the third time the minister made a reply. I will read what the hon. member for Burrard said in connection with the matter:
May I remind the minister that the vital point of the question was, whether the lands are being turned over to the immigrants at values lower than those originally placed on them for soldier settlement?

And the minister replied:
I asked that question, and in some cases they are turned over at a lower value in the majority of cases, however, they are turned over at the value at which the soldier settler was placed upon the land.
A cartoon has been placed in my hands which was published in a Vancouver paper- what paper I do not know, for its name does not appear on this clipping. It depicts what is called a new settler marching along the high land, with a very small encumbrance on his back and a bright new hoe on his shoulders. The idea one gets from that is that the soldier is making his way to pastures new and is about to make a success of the undertaking. Below on a lower statum of land there is a soldier settler with a far bigger burden on his back, endeavouring to wheel a heavily laden barrow across some stony land. I do not know whether that cartoon represents the state of affairs, but I think it would be of very great assistance to the House, to the public, and especially to the soldiers themselves if the minister would make a full, ample detailed statement as to Where we stand with regard to incoming immigrants. I can imagine no other circumstance making the soldier settler angrier than to feel that he has been pleading with the government for some time for a revaluation, and now to find that certain immigrants are being given a revaluation which he is not able to obtain.
As I say, conditions throughout Canada are most varied, and I want for a few moments to describe the situation of soldier settlement in Yale. In 1919 there was a big crop of fruit, the prices were good, optimism prevailed, and purchases of land commenced at about that date. Not only did fruit lands increase in value, but the optimism carried up the values of mixed farming land and general agricultural land at the same time and all lands, compared with the subsequent prices, were inflated in value. In 1920 there was a smaller fruit crop and the prices were still fairly good. But about that time was injected into this condition of affairs another matter altogether which directly affected land values. For some few years there had been difficulty between the water companies that supplied the irrigation water and the land owners, and that difficulty had become so tense by the end of 1920 that the provincial government stepped in and used its good offices to draw the water companies and the land owners closer together. Negotiations resulted in the forming of what are called irrigation districts, the whole of the water systems, including

Soldier Settlement Act
reservoirs, canals and ditches, in certain areas are now owned and administered by the land owners. But consequent on the development of those water systems, the rebuilding of certain structures which had fallen into disrepair and their proper maintenance, water rates, speaking very generally, were raised from somewhere in the neighbourhood of four and five dollars to eight and ten dollars; and as water is the lifeblood of the land in the irrigation district, and is looked upon as a direct charge on the land, so it had a very definite effect on the capital value of orchard properties. In 1921 followed another big crop at low prices. The optimism which had started in 1919 was already drooping, and in 1922 came an absolute devastation in fruit prices, the bottom dropped out of the market, its effect was severe on the value of orchard property, and in consonance with that the value of mixed farming property dropped a very great deal lower than it was at the time the majority of these purchases were made.
Now, with regard to the view which the soldier settlers themselves in that neighbourhood take of this matter, I should like to direct the attention of the committee to a resolution which was adopted by the soldier settlers in the middle section of the Okanagan valley. The covering letter which accompanied the resolution contains a paragraph which I desire to quote:
That if Major Barnett is accurately reported in recent speeches that abandoned soldier holdings will be given to new immigrants at a price in keeping with present values, and if such is now to be the government's policy, then it is felt that the need for a reduction of original loans of soldiers becomes imperative if the immigrant is not to be more favourably treated than your soldier settlers.
That demonstrates what I consider might be called the frame of mind in which the soldier settlers met together and adopted this resolution. The resolution itself was passed at a meeting of soldier settlers in the Okanagan district of British Columbia on March 10. After referring to the inflation in land values and to the depreciation in their land, stock and equipment to the extent of 50 per cent or more, and to the incoming British government-assisted immigrants, the resolution proceeds :
Therefore be it resolved that this meeting representing the districts of Kelowna, East Kelowna, Rutland, Glenmore, Ellison and the Mission, desires by this resolution urgently to request the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and the parliament of Canada to enact legislation which shall ensure reduction of the soldier settlers' lands to the extent of at least 50 per cent of their original amount.
I am glad to see that there is this further paragraph:
Resolved that this meeting desires to express appreciation to Colonel Johnston, Superintendent, S.S.B., Vernon District, and staff, for their considerate treatment of the soldier settlers during the past difficult period.
I am glad of that expression of appreciation because, as I say, I can only speak with detailed knowledge of the conditions in Yale. My impression for years past has been that the officials in that office have been doing everything that was humanly possible to make the Soldier Settlement Act a success, and to assist soldiers in their efforts.
But the introduction of this entirely new suggestion, that the reduction should be 50 per cent of the original purchase value, I think perhaps may come about from lack of a clear understanding on the part of those soldier settlers of just what revaluation means. Take it for a moment with regard to orchard land. If an orchard is to be maintained, the work you have to do to it is not going to be definitely beneficial in the year in which it is done. The proper way to build up the soil of an orchard is to cover crop and to turn that cover crop in. There is no dollars and cents return to the owner during that year, nor indeed at any time, except in the effect which the increasing of the humus of the soil has on the quantity and quality of the fruit. The same remark applies, to an extent, to pruning, spraying, thinning-all this is work which has to be done if the orchard is to be maintained at a proper degree of excellence to carry the fruit of subsequent years. Now, the soldier settler says, if revaluation is taken on now it may easily develop that the present-day value of that orchard is higher than it was when it was purchased, but yet the purchase was made during a time when land values were inflated, and it still is and always will be an undue burden on that soldier settler so long as he has to make his payments to the board on too high a value. I think in that also if the minister would make a statement that all these matters will be taken into account and that a real investigation will take place as to the sum of money paid in the year of purchase with regard to what that land really was worth, then the soldier settlers of Yale will at least understand the question much more thoroughly than they do at present.
With regard to the details of the resolution on which the bill is to be based, I am inclined to think, again confining my. remarks to those parts of which I have knowledge, that there is virtue in the suggestion that in the first place the settler and the represent-
Soldier Settlement Act

atives of the board should sit down across a table and endeavour to come to an understanding. As I said just now, officials of the board have realized for some time, I believe, that revaluation of at least some of these properties is an absolute necessity, and I believe that it will be possible to sift out those cases where the settler wishes revaluation and remove a considerable number of non-contentious cases from the list.
When it comes to the second proposition in the resolution, I cannot say that I am pleased with it, for that very reason which has already been mentioned. It matters not what government is in the saddle at the time; there will be the danger of partisanship entering into the provisions of the committee, and I would very much prefer to see a county court judge substituted, as has already been suggested by several hon. members, or in some way brought into the arrangement to be made, because I think the county court judge can reasonably be expected to be free from partisanship.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This is one of the very baffling questions confronting this House, Mr. Chairman. The principle of revaluation after sale is one admitting of application very seldom. The ground advanced here is twofold, as I grasp the debate which took place the other day, and also that of to-day. The first point is that there were certain lands sold by the board-which is by the government-to the settler above the actual value at the time of sale. This is more or less a minor ground for applying the re-4 p.m. valuation principle. The major point is that there has been, since the sale, a very marked depreciation in the value of these lands, as of all other lands in the country.
Referring to the first point for a moment, I would not endeavour to contend that in the performance of the enormous task undertaken by the Soldier Settlement Board, that in the administration of its great trust, involving the purchase of some 18,000 farms from one coast to the other and involving the value of lands far beyond this total for purposes of loans other than actual purchases and sales, there were not cases where the soldier paid too much. At the same time I hope I will be pardoned if I emphasize the fact that if ever precautions were taken to fortify the settler against inroads of that kind, they were taken in this great project. The land was valued not only by officers of the board but by independent appraisers, and the land had to be selected by and the price agreed to by the soldier himself. No soldier was permitted to enter who had not had farming experience

which should have qualified him to value the land, or who had not had such training at the expense of the board as would similarly qualify him. I may say that so successfully did these precautions appear to have been that in every year during the time of those purchases, and during every session of parliament, hon. members were invited to lay before the board any case of a purchase and sale above the market value at the time, which had come to their knowledge. Until I left office, which was more than two years after the system was under way, and which was after t'he expiration of the purchase of almost all the soldier lands, there had not been one single case of a complaint presented by a member of this House on any side which even the member himself claimed to have been established. As a matter of fact I can still recall that members of the House, speaking from their seats, related cases of over-valuation; being subsequently requested in writing by the board to designate the farm and the purchaser, they refused to divulge the information. I may mention as well that in one province-for these circumstances I intimately recall-the board found it impossible to make any extensive purchases of school lands. The House will note that in the original act provision was made for the valuation by an officer of the province affected and by an officer of the board of any school lands requested by soldiers. In the case of the province of Alberta, for the simple reason that the officer of the provincial government absolutely declined to acquiesce in values low enough to meet the views of the representatives of the board, we found it impossible to make any substantial purchases of school lands. I .may interpolate here that the then Premier of Alberta was the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton).
It is true that on the west shore of lake Manitoba we encountered a rascal who attained an office under the board. He subsequently got out of the country, which is the reason he is not serving a term in the penitentiary at the present time. He was largely responsible for purchases made there which certainly were not right, and some of which were nothing less than fraudulent. In addition though to his presence in the organization, we must remember that on the west shore of lake Manitoba there was at the time a very considerable development and optimism, resulting in extensive purchases by private individuals, among whom I will be forgiven if I include myself. Land was purchased then at prices not one-third of which could be realized today. The lands have since been simply abandoned, and the private individuals have had

Soldier Settlement Act
to take their losses. The district did not open up as expected, but it is to be hoped that subsequently it will revive, as I personally think it will.
Similar occurrences took place on the east shore to a degree, 1 cannot doubt it, after hearing the words of the hon. member for Selkirk. In a word, wherever new territory was invaded the results were by no means satisfactory. The board would have done better if it had confined its operations more rigidly to well settled districts. However, this minor cause or reason for revaluation may be dismissed with those few words. I do not think it applies very far, and wherever it does apply, though it is true that the soldier acquiesced, and that in the main he knew the values just about as well as anyone else, still the board did adopt a sort of relationship of trustee for the soldier. It was not a specific legal trusteeship, but the board acted in a measure as his guardian, and I would think that wherever there was a case of overvaluation as contrasted with the actual value at the time, there should be now some reparation made, to the full extent of the overvaluation.
Of course, were the cases confined to those our problem would be very simple-the number would be negligible as compared with the total. Unfortunately, the entire enterprise has run against difficulties infinitely more complicated and serious. In one sentence the difficulties are due to depreciation of farm lands. This depreciation, I should say, commenced about the middle of 1921 and was more marked over the western provinces, and naturally so, than over any other part of Oanada for the reason that it was there the great bulk of the system was in operation. It was in the western provinces that the soldier settlement venture encountered a great share of its difficulties. What the depreciation has been it is not possible to fix, and even if it were the average would not apply everywhere. The question comes: Should we attack the problem of seeking to restore to the soldier his loss through depreciation? Ordinarily a purchaser would have no such right. The civil purchaser outside the soldier has no such right; he must take his chances of a fall in values as he takes his chances of a profit on the rise. But even aside from the special claims of the soldier, in the ordinary affairs of men the vendor very frequently has to bear a share of the loss caused by depreciation of the land he sold. I do not doubt that it is a very general practice throughout western Canada today, possibly extending into the eastern provinces, that vendors of land make new arrangements with the purchasers-make them simply for the reason that it is the best thing they can do. The only other alternative is to lose that purchaser and take chances of a resale later on. Consequently, in the interests of the vendor, they deem it wisdom to adopt the principle of revaluation such as this bill seeks to adopt here. When we add to these reasons the special claims which we always recognize * the soldier to possess I do not think very much of a case can be made against revaluation.
Then we are immediately faced with the question: How is the revaluation to be effected? This is a most difficult and complicated, if not baffling, one. One parliament, during four sessions, because of the difficulties in the way, was unable to come to any conclusion or recommendation. The difficulties, of course, are manifest. There is the utter impossibility of being fair to all the soldiers. I do not like to see any principle applied that is not fair to all the soldiers, in fact I am very apprehensive of the difficulties we are going to encounter later in starting revaluation at all, simply because it is utterly beyond human compass to extend it to all alike. Possibly, though, the exigencies are such that even that objection must be cast aside; we have to try to do the best we can.
Now, the minister has laid before the committee a scheme which I am afraid is not very mature, which is the most vulnerable I think of anything that has yet come from his mind. Indeed, if it were not the Minister of the Interior but any other member of the government who was presenting this plan I would be inclined to move first of all to change the title, and I would head the bill something like this: An Act to coerce soldier settlers into voting for the government, and to replenish the campaign funds of the party. I am not attributing these purposes to the minister, I know how innocent he is politically, but if he had intended such a plan designedly he could not be more open to the charge.


Charles A. Stewart: I know my right hon. friend is unduly suspicious but I should like him to explain where he sees any chance for political capital or campaign funds in this bill.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might expect the answer much more readily and would, perhaps, get it more fully, if he would consult the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Cross). It he did that I am sure the hon.
2058	COMMONS
Soldier Settlement Act
gentleman would tell him how it could be done by means of this measure. However, I will try to make it plain in my own simple way.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
talking to the hon. member for Athabaska, I am talking to the right hon. leader of the opposition just now.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will try my prentice hand at it, but in this category I am very much like the minister himself. The minister proposes that there will be committees appointed here, there and everywhere to revalue the land. First of all, though, he proposes that before the committee operates he himself, through his representative, and the soldier will sit down and decide what the soldier is going to get by way of substractions from his liability. Was ever such power given a minister in the world's history? Why the minister by that act is simply handed, I would suggest, thirty or forty million dollars of the credit of Canada, of cash if you wish to call it that, and he is given a free hand to distribute that as he likes, as may best suit his advantage or party advantage among the soldier settlers of this Dominion. That is really what it amounts to, there is no restriction put on him at all. There are 17,000 settlers to use that money and it will be distributed where it will do the most good, and the minister can put his own interpretation on the meaning of the word " good." That is what the minister could do under this legislation. He will not dispute it. Does my hon. friend suggest to me that such is not the case?


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my
right hon. friend's pardon. The minister would dispute it.


Arthur Meighen: He could not.


Charles A. Stewart: However,
you are making your speech; go ahead.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will not
dispute it, not in any reasoned speech. The soldier settler claims a reduction, and the minister could give him $100, $1,000, or $5,000 if he owes that much.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister cannot do anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's representative can.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, well,
that is different.


Arthur Meighen: Well it was always the same in my time.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess my right hon. friend had more power over the people he appointed that I ever had.


Arthur Meighen: The representative cannot do it without the minister's authority. The minister chooses the representative. He appoints him, he dismisses him, he does what he likes with him-the representative is his agent. But if it comports more with the minister's sense of propriety to say that he can do through his agent what he cannot do with his own hands I have no objection to the euphemism, none whatever. This money is placed in his hands. Seventeen thousand voters with seventeen thousand' wives, and I know not how many children, are all there. The minister, through his agent, spreads the forty millions round and I do not think he will find it very hard to reach his objective. It is a different thing when a minister is given power to buy land which he must sell at the time he pays to the soldier. He has no incentive whatever there to do anything save to get the lowest price for that soldier. There is nothing on earth he can gain there. But here he has got everything to gain by being lavish to the soldier. In the one case he could not possibly misapply or abuse the power given in relation to the purchase. In this case he could misapply and abuse to his heart's content.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my right hon. friend still thinking of the minister?


Arthur Meighen: I absolved the minister
in point of intention at the first.


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend appointed this board in the first place. I have never changed them.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
right hon. friend just let me read for a moment what it is proposed to do:
The minister may appoint district arbitration committees having jurisdiction in such soldier settlement districts as may be necessary, each committee to consist of three members, one of whom shall be an official of the Soldier Settlement Board, and one a representative of the Veterans organization in the district.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the distinction.


Arthur Meighen: I have not got to that
point yet, but it will be bad enough when I get there. I am now at the preliminary stage.

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: The object
is that there shall be a fair settlement between the Soldier Settlement Board and the soldier.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I am objecting to, the fact that the minister can do this through his own appointee. It is true that he was appointed before the present minister came into office, but the minister can dismiss him and appoint another. The appointee is the minister's own agent, and can throw whatever sum he likes off the price of the soldier's land. It does not matter what his will may be, if he feels and is so disposed he can just use that soldier whatever way he likes, and if the soldier is looking after his own interests-


Charles A. Stewart: If he controls the committee he can. However, I am perfectly willing and I will be delighted to be deprived of the power of appointing even the janitor, if that will suit my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the matter of appointment, it is the whole principle of revaluation.


Charles A. Stewart: If my right hon. friend has that in his mind please get rid of it because I do not want it.


Arthur Meighen: Then I have made considerable progress if we have got to the extent of discussing a new measure, instead of the one before us. I was discussing this measure. I do not think parliament should really put such power in the hands of any minister, no matter who he is, and if I were putting it in anyone's power, certainly in this government, I would rather give it to the Minister of the Interior than any other. He may value that compliment more highly than I do.


Charles A. Stewart: I am always perfectly willing to take it from the source from which it comes naturally.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says that if they do not agree there will be an arbitration board. Well, if he goes low enough we will always agree; if he is generous enough with the soldier there will be no difficulty in agreeing. In a word, as it stands this puts the whole settler population of Canada right in the political hands of the minister. Let us pass on from that and assume the minister is not prepared to make reductions sufficient to satisfy the soldier. This involves the necessity of erecting an arbitration tribunal. Now what a tribunal! The tribunal is the minister's
representative, the official of the veterans association and someone else he names. I will not say that the other one will be president of the local Liberal association, but I know of ministers who would appoint no other, and I know this minister will appoint no other if he yields to the importunities of his colleagues. Consequently this bill will hand over to a long series of Liberal campaign committees all over Canada just thirty to forty million dollars of the money in the treasury of Canada. That is what, it will do, and so sacrosanct is this tribunal to be that it is beyond all appeal. They know the final value of the land, and nobody else, and you cannot appeal from their decision to anybody, however high or however exalted. What they say finally ends it, and of course two of them could overrule the other. So that in the event of the representative on the committee named by the Soldier Settlement Board wishing to hold down the reduction, he would be utterly helpless and powerless in the hands of the official of the veterans association and of the Liberal named by the minister. The minister first of all takes all the power himself to distribute this largess, but if he is not willing to distribute it with a generous enough hand, he then puts it in the power of committees which he names, and whom he knows will be representative of the political interest of the party in power. I do not think the minister will seriously argue that any such thing should be done, or that we can justify before the people of Canada any such step. I know that he will contest the figure I suggest. I said thirty to forty million. The minister was good enough to tell me personally that he did not figure that this would cost over $10,000,000. I do not know how in the world he arrives at that figure, for this reason. If you tell a man owning a farm, whether a soldier or whatever he is, who is having a struggle-and most of them are-that if he finds the reduction insufficient he can get a committee appointed with power to make another reduction, you cannot tell me there will be only 25 per cent who will apply for reduction. I will give my estimate of the percentage, and my estimate will be, that 100 per cent will apply. What is the situation? We have 17,000 farms to be revalued. I do not think it is very seriously questioned that there is a natural depreciation, which would average, it may be, 40 per cent-forty per cent on over $30,000,000, because there is $38,000,000 owing-but does anyone think that with this plan we will keep up to the actual depreciation? Never in the world.
Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think in the light of the experience of the sales we have made it would run anything like 40 per cent. I placed it at 20 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister is right.


Charles A. Stewart: I am basing that opinion on the result of the sales that have been made already.


Arthur Meighen: But as hon. members have stated-and I do not doubt the truth of the statement-the sales have been largely of the better parcels of land.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it is unfair to say that. There are still 1,200 farms-I am simply repeating what I got from the Soldier Settlement Board-that have been selected as first-class farms, or in that category, that we hope to settle this year with British settlers. There will be about 1,100 farms of the class described by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson). Some of them are of little or no value. Fortunately they are located in three or four different districts. They will still be on hand. But taking the 1,200, plus the sales that have been made, and applying that average over the whole of the purchases, it would look as though there would not be more than 20 per cent of the settlers now on the land who are entitled to any reduction.


Arthur Meighen: The minister pays a compliment to the original purchasers even greater than I pay myself. I think in western Canada there has been a 40 per cent reduction in the value of real estate.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend might be right with respect to 1923, but that is not true now.


Arthur Meighen: On account of appreciation since?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I hope it is not true.
It will be a bright morning for me when I awaken and find it is not true. But I am afraid it is just about true, and the minister will have many cases where there is far more depreciation. I earnestly hope he is right. But my hopes are not very lively. I really think he will find that 40 per cent is just about the average reduction in the value of real estate. I mean since these lands were purchased in 1920, because undoubtedly they were then at the very acme, at the very height. So that the suggestion as to the tremendous amount involved is not an

exaggerated suggestion. It certainly is not exaggerated if this method of arriving at the amount is to be finally decided upon. Then the question comes, what should take its place? What would be a better plan? This is a much more difficult question to answer. Here is certainly one instance where criticism is much easier than constructive suggestion. Ordinarily when the funds of the nation are to be claimed by a private individual the method adopted is to have a court decide on the merits of the case and make the valuation. The Exchequer court is erected for that purpose. I know it is needless to suggest that the Exchequer court could be used so extensively as would be necessary here. It has not ramifications wide enough nor members numerous enough, but nevertheless it seems to me the principle should apply and we should try to make such variation as will suit the altered circumstances. Of course if the minister himself were the owner of the lands and suffered by the loss, there would be no need of any protection. Self-interest would take care of the situation. But just because the government is trustee, and self-interest is eliminated, then there must be something in the nature of a court established, and if something in the nature of a court is to be established, let it be as nearly as possible a court with all the safeguards of a court, a court where all selfinterest will be eliminated and all local prejudice will be removed from consideration of the court; in a word, with all those other qualities which have given the courts of the land the status they have among our people. Certainly the so-called tribunals which the minister suggests have none of those qualities at all; they have all the weaknesses and" none of the virtues.
The best suggestion I have heard-and I have passed it to the minister-is that the county court judge could be used for this purpose. The objection has been raised that county court judges were lawyers and I suppose in a sense they are lawyers still. I do not appreciate the objection on that ground; I cannot understand its being presented, as I believe it has been, chiefly by hon. gentlemen to the left. If this objection is to apply as against a county court judge, it would apply just the same against the whole structure of the Exchequer court. The business of the Exchequer court judge is mainly to decide land values, very frequently farm land values, often city land values, sometimes the value of chattels, personal property. As a judge he does not know anything about the value of the land whether

Soldier Settlement Act
it is a farm or city property, or of the value of personal property, but as a lawyer he knows how to weigh the evidence of others on the value of the land or property and that is because he is so appointed. His experience as well as his training gives him that quality. That reasoning applies equally well to this case. County court judges not only are qualified to weigh evidence but have considerable experience along that line. They have to weigh evidence as to land values in the pursuit of their duties week in and week out, year in and year out. They have to do so not only in civil suits but in relation to appeals from assessments and all such things as that. That is their work. On the score of qualification, speaking generally- there will be exceptions-I do not think any attack can be made upon them.
But there is the further fact and an important one, that they have the time. Those situated where they will be required for the purpose of this legislation undoubtedly have the time to devote themselves to the task. I have long contended that we have far too many county court judges in this country. We could get along with far fewer, but if we have them, why not utilize them for this purpose? I am sure the great majority of them would be glad to be of service, and I know many of them who, like the sword laid by, rust and eat into themselves ingloriously because they have not enough to do. They are qualified for the work; they have the leisure, the time, to devote themselves to it, and they are on the ground. You do not have to go far in order to reach them; they are right there. I make this suggestion to the minister: Let him revise this scheme along those lines; put it into his power to come to the terms of the soldier, but make the terms so come to reviewable by the county court judge under such conditions that anybody who would pay more for the land could come in and make the offer and then the judge would say: No, this is not fair to the public; this is an attempt to gain political advantage at the expense of the treasury and I will not permit the reduction. If that safeguard is established, I doubt if it would ever need to be exercised in the whole courts of revaluation. The very presence of it would help.


Mr. NEILL:: ' If the right hon. member will allow me to say so, I think the objection which arose in the Progressive corner of the chamber to county court judges was not so much because they were lawyers or ex-lawyers, but because they were comparatively ignorant of agricultural conditions. Would the right hon. member in his scheme allow or suggest
the assistance to county court judges of agricultural experts, the same as is done in Admiralty court cases?


Arthur Meighen: That is the province of the witness. The judge has to weigh the evidence adduced. As a matter of fact in the west the county court judges are pretty good judge* of land; they are engaged in that work all the time; but in case they are not, it is the evidence they weigh.


Alan Webster Neill: How about the Admiralty
court?


Arthur Meighen: That court deals with
other subjects altogether.


Alan Webster Neill: Admiralty court judges are always assisted by experts.


Arthur Meighen: But the experts have no judicial role to play.


Alan Webster Neill: Advisory.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. The witness is advisory. I do not think such assistance would add to the value of the result; I think it would add to the expense. That would be my view of the matter, although undoubtedly it would be an improvement on this. I do not think there will be any difficulty in having county court judges very fairly and thoroughly review these cases, and I should like to see a provision which would make it unnecessary for the soldier to have a lawyer at all. I do not think a lawyer should be necessary. If we are going to authorize the court to appoint a lawyer for the soldier in any case, I would be appalled at the size of the lawyer's bill the board would have to pay, high as my opinion is of the profession, especially when I witness the bills which this government paid last session and the standard they have set. I do not say that they are alone in this offence; the standard has been set for quite a while. I think the standard is an outrage and I do not care who hears my words.


Charles A. Stewart: The right
hon. gentleman hinted at the procedure prior to going to the court. Does he agree with the provision in the bill that an attempt should be made to settle the case with the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but the minister
did not catch the precaution I set. After this settlement is made it should be reviewed on proper notice before a county court judge for the protection of the treasury. If they cannot come to a decision at all, they should both be given an opportunity to appear before the
Soldier Settlement Act

county court judge upon due notice, and the proceedings should be so simple that there should be no necessity of a lawyer appearing on either side. Let the proceeding be summary and quick, but at the same time thorough. It might be possible to have some system afterwards of bringing an appeal before a court composed of all, but I hope that jrould not be necessary. That would be cumbersome and slow, and if such a board existed, I am afraid it would be always or nearly always resorted to.


Charles A. Stewart: A review
would involve a stated case on the part of the board and on the part of the soldier. There would be a difficulty there.


Arthur Meighen: There would be no difficulty in stating the case. You would simply state the value; each side would append his reasons for that value, and the judge would probably want to hear some evidence in that case. But it is a precaution that is essential and I would think, if it existed, if each side knew that that precaution was there, there would be very few oases in wh.'ch there would be any variation of the reduction made by the judge.
This general outline of a constructive suggestion I advance and I advance it with some timidity because I know the whole problem is difficult of solution. If I were to face it in view of one or two individual criticisms, I would say this: There is no provision for this class of cases where a considerable amount has been paid by way of reduction of the advance and where the tribunal would find that the depreciation represented a larger total than the balance owing. I do not doubt there will be many cases, perhaps hundreds of that kind. Is the man then to be given something back by the board?


Charles A. Stewart: We did not insert any provisions; we are leaving that pretty largely to the discretion of the board simply to deal with the men who are on land.


Arthur Meighen: It is essential that there be such a provision. You cannot get away without it. You have either to make a provision that, in the event of the amount of the depreciation being greater than the amount owing, the man is to get that back from the board, or else that amount of depreciation shall in no case be found to be greater than the amount owing. The latter would seem to me to be the necessary, although in some senses an unfair, clause to put in the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: Would that not lead on to another stage at which you would have to deal with a man who really is off the land?


Arthur Meighen: I was just about to say
that this latter suggestion is to my mind necessary, namely, that no depreciation should ever be allowed greater than the balance owing. And it would be necessary, although unfair, because if you put it the other way then you would certainly be obliged to pursue the same principle further and restore the depreciation to those who have paid in full. There are in the proposals other minor defects which it seems to me it would be inappropriate to labour now.


Robert Forke: This is a very important
matter. I have been receiving a great many letters, as I have no doubt most hon. members have done, telling heartrending stories about the struggles in which soldier settlers have found themselves in the matter of payment upon their land. I trust that we shall give to this matter the very best consideration and make the most satisfactory arrangement which it is possible for parliament to arrive at. I have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and with the exception of a few of the little thrusts which I suppose he could not help making at the government his speech on the whole has, I think, been beneficial and helpful in solving this most important question. I do not see why we should be tied down to anything in the resolution in relation to the board which will finally adjudicate upon the value of the land. The valuation of land is one of the most difficult problems to be encountered in connection with agriculture inasmuch as land values vary so much in different localities and according to the geographical situation of the land. The question is also affected by considerations of transportation facilities and other factors that enter into the value of lands.
As regards the final appeal, I listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson). I want to assure that hon. gentleman that, speaking for myself personally as a member of the Progressive party, I am not particularly wedded to any one method so long as it is the best method we can devise of finding out the proper valuation of the lands. A number of years ago it was my privilege, or rather my duty, to value lands in the province of Manitoba, and there was no appeal from the valuation which I made in conjunc-

Soldier Settlement Act
tion with another member of the board. I have always been impressed with the great difficulty of that position, for I used to feel that the task would have been much easier had I known that there might be an appeal from the decisions we gave. I have had a good deal of experience in Manitoba in the valuing of lands. I used to equalize all the assessments of land as between the various municipalities in the province, comparing one municipality with another, and as a result of the work 1 put in at that time I realize, perhaps as well as any one else can, just how difficult it is for one individual or a board to arrive at a fair and correct valuation of any given piece of land.
The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) referred to the valuation of land going down rapidly in British Columbia simultaneously with a fall in fruit prices. He said that the bottom fell out of the fruit market, so that fruit was practically of no value. It struck me as he made this statement that it was rather strange that the price of fruit did not vary very much in the prairie provinces at the time to which he referred. I mention this in passing to show that something is wrong with the economic system when the fruit growers in British Columbia must sell their fruit at very low prices while the consumers in the prairies never realize the fact that the value of this commodity to the growers in British Columbia is on the decline. Someone was evidently making far too big a profit out of the fruit growers.
Coming back to the question of valuing lands', I think we all realize that one of the great difficulties in connection with the matter is the fact that these lands were purchased during a time of inflation. As a matter of fact that is the trouble with the rural credit schemes in most of the prairie provinces. Eural credit was undertaken when land and stock were at peak prices, and when the security offered for loans seemed ample, although in a year or two it was not sufficient to cover the amount of the loan. When the soldiers came back from the war, an arrangement was made to have them settle on lands which unfortunately were being sold at very high prices. The soldier returned weary and worn from war service, and he was looking for a home immediately; he wanted a place in which to settle down and build a home for himself. I claim therefore that he was not then in the best condition to take care of himself. He was ready to take the first place that apparently suited him, and he entered into an arrangement which since he has found himself utterly unable to carry out. It is
therefore the duty of parliament and of the country to see that justice is done to these men who have gone on the land.
I hope that we shall get some really constructive criticism from every quarter of the House. The measure having been introduced by the government, I do hope that the leader of the opposition will lend his constructive ability to make the act as fair and satisfactory as possible. We do not want it to prove a failure; we do not want it made an instrument for the aggrandizement of either one party or the other: we want a bill that will work to the advantage of the soldier settlers themselves and do full justice by them.
As to the appraisal of land values, I do not think that it would be the best thing to leave it to the superintendent of the board to decide upon the values. I must admit that while the leader of the opposition was speaking I could see some room for criticism in this regard; it seems to me that probably this would not be the very best method to adopt to begin with. I do not see why we could not adopt some system similar to a board of arbitration. The local superintendent acting with someone appointed by the soldier settlers might comprise the first board of appraisal. I do not think that the soldier settler's representative ought to be a lawyer or a businessman-well, I would not say that he should not be a businessman, but I would insist upon his being well acquainted with land valuation. These two might not agree; and while I was at first opposed to the idea of carrying an appeal to the county court judge, I have come to the view that if the two appraisers forming the first board could not agree then the appeal might be made to a judge. I would not be entirely averse to such an arrangement. It has been argued of course that a county court judge might not be a judge of land; he might not know very much about land values. But I am inclined to agree that he could perhaps come to some satisfactory decision, after listening to the evidence submitted to him on appeal, and strike a reasonable balance between the differences of opinion upon which he might adjudicate. So that I am not standing firmly against a proposal of this kind. In fact, Mr. Chairman, before the bill is passed I would be willing to accept almost any proposal, no matter how I might have regarded it at the outset if I thought it was an improvement on my own idea. The great thing after all is to enact a really good piece of legislation that will do justice to our returned men on the land. I know that this will be very difficult to accomplish. I shall not at-
Soldier Settlement Act

tempt to estimate the amount of money it will involve, but we might as well make up our minds to do what is necessary. This is a war loss, there is no mistake about it, and it is not going to be lessened by ignoring it year after year while conditions are steadily growing worse. I would rather see mistakes made and the land undervalued than have the present condition continue indefinitely. This is one of our post-war mistakes, and we are doing neither ourselves nor the soldiers on the land justice wrhen we leave them unassisted to accomplish an impossible task.
One of the difficulties arose from the fact that at the outset a great many people would not believe what they were told about the unsatisfactory condition of our agriculture. Those of us who are farming our own unencumbered lands found during some of those lean years that the balance was on the wrong side of the ledger. I do not mind telling the committee that one year I went behind $2,000 although I did not owe one dollar upon my farm. How was a soldier settler to get through such a disastrous year when he was further handicapped by having to make payments on his land? It was an impossible task. The reason perhaps that we of the Progressive group were more sympathetic towards our -soldier settlers was that we were in a better position than most, other members to understand the actual difficulties which confronted those men.
I am sure the minister will be ready to adopt any suggestions to improve the bill which will be based on this resolution, and I appeal to every member of the committee to regard the proposed legislation as at least an attempt to do justice to our soldier settlers by helping to remedy what at the present time I believe is nothing less than a scandal.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, I was for many years a member of the Pensions committee of this House which had this question in their charge, and I can readily understand the difficulty the minister has in framing a bill which will be satisfactory to all of our returned soldiers who have settled on the land. I would ask him at the next sitting -of the House to 'be prepared to give us a little information along these lines:
First, the total number of soldier settlers in each province.
Second, the number who have paid in full.
Third, the number who are in arrears.
Fourth, the total value of the land occupied at the present time by returned soldiers who will ostensibly come under this measure.
We should also like to know, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has suggested,

who will properly come under this legislation. The 'bill itself reads:
The settler. . . . who has not repaid his indebtedness to the board,-
I presume that would mean those who have not repaid it in full.
-and where there has been a decrease or depreciation in the market value of such land...
Also the settler apparently must be at present residing on the land. It appears to me that under this resolution a man who owed a few dollars to the board would find himself in the position of having some money coming to him from the government instead of having a further payment to make. Along that line the difficulty which we had in our committee in the past-and it is a difficulty that this or any other government must face -was to do justice to those men who by hard work-as contrasted with the carelessness of those who have failed to keep up their payments-have paid for their land in full. We have thousands of cases, I believe, in every province where two men on exactly similar land, which then and to-day would be valued at exactly the same figure, provide a striking contrast, one having paid in full and the other having paid practically nothing. Is it fair to the man who by his industry and by his thrift or by the assistance of his friends,-which ultimately he must repay-should receive no consideration while the other man, who simply through lack of industry and economy is in arrear with his payments, should be granted a reduction of from 30 to 40 per cent in his indebtedness? This is a question which the government must consider very seriously. It is a question that is receiving a great deal of attention among our returned soldiers.
I think this measure should 'be considered entirely upon its merits, not from the point of view, as expressed by the leader of our Progressive friends (Mr. Forke), that we should do everything we possibly can for the returned soldier, for in this case it would only lead to benefiting those who have not paid at the expense of those who have.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I also have been a member of the committee dealing with the pensions and settlement of returned soldiers, since its inception. I have a very distinct recollection at the time when legislation of this character was first brought down of saying that I was afraid many of these soldier settlers would curse the day that they ever accepted a loan to go on the land. I am sorry that my prediction has come true. It is generally admitted to-

Soldier Settlement Act
day that the conditions on our farms are not at all satisfactory. The government by this measure propose to help to a limited extent some of the soldiers who are still on the land which they secured under the soldier settlement scheme. But I think we should first of all very carefully consider what has brought about these deplorable conditions. I have witnessed a disposition on the part of the government ever since they came into office to belittle the interests of those who are engaged in agriculture, and to sacrifice those interests in order to obtain concessions and advantages for those engaged in other industries or occupations. I have repeatedly directed the attention of the government to this matter. A year ago when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) introduced a trade treaty with one of our sister dominions I took the ground that it was very unfair and unjust to those of our people who were engaged in agriculture, particularly to the returned soldiers who Had been induced to go upon the land under the soldier settlement scheme. These men returning from the struggle and turmoil of war regarded these loans as very attractive, and the quietness of country life appealed to many of them, particularly to many who had not had very much farming experience, with the result that many of them have already been forced to abandon their farms and lose the money which they put into them, while others are in very difficult and straitened circumstances today. I readily admit that something must be done for those men. To my mind it is one of the greatest tragedies we have had happen in this country, that men who have rendered such sacrifice and service to their country should afterwards be placed in such a position that after years of labour and after spending everything they had, they are practically forced to abandon their last possessions. Now we are proposing a measure of relief or revaluation, and at the same time the government have another scheme under consideration, namely, old age pensions. All these things lead one to wonder what the end is to be. We talk about the wonderful possibilities of this country; the country apparently has great possibilities, but there is something radically wrong with the means by which this country is governed at this time. I have always taken the stand-and particularly so since the great country to the south adopted a tariff which is absolutely prohibitory-that it is absolutely essential for us to adopt something of that nature, so far as those engaged in agriculture are concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. What has the tariff to do with this question?


Donald Sutherland: Notwithstanding the interruption, Mr. Chairman, I consider that it has very much to do with the question, and that it is largely responsible for the condition at present existing among those on our farms.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Donald Sutherland: What is the point of order?


Mr. DUNNING:: The point of order is
the one raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Is my hon. friend discussing the resolution before the House?


Donald Sutherland: I
expected that a point of order would have been raised after the interruptions by the two hon. gentlemen opposite, but apparently none is to be raised. I was pointing out that the conditions which prevail to-day among the returned men, the conditions which are responsible for the remedial measures brought forward to assist those still on the land, might be remedied by other means. Before the orders of the day were called this afternoon I endeavoured to get some information from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) with regard to a matter which affects these men very very much indeed, but failed to do so.
The thing which is so apparent is that these men, with a very limited capital, engaged in mixed farming, in poultry raising, in dairying and in work of that kind being unable to start on an extensive scale, particularly in western Canada. I know that in Ontario they usually bought small farms and carried on that sort of farming, and to-day the government are endeavouring to supply the people of Canada with the products of foreign countries rather than with the products of our own farms. This is one of the most serious things with which the returned 5 p.m. soldier has to contend. Realizing that, I introduced a motion in the House some time ago, regretting that some redress was not being provided for these men, and it was this class -above all others that I had in mind at the time. Now we propose to take $301)00,000 or maybe $40,000,000 out of the treasury of the country and hand it over to the 17,000 men still left on the land, by a revaluation of their property, and attempt to remedy their difficulties in that way. If conditions are as bad as the government admit they are, and if agricultural conditions in this country are so unsatisfactory that the value of land has depreciated to so great an extent, what about the rest of the people who are not returned soldiers and who are leaving the land by the thousands? Even

Soldier Settlement Act

more would be leaving if they could get away. The blighting influence of this government has been noticed not only during the last year but almost since the time they came into office, and that influence has been encouraged by my hon. friends to my left who have stated, notwithstanding the remarks of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), that they understand the conditions of the returned soldiers better than anyone else. I say they have not shown the interest in the returned soldiers which they should have shown.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I would like to ask the hon. member if this distress did not commence before this government came into office?


Donald Sutherland: I
am referring to the conditions which have developed since this government assumed office.


Malcolm McLean: Did not this
distress commence before this government came into office?


Donald Sutherland: Is it the distress in the government ranks which my hon. friend speaks of?


Malcolm McLean: The distress due to the deflation of land values; did it not commence before this government came into office?


Donald Sutherland: It
is certainly much more pronounced at present than it has been at any time since the government took office.


Malcolm McLean: I would like the hon. gentleman to answer the question. Will he not admit that this distress commenced before the present government- came into office?


Donald Sutherland: I do not understand that I am under orders from the hon. gentleman.
Mr. McLEAN. (Melfort):	I simply asked
the hon. member if he would be courteous enough to answer my question. I am not trying to give out any orders.


Donald Sutherland: I
may say to my hon. friend that it has been so noticeable since the government took office, and at present the distress is so apparent that all these remedial measures are being suggested-old age pensions, relief for the men who have gone on the land. This is the best evidence I can advance to show that the distress is more acute to-day than it ever was before.


Malcolm McLean: So the hon.
gentleman refuses to answer my question, does he?


Donald Sutherland: Just along that line, Mr. Chairman, take the case of a returned soldier out in my hon. friend's constituency. Suppose he is carrying on a farm in a small way; his revenue is largely derived from dairying, or possibly from poultry raising. What does he find to-day, as a result of the operation of a measure put into effect by hon. gentlemen opposite?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, what does he find?


Donald Sutherland: Yes, what does he find? He does not find what the farmer in the United States finds.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend deny that butter and eggs are higher in Canada at the moment than they are in the United States? That is the final answer.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend knows as well as anyone-


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly I know.


Donald Sutherland: - that in the southern states, where the warm weather comes in much earlier than it does in Canada, conditions are much more favourable for production than in Canada during the winter. This was the argument advanced by the Minister of Finance.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that in Canada to-day the price of butter and eggs is higher than it is in the United States. That is the point.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: And the hon.
member ought to know the reason.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I know the reason.


Donald Sutherland: The predictions of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Finance, that they were going to encourage by the Australian treaty a continuous supply of dairy products, meats and such things from the southern hemisphere during the winter months, induced the people of this country to export their stock of supplies early at low prices. They did not keep their stock for the higher prices, as had been customary in the past.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Soldier Settlement Act


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friends laugh, and I heard the new Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) say, "Isn't this awful?" Let me inform the Min-of Railways that during the month of March to date we imported from the United States 1,734,651 dozen eggs, under a tariff of 3 cents per dozen. Let Canadians ship their eggs over to the United States and find out what treatment they will get from that country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because the price is
higher here than it is there.


Donald Sutherland: The LTnited States imposed a tariff of 12 cents a pound on butter going into that country in order to protect their own producers. What has happened in the case of this country? During the three months of this year, 1926, under the treaty negotiated by hon. gentlemen opposite, there have been imported into Canada no less than 4,406,610 pounds of butter from Australia and New Zealand.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the price was higher than anywhere else m the world.


Donald Sutherland: The argument of the Minister of Agriculture seems to be: The more you bring in the higher the price will be. In consequence of heavy exports of Canadian butter somewhat of a shortage was created in the home market. This was followed by a rise in price with the result that we are now up against competition from Australia and New Zealand, who are shipping large quantities of their own butter into the Dominion bonused by Australians to the extent of 6 cents per pound. The inducement held out to soldier settlers, and others engaged in the farming industry is, "Keep down the tariff on butter to one cent a pound and permit of subsidized imports from abroad and everything will be well." During the month of March, up to the present, the 29th, we imported 1,165,232 pounds of butter from Australia-


Mr. CANNON:: I rise to a point of order.


Donald Sutherland: -to compete with the butter which should be produced by our own people.


Lucien Cannon: Unless my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, promises to conclude his remarks soon I call your attention to rule 19.


Donald Sutherland: It is not to be conditional if it is a point of order 14011-1321


Lucien Cannon: It will be peremptory. The rule to which I desire to draw attention is No. 19 which contains the following paragraph:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
I have heard my hon. friend speak at least fifty times on the question of Australian eggs and butter.


Donald Sutherland: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hold in my bands the returns from the Department of Customs dated yesterday, and the minister never heard me discuss this matter before.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would ask the hon.
member to keep as near the subject of the resolution as possible. I am quite sure that now his attention has been drawn to the point he will do so.


Donald Sutherland: I
rose to point out that the government, as a result of their own actions, have been largely responsible for the conditions which prevail. Instead of providing a real remedy or cure for those conditions they are now seeking to advance a scheme which will make possible by appointees of the government a supervision over the cancellation of the loans advanced to these men who are on the land, and in that way they will be able if so disposed to control them politically.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. member under
the impression that this scheme provides for the lending of money?


Donald Sutherland: It
provides for the concellation of loans-


John Livingstone Brown: My hon. friend had better
read the resolution.


Donald Sutherland: -
which makes it much more objectionable. It provides for a reduction of the obligations of these men with respect to the amount they owe on these lands. I do not know what else my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) could term it. The resolution is one that certainly is necessary in order to relieve distress, and we might just as well understand the cause of that distress now as at any other time. The situation has become so acute that the prospects for the future are far from bright.
206s
Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: May I tell the hon. gentleman that the situation is not acute at all? The soldiers have paid in more money this year than in any other year in their history.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: When the
hon. gentlemen wanders so far from the subject I find it necessary to correct him.


Donald Sutherland: If
that is the case and the soldiere at present on the land are that much more prosperous surely the case presented by my hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) should receive some consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely.


Donald Sutherland: And those soldier settlers who have been forced off the land and who have lost everything they own are entitled to receive every consideration. Probably when the minister brings down the information which he has promised we will be in a position to discuss the question much more intelligently.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think that information will help my hon. friend one particle if he will permit me to say so.


Donald Sutherland: I
have endeavoured to show that the stand taken by the minister at the present time has no substantial footing.


Charles A. Stewart: The information in question has been brought down from year to year, and is on the records of the House. I am perfectly willing to bring -down further information so that what is .already available may be brought up-to-date.


Donald Sutherland: Since the time of which the minister speaks a great many of these soldier settlers have been forced to give up their holdings and have been sold out.


Charles A. Stewart: I will certainly bring down the desired information.
I do not carry it in my memory.


Donald Sutherland: I
thought from the remarks made that you did.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no, not at all.


Donald Sutherland: 1 should have expected the minister to have full information for hon. members upon bringing a matter of such importance before the House.
JMr. D. Sutherland.]


Charles Avery Dunning: There appears to be a
disposition in all quarters of the House to regard this problem as one which must be dealt with. There is also a general disposition, with one or two exceptions, to regard it as a problem which should be dealt with on a non-partisan basis, and to carry on the discussion from other than an acrimonious, partisan, political point of view. Some hon. gentlemen have departed from that course, and the hon. member who just sat down is one of them. It appears to be possible, notwithstanding the rules of the House, to interject protectionist matter into the discussion of every question, from old age pensions tc soldier settlement, regardless of the irrelevancy of such interjections. The other exception 1 have in mind, of course, was my right hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party, who built up for our view a gigantic scheme of political manipulation which would be under the direction of the Minister of the Interior if the bill to be based on this resolution should pass.


Arthur Meighen: It would be a lot more
serious if it were done under your own.


Charles Avery Dunning: I expected my right hon. friend would probably be a little more humble in connection with this matter, for the reason that this is another of those anaemic babies which his government left on the doorstep of the present administration in 1921. I do not think my right hon. friend can complain of having been ungenerously treated by the Minister of the Interior or by the government with regard to his motives at the time of the inception of the scheme. The right hon. gentleman has been treated, in the past and during the present session, with marked generosity in that regard, although he might very well have been subjected, following the line set by himself, to very grave criticism in connection with the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of the country's money in the carrying out of the scheme of which he was the father. We all admit that hia motives in inaugurating that scheme were of the best, but admitting that, we have a right to demand of him similar fair and courteous treatment in our endeavours to clean up the mess which was left on our doorstep.
My right hon. friend says that the Minister of the Interior is to have the exercise of full power in connection with thirty or forty million dollars' worth of property, and he depicts what could be done in the way of the operation of a political machine when that large sum is being distributed. I ask him, is that fair? The board which will deal with this

Soldier Settlement Act
matter is identically the same board which my right hon. friend appointed when he inaugurated and administered this scheme, and if it was safe to entrust to that board the purchase of seventy or eighty million dollars' worth of land, if the members of this board were honest and non-partisan in all their dealings at that time and under those circumstances, have we not every reason to believe they will be equally fair, equally honest, and equally non-partisan in handling this proposed readjustment of values, that is, in so far as the initial steps provided for in the resolution now before the committee are concerned? What are the initial steps? They are that an arrangement may be made as to the amount of this depreciation between the soldier settler and the board direct, without any local or judicial intermediary. The board and the soldier have been dealing with each other for a number of years. The board purchased the land for the soldier under the regime of my right hon. friend. He says himself this afternoon that the great bulk of the purchases were made at prices which were too high, and he admits that the great bulk of them were made at a time when he was in office. This goes to prove what I said a few moments ago, namely, that we wall have to clean up the mess; and in our endeavour to do that we are subject to attacks such as those to which I have referred. The men who were in charge in my right hon. friend's administration are still in charge. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has not displaced the appointees of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Is it the fact that my right hon. friend knows what his party endeavoured to do that makes him so suspicious about what might be done?


Arthur Meighen: Endeavour to do where?


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with creating a political machine out of the Soldier Settlement Board.


Arthur Meighen: That we endeavoured to create a political machine?


Charles Avery Dunning: I asked if the accusation that was made that we would have power to do certain things under this scheme is based upon the knowledge of what my right hon. friend endeavoured to do?


Arthur Meighen: I ask my hon. friend now if he suggests that we attempted to make a political machine out of it?


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend denies that he ever attempted to make it a political machine.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking my hon.
friend if he suggests it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suggest nothing of the kind, but I ask him to be equally fair to us and not suggest that w" would do the same thing. That was exactly what my right hon. friend did this afternoon. He made the suggestion with regard to the members of the government that they would do what he himself repudiates having done when he sat in the seat of authority. Honesty is not a matter of politics. There are honest Liberals and honest Conservatives. I believe that my right hon. friend endeavoured to operate this scheme honestly and fairly, and I only ask of him that he will be equally generous with regard to the motives of those of us who are in charge of affairs now. That is not asking too much.
With regard to the machinery set up under this resolution, does my right hon. friend not see the similarity between this machinery which he condemns and that which he set up for the purchase of the land in the first place? My hon. friend from Brandon will recognize the machinery which was established, I am sure, and it did involve the appointment of local boards of appraisement. If it was perfectly right and just to have local boards of appraisement when the land was purchased, what then is politically or publicly wrong with having local boards of appraisement with respect to the depreciation which has occurred since? Surely that is a matter of common sense. So far as the government is concerned we would appreciate suggestions not actuated by political malice or partisanship, but suggestions of the character my right hon. friend made during the greater part of his speech when he got away from political spleen and political malice.
So far as the district court judge is concerned, he, of course, by virtue of his position, would be above suspicion of influence in connection w'ith this matter, but would deal with it from the purely practical point of view. In regard to the appeal going to the district court judge, may I say this: In connection with matters of an almost similar character, having to do with land values for assessment purposes, for many years each of the western provinces followed the procedure of appeal to the district court judge. There is a tendency to get away from that practice nowadays. That is not due to any lack of faith in the judiciary, but because the determining value of land is not merely a matter of evidence; all sorts of opinion as to the value of a parcel of land are expressed
Soldier Settlement Act

before a judge. It is rather a more practical method, and for that reason in the western provinces-and I believe in some of the eastern provinces-there hate been developed special tribunals, usually for the whole province, having to do solely with the assessment work, men skilled in the matter of land value, skilled in the matter of assessment. In Saskatchewan, for instance, there is an assessment commission of three men, all of them experienced in the matter of assessment and land values, having to do with that and that alone; and they are the court of appeal with regard to the value of lands generally. I think it would be the testimony of men from that part of Canada who are familiar with that type of settlement that this system works better and more satisfactorily than an appeal to the local county court judge, for the reason that the opinion of one judge as to the value of land may vary very greatly from the opinion of his brother judge from the district alongside of him.
In conclusion, I say that the government is not desirous of approaching this matter at all from the point of view of party advantage. There is no thought in the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior of creating a political machine; indeed the right hon leader of the opposition accorded to the minister a certain political innocence which I fear he would not accord to me. But perhaps he will believe me when I say that I never had in my mind any idea that it would be possible to do with this measure what he suggested we are going to do, until he himself made reference to it this afternoon-he compels me to think about it.
But after all this subject is too great for even the friendly bickering which may take place across the floor of the House. It bristles with too many problems. If we cannot deal with it without political partisanship we certainly cannot solve it by the aid of political partisanship, and I feel sure the minister will be prepared to give consideration, on the further stages of the bill, to the constructive suggestions which have been made, with the object of dealing more effectively with what is admitted to be a most difficult matter indeed. I am not much enamoured personally of the suggestion with respect to the appointment of the district court judge. I recognize the difficulties of the district board of arbitration. I have personally a great deal -more faith in the possibility of securing a proper settlement as between the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler than I have in any subsequent appeal. The machinery for subsequent appeals must be created, of

course, to deal with that class of case which cannot be settled by negotiation. But I do not believe that the appeal machinery should be set up in such form as to invite wholesale appeal, because costs will be involved in appeals. You may say, "Have no lawyers." Well there will be lawyers, and they will be needed1. Usually they do a lot more than they are really required to do, and they charge a lot more than most of us like, but they are handy to have round in connection with matters of this kind.
The. best solution may be to invoice ths assistance of the district court, I feel sure the minister will consider that. But my object in rising was really to plead that we should attempt to deal with this matter on its merits. A general discussion on the tariff on which we cannot agree will not advance this matter, neither will a general discussion on old age pensions or rural credits help us in dealing with -this practical question. We know this is before us. Australian butter is not before us at this moment, neither are Chinese eggs, but we are faced with the position in which we find ourselves in relation to the soldier settlement scheme. I feel sure that my right hon. friend will pardon my reference to his suggestion that we are going to get $40,000,000 of a campaign fund out of this matter. We have no such intention.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) has evidently-decided to import into this assembly methods that he has been accustomed to adopt in the legislature of Saskatchewan. It will be a kindness to him-I offer it not in any didactic spirit at all-if I advise him in advance that in this House argument is always of more value than loquacity and reason has much more effect than vociferation. He urges very strongly the abandonment of party spirit in the discussion of this measure and cites me as an instance of an offender. I will place the few remarks I ventured to offer to this House on the subject of this resolution by way of contrast to what we have just listened to from the Minister of Railways, and I will put myself in the judgment of those who certainly are not partial witnesses in my favour -say hon. gentlemen to my left-as to which was an example of heated and insane partisanship.
He is very strongly of the view that we should discuss this subject on its merits. With that we are in accord, but the first thing essential to a discussion of any subject on its merits is to really know that subject. It is this essential which the minister has yet to surmount. He does not understand the

Soldier Settlement Act
resolution to which he gives such vociferous adherence. He says that I cast aspersions upon the intention of the government, and in the next breath he admits that I cast none whatever; that I admitted in the first place that the minister himself had no desire to use this machinery for political purposes. What I contended was that the machinery was such that it could readily be used for such a purpose, and I stated that this parliament has no right to pass legislation which is open to any such use. Did the minister argue on that question? He never touched it. It is something he cannot appreciate. His mind is far removed from anything in the way of a machine in politics-a machine found in another stratum of existence far from that in which he has lived all his life-so much so that he cannot come to a discussion of its existence from one side or the other.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Keep cool, brother.


Arthur Meighen: Did the Minister of
Justice say that he boasted of his machine?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: A friendly press gives
him credit for having done so, and in doing so he would speak words of sincerity with much more appeal to me than his words of this afternoon.


Lucien Cannon: It seemed to work well
yesterday.


Arthur Meighen: What did?


Lucien Cannon: Our machine.


Arthur Meighen: I place the Solicitor
General alongside of the Minister of Railways and I ask this House: Would you put either of them above the use of a machine? Would you like to entrust this conglomeration of .quickly adjustable election machinery to the operation of either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Railways?


Lucien Cannon: I never use a telegram in cipher during any election.


Arthur Meighen: Nor did I; nor did I
ever suggest it against another when I had no evidence in support of the suggestion. I throw back at the Solicitor General the insinuation, and I say that whenever he comes before this House and makes the exhibition of himself that his colleague did when he brought that telegram into this chamber and failed entirely in support of it, I shall be sorry for him and think it is about time for him to
extricate himself from public life. But from one point of view the collapse of the former minister at that time was even more creditable than the insinuation of his successor to-day.
The minister says: If the board was honest-enough to operate a purchase of lands, why cannot it be honest enough to operate a reduction in price?


Charles Avery Dunning: To negotiate it.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. I laboured
to make that point clear, but I did not get it into the head of the minister. I will try again. The original act did not lend itself to political manipulation at all; there was no possibility under it of using the soldier as a political agent or of bringing coercion upon him. The act was not such that it could be used in that way, no matter how the minister might have desired to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend's
statement does not make it so. It is merely a statement.


Arthur Meighen: I propose now to show why it was so, but it would have been rather appropriate for the minister to show that it could have been so before he used the language he did in his address. The minister, through his board going out to buy land for the soldier, could bring no pressure to bear upon that soldier whatever. The act did not give him the power to do so, and I demand of the minister to read me the clause of the act which gave him such a power. He could not offer the soldier any reward, nor could he hold out any penalty.


Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: What about the man who was selling the land?


Arthur Meighen: He could not do the
same either. The soldier himself had to be satisfied with that land and with its price, and so had the board of appraisers. There was no way therefore in which the machinery could have been used as election or political machinery in any sense. The parliament of the day was not asked to depend upon its opinion of the sincerity and public spirit of the minister, whatever its opinion might have been, before it could endorse that legislation. This parliament is now asked by the Minister of Railways-and the demand is made in imperious tones-to do that very thing in relation to this bill. Under this legislation the minister can go out and scatter favours with a largesse to his heart's content, and with no restraint whatever, among 17,000 men.


Charles Avery Dunning: Rot.

Soldier Settlement Act


Arthur Meighen: The minister says,
"rot." Well, the minister perhaps knows what rot is.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's language is reminiscent of the legislature from which he comes and of the methods for which his government was notorious.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know whether
it is in order for an hon. gentleman to reflect upon another parliamentary body as my right hon. friend has just done.


Arthur Meighen: It is equally parliamentary to the language of the minister. We are in a parliament now where the minister will have to take the medicine he seeks so feebly to give. I suggest to him that he will have to arrive at a much higher state of competency before it will be wise for him to try again.
I repeat that under this bill, if it goes through in the form anticipated in the resolution, the minister can take the funds of Canada without any restraint whatever if he is so disposed. I do not suggest now, nor did I suggest when I first spoke, that he is so disposed; but the fact is that without any restraint at all he can take those funds to the ex-tent of the whole value of the lands, to the extent of the whole indebtedness, and divide them among the returned soldiers owing money.


Lucien Cannon: How?


Arthur Meighen: By reducing each indebtedness by the full amount.


Lucien Cannon: He cannot.


Arthur Meighen: He can.


Lucien Cannon: He certainly cannot.


Arthur Meighen: Why can he not?


Lucien Cannon: Because there is machinery to prevent him from doing so, which machinery my right hon. friend has been discussing for ten minutes.


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General has not read the resolution or he would not suggest any such thing. Whatever I might charge against the Solicitor General it would not be lack of brains. If he reads the resolution he will see that the minister never needs to invoke that arbitration machinery at all. All he has to do is to agree with the soldier to make whatever reduction he, the minister, feels disposed to make.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no. It is the board, not the minister.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has mot read the resolution either; he has not the faintest notion of the resolution he has discussed. The board never comes into existence unless the minister anid the soldier fail to agree.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. My hon. friend is wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is the settlement board.


Arthur Meighen: The minister acts through his agent, the settlement board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: The settlement -board is the representative and agent of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: As it was under my right hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. Let the minister try to hold his temper for a little while and keep his seat. This signalling of followers hardly becomes the House of Commons. I thought the minister when he mentioned "board" referred to the board of arbitration.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: I see now that he referred to the settlement board. But the settlement board in acting acts under the direction of and subject to the imprimatur of the minister. That always has been the case and is the case to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under your regime too.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: And that is my point.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it was the
same under my regime.


Lucien Cannon: Would the right hon
gentleman claim seriously as a lawyer of any standing that the -Supreme court is the Minister of Justice?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. The Solicitor General is making a ridiculous suggestion.


Lucien Cannon: It is no -more ridiculous
than my right hon. friend's suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Solicitor General suggest that the Soldier Settlement Board bears to the minister the same relation as the Supreme Court of Canada bears to the government, or the Minister of Justice? The suggestion is ridiculous. The Soldier Settlement Board's conduct is O.K.'d. by the minister from day to day, and nothing of importance it does becomes effective until it is so

Soldier Settlement Act
authorized; but does the Solictior General suggest that decisions of the Supreme court must be O.K.'d by the government or the Minister of Justice? The Soldier Settlement Board's conduct is subject to the approval of the minister from day to day.


Charles Avery Dunning: 


Arthur Meighen: 


Charles Avery Dunning: 


Arthur Meighen: else?
And always was.
Always was, of course. That is my point.
Who suggested anything


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Did anyone ever suggest anything else? Certainly the board has always been subject to the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Minister of
Railways think that he is doing himself credit by laughing foolishly?


Charles Avery Dunning: Don't get angry.


Arthur Meighen: Well, act like a gentleman.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order.


William Duff: I must ask the right
hon. gentleman to leave personalities out of the discussion.


Arthur Meighen: I will discuss the matter if the minister will let me.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman told me not to lose my temper. He is losing his now.


Arthur Meighen: It never was suggested
by me in any sense that there is any difference whatever between the relationship of the board to the minister now and as it existed under my regime. I have never said anything of the kind. What I do say is that if this legislation goes through, then the minister, acting through the board, has a power which no government should ask for and which the former government never asked for in relation to the original act. And that power, I say, is this:	the minister can take the whole
amount of the value if necessary, or any part of it, and distribute it at will among all the returned soldiers on the land. The minister shakes his head. Well I invite him to get on his feet now and dispute the argument I am making. Here is a parcel of land bought from the board on which a man owes $5,000: the minister has it in his power to reduce that $5,000 to $5, has he not?


Robert Forke: Would it not be better for
the leader of the opposition to speak of the superintendent, keeping in mind the fact that he is appointed by the minister? The right hon. gentleman speaks as though the minister acted directly. He does not do anything directly.


Arthur Meighen: Very well; he does it
through a board which acts for him, this I have made dear. But that board is subject to dismissal at any time if it does not act as the minister desires. Surely then it is not too much to say that it is all in the power of the minister.


Mr. CAHAN:: And the remuneration tot
depends on the minister.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, as under the former government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: But no former government ever had the power to distribute tb^j?" funds of the treasury in this way. There wa^' no way in which the funds of the treasury could be used by the board to the advantage of a party. The point I am making is this: When a man owes $5,000 this legislation, if it goes through, will give the minister power to reduce that $5,000 to $5. Will the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) dispute that assertion? If he disputes it I will take his argument seriously. I will not take that of the Minister of Railways.


Charles A. Stewart: I want you to make your speech.


Arthur Meighen: I knew the Minister of
the Interior would not dispute it; I am quite confident the present minister does not purpose so reducing. I said so before. But I do not know that the Minister of the Interior may not become Minister of Railways, and the Minister of Railways become Minister of the Interior. The minister, I say, if the bill goes through, will have the power to reduce that $5,000 to nothing, and absolutely without appeal on the part of anybody. That is indisputable. And that, I say, is wrong.
It does not matter whether or not we concede the government to be composed of saints and nothing but saints. No government should ask such a power from parliament; parliament should not give such a power to any government. That is all I argued before. Am I going very far in this contention? Am I casting aspersions on anybody? Surely parliament should adopt certain principles in enacting legislation. We abandon every principle of restraint, in fact we abdicate the whole
Soldier Settlement Act

function of parliament, if we place a power like that in the hands of any government. This was the argument I made before. The former act was not open to the same charge; it was not vulnerable in this respect, although I admit that the board at that time was just as much the agent of the minister of the day as the board will be now. I admit further that so far this is the same board as we appointed-not the 'board which acted under me but under my successor, Sir James Lougheed.
Mr. CANNON; Is that the reason the right hon. gentleman has no confidence iD it?


Arthur Meighen: I am not saying that
I have no confidence in the board. I am saying that it is wrong to ask parliament to give to the minister such power as it is proposed in this legislation to delegate to him. It is immaterial what confidence we have or stave not in the board. The minister may Range and the board along with the minister, or the minister's successor may change the board. But whether there be any change or not, the fact is that the thing is wrong in principle. That is my argument and in it I submit myself to the judgment of the House.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise not to take any
partisan view of the situation but to express my gratification at seeing the measure introduced. I note with interest the considerable and sudden change that has come over the House in regard to this matter. It was only last year that I was one of a small minority-and some years ago I was one of a still smaller minority-that contended for the principle we are now seeking to adopt.


Robert Forke: You had lots of support.


Alan Webster Neill: Last year.


John Livingstone Brown: And in former years.


Alan Webster Neill: I can recall the occasion when a report was brought down recommending that this matter be dealt with by remitting the interest for a number of years, and a somewhat vague and glittering hope was held out that at the end of twenty-five years there should be a revaluation. That was a report by a committee of this House. It did not receive much support. Other members among them-the then member for Strathcona, Mr. Warner, advocated strongly, and the right hon. leader of the opposition took much the same view-contended that there should be a flat reduction all around, that it was not fair to discriminate against those who had left the land, and so on, and that if there was any

reduction it should be a percentage reduction,
' and he was openly against the principle of revaluation. I recall very clearly the efforts made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and the then hon. member for Selkirk, Mr. Bancroft, and myself, to impress on the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the urgency of enacting a measure of individual revaluation, and Hansard will show that after a long and weary debate near the end of the session the minister, presumably on the principle of getting rid of the importunate widow- or rather widows-said, "Well, if you will pass this bill,"-that was the bill dealing with the reduction in the valuation of stock-"I will guarantee an investigation into the three individual districts you have mentioned." On that basis the bill passed. The minister, I understand, did carry out that investigation, at least he did so far as my district is concerned, and I have no doubt that the report from the district of Dauphin and that from my own district probably had a great deal to do in changing the opinion of the government as evidenced by their bringing down this measure.
Now, the right hon. leader of the opposition in his opening remarks dealt with the immense size of this soldier settlement scheme, and also with its emergent character, and with the very few cases of what might be called absolute malfeasance in connection with it. In all that I can agree with him, considering the circumstances at that time, the insistent demand by everybody that the government act at once, and that the plan was something new. I think considerable credit is to be given the late government for the small number of actual cases of graft that occurred in the buying of land. Nevertheless graft did occur. There was another class of valuators almost more dangerous than the grafter class-the fool. You can tie up a grafter to be honest but there is no saying what a fool will do. Also, I would remind the right hon. gentleman that while these cases were few, nevertheless where they did occur they were very acute, which increases the necessity of dealing with them.
I should like to give a few illustrations of cases that occurred in the district of Comox-Alberni, contained in a report by a government investigator. He found that the valuations of one appraiser, who did a large portion of the work, of what constituted improved land varied to the extent of $175 an acre. That is, on a farm here he would value the improved land at $200 an acre, and on another farm of similar quality he would value the improved land at $370 an acre. Two farms of the same class he valued at $125 and
MiAHOH 30, 1926
Soldier Settlement Act
$225 an acre respectively. Some improved land was bought at $300 an acre and the next place, just as good, was 'bought at $200 an acre. The inspector gives a list of fourteen typical cases comparing the appraised value and the vendor's price-and the vendor in those days always asked enough. It is on record that the board again and again compelled a reduction of the vendor's iprice. Here is a comparison of the vendor's price and the appraiser's price. The man who wanted to sell his land was satisfied to ask $5,500, but the government appraiser valued it at $10,782; and so on down the line. Of the total of fourteen cases the vendors-who were demanding the top-going price and in most cases were ready to take less-asked $59,600, but the government appraiser valued the properties at $96,310-very nearly 100 per cent above what the vendors at the peak of the market were willing to take.


Arthur Meighen: In those cases was the
valuation paid, notwithstanding the fact that the vendors were willing to sell for less?


Alan Webster Neill: Surely not, but I have not
got those facts. This is an illustration of the man's incompetence, that he valued this land at almost 100 per cent more than the vendors were willing to take. I think in some cases the board at Ottawa intervened, but in several of these instances the land was actually purchased at his valuation. I do not suggest that this man was a knave; he was simply incompetent for his position, to put it very mildly; and we can imagine the [DOT]desire and the urgency for individual revaluation in cases of that description.
The right hon. leader of the opposition [DOT]dealt with the constitution of the board, and although I would not go nearly as far as he did, and would not for a moment suggest what he suggested-in fact I do not see [DOT]opportunities of making this a political machine or a political campaign fund-yet I can go this far with him: I can conceive an embarrassing political situation where you have a board consisting of a government official-and	a government official is
always supposed to be more or less willing to listen to argument put up by the member-the second man a representative of the soldiers, solely and entirely in sympathy with the soldiers' interests to get the revaluation as low as possible, and the third man a straight political appointee-I can imagine, I say, the embarrassment for the member when he is asked: Cannot you get these two friends, one a government servant and the other a political friend, to go a little easy on Bill
Jones' place? For that reason I would rather agree with his suggestion that in some way there should be resort to a county court judge. But I certainly think that the county court judge, if he is to be made the arbiter, should be assisted by an agricultural expert, as I suggested before. I gave the precedent of a judge in the admiralty court, who by the way is always a man selected for having some cursory knowledge of the subject. He devotes his whole attention to such cases, and he is always assisted by one or more nautical assessors, whose opinion on the nautical aspects the judge is very much bound to follow. I think in that regard, while the county court judge would be the best man to weigh the evidence and decide on its real value, he should have associated with him someone familiar with agricultural subjects, because many of our county court judges are townsmen and know nothing about farming.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) made some remarks of which I think the "most unkindest cut of all" was when he associated in the same sentence, in the same breath and in the same class the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). When he has been longer in the House he will realize the enormous difference between those two gentlemen I


Arthur Meighen: I hope my hon. friend
is complimenting the hon. member for South Oxford, for I do not feel that I am entitled to the compliment myself.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry the argument
took the political bias, so to speak, that it did, because I was going to pay what I thought a deserved compliment to the leader of the opposition. I admit he went too far in talking about campaign funds, but when he got down to the latter part of his address I thought it was really constructive criticism. I have in my hand, and was ready to produce it to his confusion had he taken his usual line of entirely destructive criticism, a letter written by him, to some of the soldier settlers in my district, wherein he expressed a distinctly favourable opinion on the subject of revaluation. He ended his remarks with these words:
Permit me to assure you that I purpose making an earnest effort to solve this problem, and it is my very sincere hope that a real solution' can be found. My efforts shall be applied, whether in power or out of power, because the returned men are entitled to our first consideration at all times.

Soldier Settlement Act
I think in the latter part of his speech he did make a genuine attempt to carry out that pledge, for which I desire to congratulate him.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock and again went into committee.


Charles A. Stewart: We have had a pretty fair discussion of the resolution this afternoon. I think we have gathered pretty well the consensus of opinion as to how the bill should be redrafted, paying particular attention to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. I should be very glad to have the resolution passed, and I will redraft the bill in accordance with what the general opinion of the committee seems to be as to the best method of readjustment. If I might be permitted to express my own personal opinion, it is that we should either have the readjustment as between the settler and the representative of the board, or, to shorten the process, name a committee composed preferably of the superintendent-there are two in my own province-a judge of the district court in the particular district, and a representative of the settlers, the decision of this committee to be final with respect to any adjustment. My thought-and I confess that I was more attracted by it as I listened to the discussion- is that it will be easier for the settler to attend such sittings. The judicial districts are not large, and the procedure will involve very little expense. I am hoping to save expenses to the soldier settler-who, of course, would appear for himself

as well as to the government. I am very much impressed by what the right hon. leader of the opposition said this afternoon, that the soldier settler should appear in person and present his case, and the board might very well be represented by the superintendent. What I have outlined I gather will be fairly satisfactory. Of course I shall be glad to discuss these matters with interested parties in all sections of the House, and so amend the bill as to provide for such a method of adjustment. I make that suggestion, if it is agreeable to the committee.


Mr. EVANS:: I wish to say a word regarding one feature of this proposed legislation. This scheme will give some heart and courage to a good many who have been halting between two opinions, I have no doubt, for a

long time. But we must also consider the case of the soldier who has been forced off his land in, say, the last two or three years, and has become discouraged and gone. His land has been taken over and some of it has been sold to new settlers comprising a number of those settled under the British government plan. I would make a plea for those who have already left their land. Our obligation to the returned man does not end when we have rescinded the contract and he is clear of the board. I believe there will be many who would be glad to go back on the land, and I cannot understand that our obligation with respect to those men has ceased. As I say, some of them have been forced off the land, their land has been sold, and I understand that in the case of those lands sold there has been an accumulation of $20,000 over the price that was paid. Now, I do not think we should make money out of the returned soldiers in that way. I make an earnest plea on behalf of those who wish to go back to the land, and I should like the minister and the government to take that point into serious consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: I am perfectly willing to consider any matter in connection with this matter of readjustment. At the same time I wish to point out to my hon. friend that it is a very difficult thing to meet every angle of the situation. I can think of a dozen different obstacles that would arise in endeavouring to deal with the men who are now off the land and have ceased their connections with the board. However, I am perfectly willing to give the subject my best consideration.


Arthur Meighen: I am entirely in agreement with the minister that it is an utter impossibility to meet all these classes of cases. It cannot be done. How, for example, could you distinguish between soldiers who lost their land entirely through their own default or through their own mismanagement and misconduct, and those who perhaps were not quite so guilty? I know that if I were minister myself I would despair of attacking the task. I do not see how it can be attacked; but I simply use the fact that the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has advanced this scheme on behalf of the soldiers who have been ousted from their properties to press upon the minister this: Let him keep just as close to the judiciary as he can in the settlement of everything. Let him keep the responsibility off the government and the government's representatives. If he once gets it there he will never in the world be able to

Soldier Settlement Act
close the door on this thing. And when he suggests that he will introduce a bill which will vary from this resolution in the direction of having a judge associated with an officer of the board, I ask him most earnestly to reconsider that too. He proposes to have a judge in association with some officer, and a veteran. Who is going to be the ruling party? Will the officer and the veteran be able to overrule the judge, or will the judge and the veteran be able to overrule the officer? He will certainly not get judges to act willingly under conditions of that kind. It is not natural that they should. Furthermore, it is not in the public interest. If you are going to bring the judges into this matter, make them responsible, but see to it that the public look to them as the responsible parties to do the fair and just thing between the veteran and the officer, and do not let the judge escape under the plea that these people had as much say in the matter as he had. I believe the public interest would be best served in that way, and I am sure if the minister will just revolve this matter in his mind for a few days he will come to the conclusion that it will be best served by centering the responsibility right on the judge. If the responsibility is there he will discharge it to the best of his capacity. It is quite true that one judge may decide upon a certain amount as the value of the land, and the decision of another judge might be at variance with that decision, and so on over the whole area. But it is equally true, no matter what tribunal is established, that another tribunal in another district will have a standard which is somewhat different. That cannot be avoided. The only way to avoid it would be to have some appellate tribunal to whom all could appeal. There are some objections to this proposition, and the difficulty may prove in the end to be unavoidable, but I hope it can be avoided. You cannot get absolute justice in all cases. The minister in his measure does not aim at absolute justice; it cannot be obtained. You are going to have scores of cases where the soldiers are dead, some of them having paid for their whole farms in full. Those men cannot be reached, but in justice their heirs are entitled to this boon the same as those on the land-probably more entitled than any of them, because they are the men who, facing the handicap of the purchase at a high price, fought the battle out and settled with their creditors in full. You cannot meet those cases. We are not aiming at any absolute justice. We are aiming at a rough method, as close to accuracy as we can get, to meet a very difficult situation
that cannot be avoided, and I hope the minister will not inject into the tribunals off-side officials who are going to dissipate the responsibility and in the end very much impair the efficiency and the measure of justice that will be meted out.
Mr. 8TEWART (Edmonton):	I have a
great deal of admiration for the knowledge acquired by the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board, but I may say that there is a very practical difficulty in connection with the adjustments which take place. For example, last year I met a soldier at Stony Plain who was very much dissatisfied because he had not purchased stock to the same extent as his neighbour, who had been given back forty per cent of the purchase price; consequently this soldier, unlike his neighbour, got no readjustment. He was making good; he was one of the fortunate soldiers who were making their payments. He had been frugal and careful, but he felt that an injury had been done him. Now the human element enters into this matter very strongly. My right hon. friend has suggested*-and I confess the scheme has a great deal of merit in it-that a representative of the board and the soldier get together and see if they cannot reconcile their differences, and if they can, that that adjustment be surveyed by the board. I think that is a fair description of the scheme proposed by my right hon. friend. But the human element that enters into the matter as between the soldier and the representative of the board rather puts the board, in my opinion, in a very delicate position There are so many angles to this matter that I would be inclined to think very favourably of the suggestion of my right hon. friend. It would be desirable if we could eliminate the feeling that sometimes arises. Here are two men who sit down together. 'Naturally their sympathies are identical; the government is going to be the payee, and perhaps too generous a settlement might be made in some cases; whereas in other cases if there is a little feeling of resentment against any particular settler, that might be exercised against him, and I fear the case as presented to the judge would not be brought quite as clearly to his attention as it would in the case of another settler. I quite understand that the judge can proceed, if he desires, and hear evidence. However, I am very willing to take the matter into consideration for the next few days, to discuss it with all those who are interested and see if we cannot arrive at some settlement that will be satisfactory to
Soldier Settlement Act

all concerned. After all this is a matter in which every member of the House is interested, and I have no desire to force upon parliament any piece of legislation, particularly legislation of this character, in regard to which we cannot be unanimous.


Mr. BENNETT:: The other evening when
this resolution was called I ventured to suggest that a judicial tribunal would be more desirable to determine the questions at issue than a board of arbitration constituted as suggested by the resolution. I have thought a good deal over the matter since, and I have not changed my view as then expressed. The observations made by the minister himself a few minutes ago as to the human element entering into the matter rather inclined me to hold more strongly to my opinion than I did on the previous occasion. The very fact that the human element enters into it will induce the representative of the board on the one hand and the settler on the other to be influenced by considerations that are not solely referable to the land in question, and it is of the utmost importance that the settlers should believe that they are receiving evenhanded justice in every instance with respect to matters of this kind.
I was very much struck by the observations made by one hon. member the other evening, when he said that he could not trust the judiciary. 'I very greatly deprecate that observation in this House, for whatever may be the views that some of us entertain as to the fitness of men to discharge judicial duties, it is of the utmost importance, in the development of the institutions of the country, that members of parliament at least should not voice that sentiment, except in the manner and form provided by the constitution of this country, namely, by asking that the high court of parliament resolve itself into a tribunal to consider the impeachment of the judge in question. It is bad business, if I might use an ordinary term, that members of this House should express an opinion of that character with respect to judges. I say that in no censorious sense, but I say it because I believe, using the language of Palmerston, that hon. members on one side are as anxious to discharge their duties as gentlemen as hon. members on the other side, and it is desirable that those who have to come before the judiciary should not have in their minds the view that members of parliament are reflecting on the integrity and ability of those who discharge judicial duties. I hope my hon. friend will not misunderstand me when I make that

observation, but I felt that, as a member of the profession from which, to use the language of a celebrated statesman, the judges are recruited, I could not allow the observation to pass in silence. Under those circumstances I hope the minister-and I for one, having raised this question, am delighted to see the attitude in which he approaches it to-day

in the next few days will turn over the suggestions that have been made. I firmly believe that in the long run he will find that he will have achieved the two objects that this legislation is to effect, namely, first, justice to the settler, and second, justice to the state. On the one hand the excessive price must be diminished having regard to the salability of the property in question; on the other hand the public exchequer must be protected and the loss made as little as possible. Those are the two factors that must be kept in mind. I ask my hon. friends whether they do not believe that in the ultimate analysis we have not best protected the settler on the one hand and the exchequer on the other by leaving these matters to the determination of men who are trained in the weighing of evidence and whose duty it is from time to time to decide on matters of law and fact. I say that more particularly having regard to the seventh resolution which provides:
That the District Arbitration committee shall forthwith forward a copy of its decision to the board and if it be found there has been a depreciation in the value of the land purchased by the settler from the board-
Observe these words.
-not resulting from neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler the amount of such depreciation so found shall be credited by the board as provided by resolution number four in respect of amount arrived at by agreement.
Who is going to determine whether the depreciation which is the subject matter of the award does or does not result from neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler? Who is so well able to decide that question of neglect or mismanagement as a judge? Neglect is not easy to define; mismanagement is difficult to determine, and under these circumstances, having regard to the language used in the seventh paragraph of the resolution which is very difficult language to construe, I submit that when the minister redrafts his bill he will find that the two-fold purposes of the legislation will be best served by having these matters determined by a judicial officer, one trained and skilled in dealing with matters of this kind.
I venture to repeat to my hon. friends that the determination of values has in modern practice been left to judges of the district

Soldier Settlement Act
courts rather than to arbitration boards. As I pointed out the other evening that has been the case with respect to rights-of-way of railways and various other matters, and if that has been the experience in dealing with matters of this kind, I feel satisfied that the suggestion made by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon as to preparing a brief will serve a useful purpose, but I personally would prefer that the settler present his case in person to the judge, knowing as we do that district courts are held in every small community in the three western provinces. They have their sittings defined, the days on which the courts are held, and the settler appears on that day in that little community. He makes his representations and the matter is dealt with. In the long run that will be found to be the most advantageous manner in which this question can be decided.
I am sure the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is wholly innocent of any desire to utilize the machinery of these resolutions for political purposes and I listened with some delight to the observations that were made in this chamber this afternoon. But as I was listening to them I recalled the language of the Bard of Avon who said:
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
Makes ill deeds done.
And possibly the opportunity being offered, evil results might follow. That sentiment I commend to the Minister of Railways. Those of us who live in western Canada and profess the Conservative faith may have reason at times to be a little suspicious of our opponents. None of us who read the public press can fail to be impressed by what we have seen during the last week. In Alberta in which I live, for instance during the last election the machinery of the machine was so used that two of those who operated it are now resting in the penitentiary at Prince Albert under sentences for two years, and only yesterday in the courts of Alberta the oaths of 102 people established that they had voted for a candidate, but alas when the votes were counted only seventeen had so recorded their franchise! I am sure the Minister of Railways will admit that a counting machine that is capable of such an achievement does credit even to its masters. I am also satisfied that the Minister of Railways has not forgotten that when the Prime Minister of this country left this city to visit Prince Albert where he found refuge, he stopped at the capital city of Regina, and the public press records that those who called upon him upon that Sabbath day were gentlemen proficient in the handling of the machine, members of the Liquor commission and the Highways commission. I am sure the Minister of Railways under those circumstances can forgive those of us who looking back three centuries realize that great judge of human nature was correct when he said:
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
Makes ill deeds done.
I am sure it was the sight of the means that brought about what followed in Alberta in the constituencies of Peace River and Athabaska. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you would agree with me if you had lived as long as I have in western Canada and suffered as I have suffered, defeated as I was in one instance by a small majority, and yet after spending much time and money and several months of a summer with the aid of a Pinkerton detective whom I brought from Chicago I had convincing evidence, some of which I have yet, that ballots which had been marked for me were removed from the ballot box and marked for my opponent who was returned and sat not in this House of Commons, but in the Alberta legislature. The machine reached the climax of its power in latter days. If my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior would give us his confidence, I am sure he would tell us he thinks as I do because, while he was one who did not do much in oiling the machine-


Arthur Meighen: Thank heaven.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -he only profited under its operations. Sometimes I do not know whether he thanked heaven for it, because after he studied out what it had done he concluded that heaven had little to do with its operations. But be that as it may, some of us who live in western Canada and sit on this side of the House have been victims of the machine the Minister of Railways has described as " a dandy," whatever that may mean. I take it that it means it is efficient and effective in producing results. For instance we heard something about it in this House yesterday. The other day I rose to bring to the attention of the House something of its operations in Prince Albert and there is further evidence that, in due course will be presented to this House with respect to its operations. It is for that reason that those of us who sit to the left of the Speaker sometimes feel that we owe some duty to society, some duty to those men and women who think as we think in matters political, and willing as we are to acquit men of a desire to thwart the will of the electorate, we
Soldier Settlement Act

realize that some of them at least regard it as meritorious to be able to say that regardless of consequences they will return their candidate with a majority.
I have read English history and the history of this country with some care and it takes a long, long time sometimes to bring about a change. One of the papers in Winnipeg the other day pointed out that the machine in Saskatchewan had been operating since the days of Mr. Walter Scott, since Mr. Haultain was destroyed by its operations. It may be a long time before that machine is destroyed, before the efficiency of liquor commissions, highway commissions and telephone systems, paid for by all the people, cease to be made to work for only one political section of the people, and that the party in power. But the time always comes when the change is effected. It happened in Ontario. One of the distinguished leaders of the organization of the Liberal party in that province journeyed to Alberta in 1905-it is not necessary to name him-and in recent years found employment with the Minister of Agriculture for a season at the public expense. Afterwards he was dismissed from the public life of that province by a very aroused electorate, and if all the circumstances in relation to his participation in elections were known to the House, I do not think there would be much pride on the part of members sitting to the right of the Speaker. When my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) spoke so highly of the operations of the machine in West Middlesex yesterday, it occurred to me, having the knowledge that I have of the distinguished organizer of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario when he was in the province of Alberta, that perhaps the hon. gentleman had reference to his ability as a machine manager. I wondered if that was what he meant. Well, if it was, there is not much reason for hon. gentlemen to smile and smirk and regard such behaviour as clever. I know of course that there are men who have the idea it is clever to thwart the will of the electorate. Do my hon. friends opposite realize what happened in Alberta on the 29th October last as disclosed in a court of law? I am sure that there are gentlemen in this House who resent it, although others smile and smirk over it and regard it as something to be proud of. Sometimes even the ministers of the crown smile and smirk and consider that sort of thing clever, but I trust that no one in this House does so. I trust that this House is past that stage.


Charles Avery Dunning: No insinuations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
thinks the remarks applicable to his case, very well. If the cap fits, let him put it on. But the mere expression of a fact which can be seen is not an insinuation. The other night I suggested that the revaluation of soldier settlers land should be taken out of the hands of a tribunal appointed solely by the minister in order to avoid any possibility of temptation to do the things that have been done in the past. Those who have seen the operations of the Scrip commission in days gone by, when they wandered over western Canada on the eve of an election, taking advantage of the machinery of law for the purpose of depriving the public domain of much land, getting jhalfbreeds to sign quit claims, enabling by this means certain men whose names are known to all to become enriched; those who have seen the abuses that have taken place in connection with the administration1 of the homestead law and the encroachments that were made upon public rights in the matter of irrigation; those who have seen the public purse being plundered for the purpose of promoting the private fortunes of individuals-those who have witnessed all these things have indeed some cause for the suspicion that lurks in their hearts. Nor is this a vague, underfined, unreasonable feeling. It is the conviction that moved people in eastern Canada in the days that are gone to rise in their might and put a stop to the abuses which they could tolerate no longer. It is the feeling that characterized the people of the province of Ontario at the time when the Minnie M. was obliged to seek a haven of refuge in the waters of an American port. It is the feeling that provoked the people when Mr. Preston "hugged the machine" and sent the famous telegram about which we all know, and the same feeling precisely that contributed to the defeat of the administration as a result of revelations that were made in this parliament not so many years ago. It is for these reasons that we believe we can best serve the ends of democracy by lifting to a higher level the administration of a law such as this and removing the minister from the temptation to abuse the powers conferred upon him.. It is the old, old tale:
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
makes ill deeds done.
The government must surely realize that there is no ulterior motive in this effort to surround the administration of the act with proper safeguards, but rather an earnest desire born of experience and suffering, of privation, yes, and deprivation of rights by reason of the manipulation of ballots and ballot boxes,

Soldier Settlement Act
that induces us to urge at this time, as the minister himself very frankly recognizes, the necessity for ample precaution. This is a matter of very great importance and of far-reaching consequences, and one that should be removed from any possibility of maladministration.


Mr. POULIOT (Temiscouata) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much
interest to the eloquent speeceh just delivered by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). Everybody has regard for his integrity, and all I have to say, in answer to his speech, is that boodlers are not to be found on this side of the House.


John Evans: Replying again to the leader of the opposition, I think the right hon. gentleman must admit, as I believe the government realizes, that this is a belated measure. Had it been brought forward three or four years ago as it should have been, it would have saved a large percentage of those who have left their lands. Many of these fellows have sacrificed all they had, some of them, indeed, having given up homesteads that they owned outright. It is all gone. They spent what money they had for seed and equipment, and in my judgment they have a claim upon the country as well as any of those who are still on the land. The door is open for a revaluation and all that is needed is to push it open a little wider. I should like to see section 2 include those who have already gone, but who can still take advantage of settlement under the revaluation scheme.


Mr. MURPHY:: I want to make a few remarks which will be very brief, more for the purpose of placing myself on record with regard to this important legislation than with a view to adding anything to the discussion which has already taken place. This is a matter of vital import to a considerable portion of the constituency I represent. Probably all of the constituencies in western Canada are suffering to-day from the ill effects which have manifested themselves in connection with soldier settlement, but I believe that the condition is rather more marked in my riding than in any other. A revaluation of the lands held by returned men who purchased homes under the Soldier Settlement Act is in my opinion long overdue. Revaluation should have been made, not later than two years after the sensational drop in farm land values. I am speaking now, of course, of farm land values in western Canada, as I am not so familiar with the situation in other parts of the Dominion.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not in favour of the principle of state paternalism. Of late years we as a people seem to have been losing that admirable quality of sturdy independence that characterized our forefathers, that indomitable spirit which enabled them to subdue the wilderness and make Canada what she is today. There is a growing tendency in our country to shoulder upon the state responsibilities which should properly be borne by the individual, and if the assistance which this legislation proposes to give were intended for any other class than the returned soldiers I would be utterly opposed to it. I wish, however, to place myself on record here now as being absolutely in accord with the spirit of the legislation, for these reasons. In the first place it is an undoubted fact that in some cases unsuitable lands were chosen while other lands were given too high a valuation owing to the rascality of certain individuals who managed to have themselves placed upon the board which valued these lands. This applies particularly to that part of my constituency to which I have just referred. Lands were selected for the returned soldier which should never have been chosen. The land on which many returned soldiers were settled should never have been selected. It was not the fault of the government, nor was it the fault of the settlers themselves, it was the fault of certain individuals who, taking advantage of their knowledge of local' conditions and of the desire of the soldiers to rehabilitate themselves, made them the target for their rascality.
Thirdly, I am in favour of this resolution because of the great depreciation in land values. This is true not only of the land purchased by the soldier settlers from the board, but also of all land in western Canada, and I am sure my Progressive friends will bear me out in this respect. I would say that there has been as great a drop in the value of farm lands generally as there has been in the value of land owned by soldier settlers.
On account of the difficulties encountered by soldier settlers and others, the situation of some municipalities in the west is critical, because a considerable area of wild land was taken up for the purpose of soldier settlement. Consequently the municipalities were put to great expense in constructing roads and establishing schools, and when many of these soldier settlers were forced to abandon their holdings the lands reverted to the crown, and became non-taxable, and the resultant loss of revenue seriously embarrassed the

Soldier Settlement Act

municipal authorities. The Union of Municipalities in Manitoba have endorsed this resolution, as they have passed similar resolutions, and I believe have forwarded them to the Dominion government. It has also been endorsed by the provincial legislatures of the three western provinces.
The men who took up the land under the soldier settlement scheme have in most cases done their utmost to make the proposition a success. They have carried on year after year in the hope that times would improve, but unfortunately they have become worse. I know the conditions in the district of which I am speaking, for I have the honour to be a director of the Red Cross Society, which has done considerable relief work in the district, and in many cases the people are in a pitiable condition. Some men have abandoned their homes, others are still hanging on hoping for a return of better times. It is for those people I am pleading, although I would gather that the feeling of the House is such that no further pleading is necessary at the present time. I believe we are all agreed that a revaluation should take place.
In this connection I may say that only last week I received a petition signed by soldier settlers and also by some of the most representative farmers in the district saying that these lands should be revalued. I should like to give the House certain clauses of this petition:	*
That certain returned soldiers purchased farm land from the Soldier Settlement Board at a time when the value of the said land was inflated and out of all proportion to the actual value thereof.
That the said scheme was introduced with the object of aiding the returned soldiers.
That after endeavouring to farm the said land for over five years the said settlers have become discouraged and can see no way in which they can carry the heavy burden placed upon them as the a result of said purchase.
That it appears that a great number of those who still remain on the said land are becoming deeper involved financially and the only reason they do not leave the land is on account of the fact that all their savings are invested in the said land, stock and equipment.
Here is a paragraph to which I would direct the particular attention of the government:
That certain supervisors of the said Soldier Settlement Board have often informed numerous settlers that the government would be only too pleased to see them quit the farms owing to the arrears in their payments, and owing to the fact that a sale could easily be effected at a greatly reduced price to new settlers from England.
That great injustice would be done if the soldier settlers were forced off the said land after putting in their savings and so many years of labour.
That it appears that the said settlers still remaining on the laid have farmed the same in a good and husband like manner and it appears the only solution is to have a revaluation of the said land for the purpose of attaining the object of the said scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
hear my friend distinctly. Does he state that supervisors are forcing people off the land?


Charles Murphy: I am simply reading the clauses of a petition which I received, and which I believe the minister himself now has in his possession.


Charles A. Stewart: Who signed the petition?


Charles Murphy: It is signed by certain
settlers in this district, and was forwarded to me to hand to the government.


Charles A. Stewart: Where do
they live?


Charles Murphy: I received) the petition
from Gladstone, which is in the constituency of Neepawa, Manitoba. I think the minister will find the petition in his office, because I forwarded it to the Prime Minister, and have a letter from him to-day saying he had sent it on to the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannes-son) this afternoon, if I heard him correctly, voiced the opinion that some consideration should be given to these men who have abandoned their land, and I believe the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) this evening made the same plea. While I recognize the difficulties of putting such a scheme into effect, I should like to also add my voice in support of that view. I think possibly the result would be achieved as well if the government would sell these lands to the returned soldiers who have abandoned them at the same price as would be available to immigrants under the land settlement scheme. I do not know why that result cannot be accomplished. Many of those men are off the land to-day after spending four or five years of hard labour on the part of themselves and of their families, simply because they have been starved out. That applies particularly to the district of which I am speaking. The conditions, I know, are purely local and do not apply generally all over the west. It was not the fault of the government or of the settler. It was more or less the result of settling these people on lands .which require drainage. During the last two or three years the ditches which drain these lands became clogged, thus flooding the land in the spring,, which prevented the settler from putting in any crop. I do plead with the government to give these people some consideration, for they have worked very, very hard to make homes for their families.

Soldier Settlement Act
I have one or two criticisms to offer with regard to the bill itself. Clause 4 provides:
That if the board and settler agree upon the amount of depreciation in value of the said land,-
And so on. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson) told the House this afternoon what I tell the House to-night in reading this petition, that there is not that sympathy between the board and the returned soldier that should exist. These returned soldiers, whether rightly or wrongly, have the impression that the board would be only too pleased to see them leave their lands in order that they might be sold to incoming settlers.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the
hon. gentleman does not make that assertion of his own knowledge, does he? I do not think that is fair to the supervisors and field men in the employ of the board. There may be odd cases where there have been disagreements, but so far as I can ascertain, it is the last resoit when a man leaves his land. To say that these men are trying to put soldier settlers off the land-if my hon. friend will say that of his own knowledge I am prepared to accept it, but it is going a long way.


Charles Murphy: I think if the minister
had followed my remarks correctly he would have seen that I did not make that assertion of my own knowledge, but I am passing it on to the minister for his consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: But I make this assertion, that no case has ever come to my knowledge where, if there was any chance in the world for the settler to make good, he was not encouraged by the officers of the board to stay on the land. That has been my experience.


Charles Murphy: Does it not appear strange, or at least worthy of consideration, that the hon. member for Selkirk stated the same thing this afternoon? And he had it directly from the soldiers, with whom he has been in communication.


Charles A. Stewart: Will the
hon. member for Selkirk say the men are forced off the land?


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I have a number of
letters from the men.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman lives in a soldier settler district, does he not?


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I was not present when any man was put off, but I know that notices were served on men who were trying to pay
and who had constructed improvements, and I told the House to-day of one instance where a man, not having seed grain, went to work, and they have taken possession of that farm. I have visited that farm myself, and the statements I referred to in the House to-day were made in the presence of Mr. Robertson, the supervisor of the district, who did not contradict any of them. I gave the names to-day of men who have been molested ,or threatened, off and on, for the past seven or eight years. I also informed Major Barnett, and he looked up MacKenzie's file and said that a man cannot take up a farm unless he lives on it. This man was with his brother and had a man ploughing his farm, doing the best he could, but because he could not get seed grain he did not operate last year.


Charles A. Stewart: In that case I suppose the farm was going to go without seed.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Possibly so, but last
year he offered to pay $175 and 400 bushels of wheat to remain on the land, and was refused. Surely that man should be given at chance.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sure
that in most of these cases the soldier has had a pretty fair chance. There may be cases of hardship where the soldier was forced off, but I can hardly understand it. These men are soldiers themselves; they fought side by side with the settlers, and I cannot understand it.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I will send the minister the correspondence I have.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite
well aware that the soldiers complain, but on the other hand I believe we 9 p.m. should be fair to the officers of the board. These statements are made that men are forced off the land to let new settlers in and that is a serious accusation.


Charles Murphy: minister. I am aware that it is a very serious charge to make against officials of the board, and I am not making the charge. I am reading this petition, as it is my duty to do.
The other criticism I have to make will be very brief, as the matter has been already dealt with by my right hc-n. leader and by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). That is the question of the process by which this revaluation would be arrived at. I am in hearty atioord with the proposal under which a district court judge would be included in that scheme. In municipal affairs we have found .that to be a very workable system. When lands are assessed by our local assessor and a ratepayer feels himself aggrieved, he first appeals to his local council, who sit as a court of revision. If an amicable adjustment cannot be arrived at between the council and the complainant, the matter is then left to the county court judge. That system has prevailed for a great many years and has proved to be very satisfactory. Surely if a county court judge can adjudicate on the assessed value of land he can just as well adjudicate on the value of a returned soldier's land.


Arthur Meighen: There is one feature of the resolution which I should call to the attention of the minister. Various hon. members have referred to an odd case where the soldier paid too much for the land in the first place. One hon. member intimated that on the east shore of lake Winnipeg there were cases of the soldier paying four times the value of the land. I want to draw to -the attention of the minister the fact that the draftsman who framed this resolution has not covered any such case at all, and has not provided for it.


Charles A. Stewart: Four times as much?


Arthur Meighen: If the minister willl follow me carefully he will see the point. In a case where the soldier, because of a foolish or perhaps fraudulent valuation, pays too much for his land, the excess over the actual value is not provided for in this resolution; he could not get any relief if the bill is founded on this resolution. The minister will note that the resolution provides only for depreciation from the time of purchase to the time of revaluation. Let me take a single instance and it will be followed more readily. Suppose for example $20 an acre was paid for a quarter section only worth $5 an acre. This resolution provides that if there has been any depreciation in value since the time of purchase, that depreciation shall be credited

to the soldier. We will presume that there has been a depreciation of 20 per cent, which would mean that the land is worth now $4 an acre. The soldier is only going to be allowed $1 an acre of what he originally paid. Does the minister follow me? The settler is allowed the depreciation only, which is $1 an acre. That is all the depreciation that has taken place, and therefore that is all he is allowed, so in the -end he will be paying $19 an -acre, whereas the land was only worth $5 when he bought it and has depreciated $1 since. I do not know whether I have made myself clear; if I have not it is my own fault. The point is that the minister does not provide in his resolution-and his bill, if founded on the resolution will not provide-for anything except depreciation. Excess value paid in the first place cannot be atoned for by depreciation. I will take my -case in point again. If the board in the first place paid $20 an acre for land worth only $5, and the land has since depreciated 20 per cent, that land is now only worth $4. The depreciation is one dollar an acre; that is all the depreciation that has taken place; that is all, therefore, that the soldier gets credit for. So that he gets credit for one dollar an acre whereas he paid $20 therefor; he is going to pay in the end $19. That case is not covered in the resolution and the bill will have to cover it.


Edward James Young: If the land is only worth $5 an acre and it was purchased at $20, it was purchased at an inflated value. When the land returns to its true value will there not be deflation all the way through?


Arthur Meighen: No, depreciation in value is the difference between the value now and the real value when purchased.


Edward James Young: The real value?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the real value, not the value on the basis of which the soldier settler purchased.


Edward James Young: Why not?


Arthur Meighen: Because that is what depreciation is. Depreciation is the lessened value of the land. It is the difference between the value then and the value now. That is depreciation. That is my point exactly.


Mr. EULER:: Would there be any real
difficulty if we took the value the land had at the outset?


Arthur Meighen: That is just what the
resolution does do. The resolution assumes that, but you cannot always make that assumption.

Soldier Settlement Act


William Daum Euler: Would it not be the assumption that the value placed upon the land when it was first bought was the real value?


Arthur Meighen: That is what I am saying. That is the assumption in the resolution, but in individual cases it is not the fact. Indeed, it is these individual cases that are not covered by the resolution. The depreciation, let me repeat, is the value on the day of purchase-not the price paid, but the value- less the value to-day. That difference the soldier is allowed, he is allowed no more.


William Daum Euler: What means would there be of fixing the value other than the value that was placed upon the land when the soldier bought it?


Arthur Meighen: The provision could be worded so as to cover other cases as well.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the wording of the bill will cover it.


Arthur Meighen: It could, quite readily.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me read the wording of the provision itself:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, the board is hereby empowered upon the application of a settler who has agreed to purchase any land from the board, who has not abandoned his land, whose agreement with the board has not been terminated or rescinded, and who has not repaid his indebtedness to the board, and where there has been a decrease or depreciation in the market value of such land not the result of negleot or mismanagement on the part of the settler, to make provision for the revaluation of the said land, subject to the following conditions-
And so on.


Arthur Meighen: That does not cover the case. The way it should read is something like this:	"Where he land is found to be
worth less than the price paid." That will cover the case, but if it is worded in the way proposed in the bill it will never cover it.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say frankly that we had in mind the fact that there were men settled on lands who had paid too much when purchasing those lands; they had bought at an inflated value.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure if the draftsman will read this discussion he will word the bill properly.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask the Minister of the Interior a question as to paragraph 2 of the resolution? I have no intention of speaking on the resolution, because the general sentiment of the committee seems to be that there is absolute need for revaluation, and with that I heartily agree. The only question is
as to who shall be brought within the purview of the bill, and also the methods that are to be adopted in order to ensure proper revaluation. Paragraph 2 of the resolution declares:
That application for revaluation shall be considered only when made by a settler residing on and himself farming the said land,-
Now I had the idea that the purpose of the act was to draw a distinction between a soldier purchaser whose agreement had been determined either by his having paid up in full or having made default and been ejected from the land, and a man whose agreement had not yet been terminated. If that is the distinction that the government intends to make, the wording (^paragraph 2 is not quite accurate, because there may be a soldier purchaser in good standing whose agreement had not been determined by rescission or by complete payment and who for some reason or other had not himself been able to be on the land but was farming it through somebody else for the time being. Would it not be advisable to define the position of the soldier settler in clearer terms, that is, a soldier settler who had purchased and whose agreement had not been determined either by payment in full or by rescission?


Charles A. Stewart: Of course the whole object of the act is that the individual must be on the land and farming himself. The act never intended that he should release his land or that he should farm it out in some way.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That may be so, but I am assuming, although I do not know of any particular case, that there may be a soldier settler who is in possession of the land, though not himself in actual occupation. It may be he has had to go away for his health; it may be he is absent somewhere for some other reason, but he intends to go back into occupation. The wording of this particular paragraph would debar him from the benefits of the act. I think the bill ought to be so worded that one who has a current existent contract with the government should come within its purview.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course the proposal is confined to those whose contracts are still in existence and are on the land. I do not think there will be very many cases of the kind mentioned. However, I will look into the matter.


Mr. MULLINS:: There are a very large number of returned men in my constituency. They are carrying on under great difficulties, but they are holding on, hoping that there

Soldier Settlement Act
will be revaluation. They have been so handicapped that they have not been able to make ends meet. With the experience these men have had I would much prefer to keep them on the land than to admit new settlers who have yet to acquire experience in the western country. It takes a number of years before they can get the experience necessary to carry on operations successfully. The Minister of the Interior knows, as does the Minister of Railways also, that it takes some years to become familiar with the climatic and farming conditions in the west. I am xot going to occupy the time of the House unduly, but during my campaign I came across a number of these settlers who asked me to bring the matter up on the floor of the House and to apply for redress in their behalf. I would suggest that the first minister himself should take a trip into the rural parts of Manitoba instead of paying visits to Regina and Prince Albert, and thus inform himself at first hand of the actual conditions of these men and learn what is going on out in the western country. Having paid $20 an acre for some of these lands, it is absolutely impossible for these men, even in a period of ten years, to break even, in view of the present conditions and the existing ocean rates and railway rates. For the benefit of the House I have worked out a statement of the operation on a 320-acre farm in western Canada, allotting the settler a period of ten years, giving him twenty bushels to the acre and a price of $1 per bushel per year, but writing out the whole thing at the end of ten years. When that time arrives the settler has made nothing but a living unless he raises live stock and possibly poultry. If the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) takes exception to my remarks about raising nothing but wheat I am willing to put my statement, as to such a case, to which I have devoted considerable time and thought, on Hansard for his information. I suggest to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that he should do something towards helping the men to have live s^ock on the farms, to make them contented'"and to keep them satisfied.
As to the working of the adjustment and as to how it is to be handled, I will have to leave that to the legal fraternity, and to others who are more acquainted with the details. But from the practical standpoint of the men out in the west, I say it is impossible for them to carry on under present conditions I would strongly support a measure for a readjustment of the status of the men on the land in the western country.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend The Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Agriculture-Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to the National Dairy Council, $242,000.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Perhaps it would not be amiss if I should briefly review the progress of the dairy industry in Canada during the past twelve months. Probably at no time in the history of Canada have our exports of dairy products been so large since the war, or of such an acceptable nature in the markets of the world or at home. The increase in the exportable production of dairy products in Canada this year is fully forty per cent greater in value than similar exports of last year. The increase in this output has largely come from the west. Daiiying has developed with extraordinary strides on the prairies within the last three or four years, but particularly last year. It is gratifying to note that not only has the output increased but the quality has also improved. This remark applies to butter, cheese and other dairy products. It will be noted that there is a slight increase in this vote. This ie due to the enlargement of the grading system. Formerly some of the grading was done by provincial inspectors under an arrangement which we had with the three prairie provinces. In order to provide uniformity of inspection and uniformity of service, it has been found advisable, instead of paying the money to the provinces and having them do the grading, to take over the work ourselves and do the grading. Possibly with that explanation of the dairy industry further elaboration will follow as the result of questions by members of the committee.


Arthur Meighen: I was favoured the other day with a piece of party literature sent out by the minister from the Department of Agriculture, a very laboured defence of the Australian treaty policy. The minister knows what I refer to, and he might tell me whether that document was got out at the public expense.


William Richard Motherwell: It was stencilled in my department. I do not think it is campaign literature. It is a plain statement in respect

Supply-A griculture
to the Australian treaty. The department gets out information of this sort, especially when new legislation is not very well understood and is perhaps misrepresented.


Arthur Meighen: It was not campaign literature, the minister says, because it was plain. Is the campaign literature he issues characterized by not being plain?


William Richard Motherwell: I am responsible for this.


Arthur Meighen: I am not doubting that at all, because it reads very much like the minister's literature. But how does he justify spending public money on campaign literature?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not consider
this campaign literature.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister read it to the House, to see what hon. members think of it?


William Richard Motherwell: It is really an explanation of the working out of the Australian treaty in relation to the dairy industry. It gives a recital of the prices of butter and cheese, not only this year but in former years, and points out that up to the present the Australian treaty had had no deleterious effect upon our dairy industry.


Arthur Meighen: Was its object to improve the quality or the quantity of the butter, or what was it? As I read it, the object was to try to lose the government as few votes as possible over the Australian treaty.


William Richard Motherwell: The object of it
was to improve the information of all who should read it.


Arthur Meighen: For what purpose?


William Richard Motherwell: To enlighten them
as to what we were doing. We like to have an enlightened electorate.


Arthur Meighen: What is the object of
campaign literature? Is the minister's object in issuing campaign literature to befuddle them?
M;r. MOTHERWELL:	As a rule, any
campaign literature I have seen from my right honi. friend is never signed. This is signed. That is the distinction.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Under the law, campaign literature must be signed.


William Richard Motherwell: I never saw it
signed by my hon. friends.


Arthur Meighen: The minister seems to
feel that it is all right to issue campaign literature from the department and pay for it at the (public expense as long as his name appears at the top. That is one justification. The first justification is that it was plain; the next justification was that it was enlightening. It does not matter whether it is plain or enlightening; it has no objective whatever so far as the dairy industry is concerned. It was campaign literature through and through, every line of it-political party literature printed at the expense of the department. It was just the same kind of literature as the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day, now extinct, got out in the press of Canada in large, full page advertisements costing many thousands of dollars, all at the public expense to serve the interests of the Liberal party.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know what my hon. friend is driving at. This is our regular practice with respect to any public question. I do not know how he can call it campaign literature with the name of the author in plain type at the top. Imagine some Conservative campaign literature with respect to the Australian treaty or whatever it might be issued by the leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen! You never hear of any of their campaign literature dealt with in that way.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I have watched the campaign literature of my hon. friends and there was not a single thing on it to show who was the author. All we know is that it emanated from Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not
watch anything during the last election. What he was watching mostly was what constituency he could get into in order to be safe.


William Richard Motherwell: My right hon.
friend had the same job and we both succeeded.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the minister has succeeded in every election in his political career in getting into another constituency. I do not know whether he is going to succeed over the energetic efforts of his colleague to get rid of him. We hope he does; we hope he wins out in that heroic battle he has been conducting. I might mention to the minister that he succeeded in Athabaska too, and in Peace River, but there is an aftermath sometimes. That this is nothing but party
Supply-Agriculture

literature shines out of every line of it. His own signature does not affect the matter in the least; it merely indicates that he is prepared to use his signature over party literature at the public expense from his department. That conduct is conduct that certainly this House should not condone. If carried on as the minister has commenced to carry it on and as one or two of his colleagues have commenced, it means simply this, that a ' government in office has full access to the public treasury for its own aggrandizement.


William Richard Motherwell: Is there any incorrect information in it?


Arthur Meighen: We bow in adulation
before the minister's sense of morality. He is quite justified in publishing campaign literature at the public expense provided that he himsellf believes it to be correct. I have no doubt he thinks all his campaign literature is correct, but that does not justify his putting his hand into the public treasury in order to circulate campaign literature throughout this Dominion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to regrading butter. I understand the minister stated that the government was instituting arrangements for regrading butter and doing away with provincial grading. I am sorry that some of my hon. friends from the rural districts of Alberta are not. in the chamber, because I am certain they would have something to say on that point. I understand that the provincial gradings of Alberta butter are an asset to the province; that by reason of the high quality of the butter of that province a certain value has attached to particular grade marks, and that if those are done away with and the identity of Alberta butter in respect of grading marks is merged in the Dominion in a universal system, Alberta butter producers will suffer loss. I would like to hear what the Minister of Agriculture has to say on that question, because certainly the farmers and butter makers of Alberta are opposed to any such move. We have built up the butter industry in that province and we propose to keep the reputation we have.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand my
hon. friend prefers to have provincial grading. We have introduced a national system of grading all butter and cheese that goes forward for export. The reason that this was continued under provincial jurisdiction in the three prairie provinces prior to the present was, my recollection is, because they were the only provinces that were grading prior 
to the federal government taking up the grading system. They have been grading for ten years or longer. When the Dominion government adopted the national grading system some three years ago it was found more convenient to carry on by a working arrangement with the three prairie provinces, paying them a certain amount of money for the service and having it performed through their graders, while we took on the work of appointing graders in the other provinces. That has worked very nicely, but yet there have been complications; sometimes by mistake they would issue provincial certificates on a federal grade, and sometimes two kinds of certificates, one provincial and one federal, have been known to go forward.
I am not so familiar with conditions in Alberta, but we have a friendly arrangement with Manitoba and Saskatchewan to take over their graders and they do the grading, except that the grading would be for us instead of for the province and instead of our handing the province the money to pay the graders we pay them ourselves. I understand that the same policy is being pursued with regard to Alberta.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Has that policy been put into operation yet? I understand not.


William Richard Motherwell: No, because this
season's operations are not yet under way.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Has the minister communicated with those who are interested in the butter industry of Alberta to get their opinion on that question? Because one of the largest butter men in that .province has expressed himself as being distinctly opposed to the movement, and his view is that the butter producers of Alberta are all opposed to it. They lose the benefit of the grading.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand from my deputy there is some opposition in Alberta to making this change, and they desire the present system to continue for another year, that is, that we shall pay for the service. We will continue it, and in that way there will be no difficulty. We owe a great deal to the three prairie provinces for assisting us in introducing this grading system, and we are desirous of working in conjunction with them. They have done a lot to help us establish it all over the Dominion and it is desired that we continue it another year.


Donald Sutherland: 
William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend expect me to go fully into that question on this vote?


Donald Sutherland: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that we are selling New Zealand about $12 worth of goods for every dollar they sell to us.


Donald Sutherland: What changes have they made in their tariff?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not familiar with their tariff. There was felt to be a danger that, unless something was done to equalize the trade between the two countries, Canada would lose the benefits she was enjoying in her relations with New Zealand.


Mr. HANSON:: Were no concessions given to Canada in consideration for the extension of the benefits of the Australian treaty to New Zealand? Are we to understand that a big stick was held over the government and they meekly subsided?


William Richard Motherwell: The Australian
treaty contains a full list of. the preferences and it has been discussed at least once before. Some one says it has been discussed a hundred times, but I would not go quite so far as that.


Donald Sutherland: The minister might tell us what New Zealand gave us in return. We have heard what Australia has done.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that the idea was to avoid the possibility of losing a large volume of trade which we had with New Zealand in newsprint and other articles. We are selling to that Dominion, as I have said, between $12 and $14 worth of goods for every dollar they sell us, and there was a danger of that relationship being disturbed and our losing that preference if we did not extend the terms of the Australian treaty to the smaller dominion. There was no big stick.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the minister is so quick to respond to a threat from New Zealand, does he not think that the United States might be equally quick to respond to a threat from Canada?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Last session we had some questions on the order paper in connection with imports of cheese from New Zealand and Australia for manufacture into
kraft in Canada. Correspondence was read on the subject and it appeared that there were some applications for a rebate of duty paid. The minister intimated that some regulation would be made covering the manufacture of Canadian kraft cheese and dealing with the matter of duty. What has been done in that direction?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
cheese brought into Canada for manufacture into kraft pays the duty, and a rebate is given when that product is exported. My hon. friend should ask the Minister of Finance these questions. I would not care to be understood as speaking authoritatively; I am merely giving such information as I have myself gathered from the discussions that have taken place.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The manufacture of kraft cheese is increasing rapidly in Canada, to our satisfaction, and I for one do not think it is fair to the Canadian producer to allow these manufacturers to import cheese for processing and for export again as a Canadian product and receive a rebate of duty. It is unfair to the home producer. The minister said last year that there would be introduced some legislation regulating the matter, but I am not aware of any such legislation having been brought down. The minister says now that some applications for a rebate have been made. Were any refunds actually made?


William Richard Motherwell: We have had I
think only one consignment of Australian cheese for kraft purposes. The process consists in mixing a number of grades of Canadian cheese in order to produce the proper quality for the trade, and the manufacturers require some well matured cheese, preferably our own Canadian product, about a year old, to produce the right tone, About a ..year) ago practically our entire cheese production was shipped out, and there was none left in Canada. We were supplying cheese to a line of cafeteria establishments at Wembley owned by Lyons and Company, and we had great difficulty in getting a sufficient quantity of well matured cheese to meet that demand. The Kraft people were therefore obliged to secure some New Zealand cheese. They bought that cheese in England, but only for the reason that they could get none of the Canadian product. The manufacturers however, as I have said, prefer to use Canadian cheese so long as it is procurable.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then am I right in assuming that notwithstanding the minister's promise to look into the matter and make necessary regulation, nothing has been done.
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think I promised that we would bring down any regulations with regard to kraft cheese this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Hansard shows it.


William Richard Motherwell: I think hon. gentlemen will agree that I have brought down my share of regulatory legislation during the .past four years, and it seems to me that we have enacted about as much legislation of that description as the public will stand just now. I do believe, however, that the point is well taken. I feel the public have a right to know what kraft cheese is made of, but we have not yet seen our way clear to formulate grades for it. There is another variety known as Phoenix, made in Montreal. As a matter of fact, we have been dealing more with the standardization of containers. As a result of two conferences which we have had during the past month, attended by all parties interested, we have formulated regulations for the standardization of containers for both butter and cheese. I understand that to give us the requisite authority to make regulations in regard to kraft cheese the act will have to be amended.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does not the
minister agree that there should be some regulations in that respect?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and I think
my officers agree with me. It is just a question of how fast we should go. I have met with a good deal of criticism by some hon. members with respect to what they term the multiplicity of regulations, but not from those who know most about the matter; for instance, I have never been criticized adversely by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) or by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart). Besides, if we go too fast, instead of having public sentiment behind us a feeling develops that we are meddling with business. I quite agree there should be some control and classification of kraft cheese and other similar products.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think we all
agree that the minister has not gone too fast in this case.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you, I am glad to get that tribute.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Will the
minister inform me when the act was passed requiring the grading of butter and cheese for export?


William Richard Motherwell: It was the yeai
before I came here, but it was not then declared law.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, when was it declared law?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it was in
1922 or 1923.


John Wesley Edwards: Was it not April 1, 1923?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so, because the first year it was voluntary.


John Wesley Edwards: That was
April fool in more ways than one. The act came into effect on April 1, 1923, and required the grading of butter and cheese for export and the stamping of the grade on the commodity so exported. Why was it that that legislation was not put into effect in 1903? Graded cheese to the amount of 110,000,000 pounds was exported after the act was passed and supposed to be in effect, without the grade being stamped on a single box. As a matter of fact, all through 1923 not a pound of butter or cheese exported was stamped with the grade which had been given to it by the officials appointed by the government to do the work. Why was that? The hon. minister says that we cannot go faster than public opinion. Surely we have the right to assume that public opinion was crystallized in this legislation which required certain things to be done, yet although it was enacted, as announced by the government, with the intention of protecting the quality of Canadian butter and cheese in the Old Country in competition with those commodities from other countries, over a million pounds of butter and cheese was sent out of this country unstamped in absolute violation of the law. I am not relying on hearsay in making this statement, because I hold in my hand a series of questions which were placed upon the order paper last session, and which were answered, I presume, by the minister himself as head of the agricultural department. The first question asked was:
When did federal grading of butter and cheese for export come into effect?
This is the answer:
Federal grading under the Dairy Products Act, came into force on April 1, 1923.
This is the next question:
Whether any cheese has been exported to Great Britain since federal grading went into effect without the grade being clearly indicated? If so, when and in what quantity?

Supply-Agriculture
The answer is:
1923, 110,513,200 pounds of cheese were graded and exported.
This was in direct violation of the act sponsored by the government, which came into effect on April 1, 1923. The failure on the part of the government to put the act into effect was most unfair to our factory men, especially to those who are most interested in the export cheese trade, namely, the people of eastern Ontario and western Quebec, because thousands of dollars were unfairly taken out of the pockets of our factory men and cheesemakers in those sections. I should like to know from the minister why this act was not put into operation immediately it became law. I have a list of about twenty graders appointed by the government, drawing salaries of $2,500 and upwards. The minister himself in answer to the questions put last session stated that in 1923 and 1924 cheese was graded by the salaried graders, but there was absolutely no protection to the cheese producers of eastern Ontario and western Quebec because the grade was not stamped on the commodity exported in 1923 as the act specified it should be. Then this might very well have been the result. The exporter sends his man into the warehouse to look over some cheese, some of which he tests and finds graded as No. 2, but which according to his taste is very close to No. 1, and in his opinion can be passed as No. 1. So he buys it at ,No. 2 price and it is sent over to the Old Country and sold at the No. 1 price simply because the exporter was not required to stamp the grade. That is what was done, Mr. Chairman, and the money came directly out of the pockets of the people. That was not kraft cheese, but an hon. gentleman suggests it is graft cheese. At all events, it seems to me that it requires an explanation from the minister. The minister says we must not act too fast in these things, but he did not go any too fast; he did not work any spavins or ringbones on himself by the speed he developed in putting that act into force, on his own admission
Mr,. MOTHERWELL:	I am afraid my
hon. friend has rather prejudged the situation. It is quite a regular thing to put through a piece of legislation one year and not proclaim it until possibly a year or two afterwards. This was new legislation, passed by my predecessor. I desire to give the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) credit for putting this bill through in 1921, I think it was. Here is a section which says:
This act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.


John Wesley Edwards: 
John Wesley Edwards: Does the
minister object to being asked a question?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but what is
the use of bobbing around like that?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
know that I am doing any bobbing around; I think the minister is the one doing the bobbing just now.


William Richard Motherwell: When unnecessarily interrupted by my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, I was endeavouring to explain that it is quite a regular thing to let an act stay on the books for a year or more, until the people become familiar with it. I was making them familiar with some parts of the Australian treaty, where apparently the enlightenment was required, as in this case. This act was proclaimed on April 1, 1923. It was not done in 1922-I will tell hon. members the reason for that also-because there was a great deal of opposition to it. The hon. member for Victoria knew of that opposition; he had hard work in getting that bill, through the House, with such peculiar interruptions and cantankerous questions as we have been having to-night. I have no doubt my hon. friend had the same difficulty, because he was blazing the trail and starting this good work. During the season of 1922 we did do some voluntary grading of both butter and cheese at Montreal, and I think elsewhere, although I do not recollect at the moment. I know we did some work with those who were ready to take advantage of this service. After we had the great mass of dairymen with us voluntarily, and after hearing from a number of the opponents of this movement,-whom we found generally around Brockville and Belleville-splendid dairy districts, too, but opposed to this grading system for reasons which I do not need to enter into-in the spring of 1923 we had the work so advanced that we then had a fair chance of making it applicable to the whole country, which we did as soon as possible. Following that, I do not know what my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) means when he says there was no grading after April 1923. We have no information to that effect; I have never heard of it before. Now I am ready for that other question.
Supply-Agriculture


John Wesley Edwards: The minister has clearly indicated that he is some bobber himself. He bobbed all over the year 1921; then he bobbed around the year 1922, and finally he bobbed along until he came to April 1, 1923, when he says the act came into force.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the complaint?


John Wesley Edwards: I will state my complaint again, and I hope ' this time the minister will get it clearly into his head. According to the minister's own statement, the act in regard to establishing the grades of cheese and butter to be ex-
10 p.m. ported from Canada came into force on the first of April, 1923. Notwithstanding that act, none of the cheese and butter exported in 1923 had the grade stamped upon it.


William Richard Motherwell: Where-


John Wesley Edwards: Where is my authority? My authority is the answer given by the minister to a question placed on the order paper last session.


William Richard Motherwell: What does it say regarding that?


John Wesley Edwards: I will read it again; I have already read it once. This is sessional paper No. 159 from the Department of the Secretary of State, a return to an order of the House of Commons dated 30th March, 1925, for a return showing-this is question No. 1:
When federal grading of butter and cheese for export came into effect.
To which the answer was:
Federal grading under the Dairy Products Act camp into force on April 1, 1923.
Now in answer to the eighth question, which was as follows:
Hae any cheese been exported to Great Britain since federal grading went into effect without the grade being clearly indicate? If so, when and what quantity?
The answer was that in 1923, 110,513,200 pounds of cheese graded but not stamped, were exported from this country. This amount of cheese was exported from this country without fulfilling the conditions of that act, which was placed on the statute books on the first of April, 1923, and which required the grade to be stamped on cheese and butter. That is what I am trying to get the minister to justify, if he can. If I have bobbed around at all in asking the question, the minister seems to be doing some nice

acrobatic work in trying to avoid answering it. I have asked the question twice; will the minister try some more acrobatics and see what he can do in getting around a plain answer to a plain question? I am asking the minister why this act was not made effective.


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection of it, Mr. Chairman, is that there were still a number of people who preferred to have their own brands on the boxes of their cheese, rather than anything the government at that time was prepared to put on. They were opposed to it, and the grade was put on the bill of lading instead of on the cheese. That was a compromise which was made. It is a matter of opinion just how we should deal with these questions, and that was the situation. It was graded; I want to assure my hon. friend that it was all graded.


John Wesley Edwards: It was
graded, but the grading was not made effective at all, because the act was not carried into effect. Now we have the explanation; the minister says this government puts an act upon the statute (books requiring the people to do thus and so, but some people do not like to do what that act requires, so the government let them do as they like. It does not make any difference what the act says; if they object or if they prefer not to comply with the statute, the minister says it is a very difficult matter to deal with those people, and so the act is not enforced. That is the explanation. It may satisfy the minister, but if that is not an indication of some very lively bobbing, I have never seen any in this House.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want my hon. friend to feel that there has been anything withheld from him. It is the experience of every man who has had anything to do with administering new legislation that for the first year it is the part of wisdom to not be too exacting in the carrying out of details. Everyone knows that. If my hon. friend does not know it, he will find it out from now on. As a matter of fact we did not place the act on the statute book; it was placed there by my hon. friend's own party and they deserve the credit for it. I am sorry my hon. friend has taken up the time of the committee in discussing pernickety, minor questions as to why we did not carry out the act from the first jmar it was introduced. I do not think any law, especially one that is entirely new, has ever been carried out in its minutest detail the first year it has been put into effect. Notwithstanding what my hon. friend has

Supply-Agriculture
said, the cheese put on the market is graded and everything is now running along smoothly. My hon. friend is just two years behind the times in making his complaint.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not
two years behind the times. I made the complaint just as soon as I was in a position to do so from the floor of this House, and I am perfectly within my rights in acting as I have done. The answer of the minister is no answer at all. According to his own statement the public had ample information that this was going to be done, and those of us who have followed the course of the dairy industry in this country know that to be a fact. I may go so far as to say to my hon. friend that when I was a member of this House, previous to 1921, I supported this very sort of legislation, believing it would be effective in keeping up the standard and quality of Canadian cheese and Canadian butter. I thought that Alberta had done a wise thing in passing legislation to regulate the production of butter in the province, and that this legislation had raised the standard of Alberta butter to a much higher point than it had attained in many other provinces. I believe that still. I support this legislation, and I say that the people had ample opportunity to consider the whole question of grading. When the butter and cheese were graded and the factory shipped its cheese to Montreal it had no recourse but to accept the grade given to its cheese by the graders. There was no appeal on any ground at all, the grade had to be accepted. The cheese-makers of a certain factory might consider they had produced No. 1 cheese, but if that cheese on being sent to Montreal was graded as No. 2 they had to accept the grade; there was no appeal from it, consequently many of them lost considerable money. I say in all fairness to the cheese producers that if their cheese and butter was graded, that grade should have been stamped upon the cheese that was exported, as the act presumed it would be. The act was to become operative on the 1st of April, 1923. It did not, however, go into force then, although it should have done so. As a matter of fact none of the cheese exported from this country that year stamped with the required grade. I think it was very unfair to the cheese producers of Canada that that grading was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the act. As for half a dozen years being necessary to enforce an act, that is absolute nonsense, and nothing else. The act was in existence and the public had
ample warning with respect to it. The legislation had been discussed by cheese boards and dairy associations from one end of the country to the other, and these organizations were perfectly aware of what was contemplated. They had considered it, they had approved of it, and had submitted many resolutions for their own protection. The cheesemaker who produced a first-class article had a right to be protected and felt that he was going to be protected by the act. The act did grant him protection, but it was not put into operation as it should have been. That is why I make this complaint to-night and I think the complaint is justified. The minister may take a different view, in which case, we will have to agree to differ. There is a lot of money involved in the cheese business; it means a good deal to eastern Ontario and western Quebec particularly. We have built up a reputation for the excellent quality of our cheese through the high degree of skill which our makers possess, and in that regard Canada has taken a very high place. One man in my county secured first place in competition with the world at the royal show in the Old Country in 1923. Another man secured the third prize the same year. In 1924 the man who had obtained the third prize the previous year won the first prize, and in 1925 the producer who gained first prize in 1923 won the first prize once more. I have the figures here to show that the reputation which those men obtained for Canadian cheese at that particular show meant a gain of thousands of dollars to the shippers of the Canadian product. This is a matter of very great importance to my county. Due to the fact that many first-class cheesemakers did not get a square deal under this act as they should have done in 1923, several of the most expert went out of business entirely after suffering losses which I maintain they would not have encountered had the temptation not been open to exporters to take advantage of the grading that was done in Montreal and to ship out cheese under grades to suit themselves.


William Richard Motherwell: I want to express
my appreciation at finding such an ardent advocate of the grading system. During the last four. years I have had to fight the battle for this system almost entirely alone. I am assuming that my hon. friend has always been in favour of it. There are, however, a great many people who are never heard from when a system is first introduced but who come forward and endorse it when it proves to be a success.
Supply-Agriculture


John Wesley Edwards: I advocated it long before the minister was in this House.


William Richard Motherwell: It was my hon.
friend's own party that passed the act. Why did they not put it in force? In the act as passed by the hon. gentleman's friends it was provided that before the law came into force it should be proclaimed by order in council. This shows that those responsible for the act knew what they were doing and that the time to make the law effective was a matter for discretion. I am sure the hon. gentleman will be glad to know that of the cheese graded in 1923, 77.08 graded No. 1. That was pretty good to start with. In 1924, showing the stimulus given by the grading system, 84.38 of the cheese graded No. 1. In 1925 the stimulus was still more apparent, because 85.60 graded No. 1. I should not be disputing with my hon. friend as to why the act was not enforced. Apparently in the first place there was doubt as to the desirability of [DOT] grading, and in the second place the effect the grading as introduced would have upon the quality was unknown.


Donald Sutherland: Provision is made for a grant of So,000 to the National Dairy Council. I would ask the minister if he has had any representations _ as a result of the meeting of the National Dairy Council held in Quebec last fall or this winter with reference to the Australian treaty. As I understand it, the National Dairy Council is a sort of parent institution which fathers all the provincial dairy associations. Such being the case I think its representations should have due weight with the minister. My information is that the dairy council did make some representations finding a good deal of fault with the Australian treaty. A number of other dairy associations I believe, in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have also made representations along the same line. Furthermore, I should like to ask the minister a question in view of the fact that in the first three months of the present year no less than four million pounds of butter entered Canada from New Zealand and Australia. When he considers that in the whole of the calendar year 1925 less than 70,000 pounds came in, I would like to get his opinion as to what effect that is having on the dairy industry. I should also be glad if the minister would take this opportunity to give us his own idea as to just what the effect of the treaty has been, since it has been in force, and what will the general effect be upon the dairy industry.


William Richard Motherwell: The National Dairy Council is not very much enamoured of those provisions of the Australian treaty that reduced the duty on New Zealand and Australian butter by two cents and three cents respectively, and they have so expressed themselves. The dairy association of Canada have so expressed themselves, but the Mari-times have not expressed themselves one way or the other. Out on the prairies, where we do not look for very much agitation on behalf of protection, there developed quite an agitation against that phase of the Australian treaty. I had the pleasure of meeting members of the dairy council here in Ottawa after their meeting at Quebec city, and they made a very fair representation in regard to their case. I asked them if they did not think it would be fair, before pronouncing judgment, to give this system a year's trial to see how it would work out. That was a month ago. I think my hon. friend knows that if it never works out any worse than it has this year we would hope the treaty would remain in force forever so far as the effect on the dairy industry is concerned. Under the provisions of the treaty we have had the magnificent amount of three cheeses coming in. So far as cheese is concerned we can leave it out. I do not think any eggs have come in, so that we can leave that item out as well, too. With regard to butter, in spite of the fact that it is coming in under a two-cent tariff reduction from New Zealand and a three-cent tariff reduction except where the dumping clause is applied automatically, from Australia, ever since it started to come in the price of butter has persistently gone up, week after week and month after month, until it has reached the price of 47| cents retail, and has been sold to consumers in almost every market in Canada for over 50 cents a pound. I think the reason was that there was such an unusual shortage in Canada that it was not possible to get Australian or New Zealand butter rapidly enough to fill the vacuum or depress the prices. The result has been that the shortage continued all winter and prices kept stiffening up all the time. From 43i cents it went up to 47i cents to the retailer. That is the highest point it reached, and the price to the consumer was 52 cents. Consequently the price of butter has been so high that, in spite of the reduction in duty an agitation has sprung up for the restoration of oleomargarine as a substitute. That is no dream. The National Council of Women in this city about a week ago so expressed themselves. The price is beginning to come down, not because of the Australian or New

Supply-A griculture
Zealand butter coming in, because that is all here or is on the way here, but our natural production, which usually occurs about this time of the year, has been coming in, and the prices have been dropping until now they are about what they were at the beginning of January. The shortage of butter was so great that it could not be supplied quickly enough to keep the price from going up, and it went up steadily till about ten days ago.
I do not know that we can take this as a criterion as to how it will affect the trade another year. One thing is sure, that if we enter another winter with the same shortage and the same conditions we will have the same prices. There is not sufficient storage space at Vancouver to keep the butter and supply it quickly enough to take care of the vacuum. On the other hand, if we do not ship short then we will have sufficient butter ourselves, and there will be no attraction for New Zealand or Australian butter. Australian and New Zealand butter did not displace one pound of Canadian butter. It was not here. The farmers and dairymen had sold it under the attractive prices of last summer and had the money in their pockets, and we had to turn around and buy from Australia and New Zealand.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the
minister say we had no reserves of butter?


William Richard Motherwell: We had not so
many reserves. We had about 12,000,000 pounds less than the year before or 6.000,000 pounds less than the average of the last five years.


John Wesley Edwards: But we had several millions in reserve?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but we were
12,000,000 pounds short of the previous year's supply. That 12,000,000 pounds could not come across the Pacific in the four months, because there was not sufficient cold storage to take care of it. The Pacific route had storage room for 8,000,000 pounds and that left a shortage until our own production came and took care of it, and the prices went down. The prices will very soon be down to an export basis. All through the winter, while the Australian butter was coming here, it was ten cents above export prices. As long as our butter is selling ten cents higher than the world price there can be no very great grievance, and we should be willing to try this treaty out in a normal year, when we enter the winter with a normal supply on hand.


Donald Sutherland: Four million pounds of butter from Australia and
New Zealand came in early this year, and the minister says that the price is the highest that it has been for many winters. That is probably true, but we must remember that it is the butter produced by the Australian and New Zealand farmers that is being sold at the high price. The Canadian farmer should be getting that price. I contend that when this legislation was put through in June of last year it discouraged the farmers, and they curtailed their production during last summer, in preparation for this winter's output, because they knew that in all prabability the Australian and New Zealand butter would come in. The Australian and New Zealand butter has come in. If our people had had their butter ready to sell at the high price, the Australian and New Zealand butter would have come in in any case, and they would not necessarily have got the high price which means so much profit to them. The Australian and New Zealand butter would have come in and would have been sold at a less price than the Canadian article, even if our butter had been on the market. I maintain it is the threat of that Australian and New Zealand butter coming in that is affecting the dairy industry and will continue to affect it. The minister also said that if the conditions so far were any criterion, he hoped the Australian and New Zealand treaty would continue forever. I do not think the dairy industry in this country will back him up in that statement. I think it has already given them a severe shock and the very threat of that product coming in when the price goes up is bound to have a deleterious effect on the industry.


William Richard Motherwell: As regards the production this year we have it as being forty per cent higher than that of last year. Even in the winter this year the production was greater than that of last winter, and as regards any production we have in the winter the farmers reap the benefit of the higher price.


Donald Sutherland: Not for the 4,000,000 pounds that came in from Australia and New Zealand.


William Richard Motherwell: What else could we have done? The farmers could not produce butter by flashlight. There are ways of making artificial butter, but there is only one way of making the real thing and the real thing was not here to eat or to sell. I believe our supply or stock on hand fell short by about
12,000,000 pounds of what it was a year ago; that quantity was not in sight and people had either to eat their bread dry or to get butter from somewhere. We brought it in from the logical place where we could get the best
Supply-Agriculture

butter at the lowest price, and that was New Zealand and Australia. I am really astonished at people complaining that we got good butter at a cheaper price while at the same time our farmers were getting a higher price for butter than they had since the end of the war. Next year-and we expect to be here for several years yet-my hon. friend may have the argument on the statistics but we shall have to wait until that time. In the meantime all the figures are against my hon. friend's contention. The price on March 19 for first grade Australian butter at London prices converted into Canadian currency was equivalent to 36J cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the London price?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the Vancouver price?
Mr. MOTHERWELL. The Montreal price the same day for first grade creamery butter in the wholesale jobbing houses was 47 cents, or eleven cents higher. I was giving it at ten cents higher.


James Dew Chaplin: What was it in 1923? The minister says that prices now are higher than they have been at any time since the war. I have his own circular letter, this campaign literature, showing the price in 1923. Will he just read from it?


William Richard Motherwell: I gave my copy to the leader of the opposition.


James Dew Chaplin: I will read it. The price of butter was as high as 52J cents.


William Richard Motherwell: That is retail.


James Dew Chaplin: This does not say retail. It gives the prices at Montreal in the month of February and these are his own figures. The high price is 521 cents, which is the highest price quoted in the whole list.


William Richard Motherwell: The price I state has been going up all winter.


James Dew Chaplin: The price that I have reference to is published in this campaign literature, under date of 1923, not this year at all, and yet the minister says that the price now is higher than it has been at any time since the war. That statement does not agree with his printed letter.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member is reading from the wrong scripture.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago the minister said that this treaty came into effect only in October and that no harm had

been done since then, although 4,000,000 pounds have come in. That sounds very much like the campaign literature that I am going to read from now.


William Richard Motherwell: That is Tory stuff.


James Dew Chaplin: No. Hon. members will recognize the photograph on the outside, that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). This piece of campaign literature is published in September last. Let me read this sentence:
No ill effects as yet have flowed from the Australian treaty.
This has the signature of the Liberal party and the photograph of the Prime Minister on it.


William Richard Motherwell: We always sign ours.


James Dew Chaplin: This says:
No ill effects as yet have flowed from the Australian treaty.
Ju^t imagine! This was dated in September and the Australian treaty came into effect on the first of October.


William Richard Motherwell: That is easily
accounted for. My hon. friend does not know the effect of his own campaign regarding this treaty. My hon. friends were howling about this for months before in anticipation of it, and as a matter of fact in Alberta and British Columbia, as a result of their propaganda against it, the dairymen dropped their prices even before the treaty came into effect. When my hon. friends opposite were in power there was no complaint about Australian butter coming in. I will give the total imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand for different years. In 1911, the last year that the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, the total imports of butter from Australia amounted in round figures to 900,000 pounds. The very first year that my hon. friends were in power the total from Australasia amounted to 2,241,000 pounds, or nearly three times as much of what they call this villainous stuff came in. [DOT]


James Dew Chaplin: That is for a year. My hon. friend did better in four months.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
would apparently rather be eating oleomargarine which his leader wanted to impose upon this country, oleomargarine that is made from intestinal parts of animals and other things. In 1913 the jump is three times as great again; there was 6,116,000 pounds of this so-called bad stuff imported from Australasia.

Supply-Agriculture
Did we hear any Tories going around the country howling their heads o2 about that? We never heard a word about it. The people of Canada thought it was a good thing to be able to get first class butter at a low price from their sister dominion, and if it had not been for the election last fall they would have continued to think t'he same thing. But my hon. friends have such a propaganda factory at Toronto that they have persuaded the people it is a bad thing for them to buy this butter from their sister dominion at two cents less.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the duty at that time?


William Richard Motherwell: Four and three
cents. It has been that for a long time, for a quarter of a century. My hon. friend cannot divert me from giving these figures by telling us bed-time stories. In 1914, 6,959,000 pounds of this kind of dope came in from our sister dominion, or nearly twice as much as has come this year, and yet not a word was said about it. I would ask the hon. member for Lincoln what the people of this country would have done if they lacked 4,000,000 pounds of butter with which to lubricate their bread. I will wait for an answer. We entered upon the winter with a shortage of 12,000,000 pounds, and we all know that you cannot order butter from the cow overnight.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister is
certainly an expert at buffoonery. He knows that there were 10,000,000 pounds of butter in storage at the time this butter was brought in from Australia. What I would not have done was to take the duty off any of our own farm products.


William Richard Motherwell: That is no answer. The fact is that we had 6,000,000 pounds less than the average of the last five years.


James Dew Chaplin: And did 4,000,000 pounds that came in meet our needs? If it did, then I can tell the minister that we had several million pounds in storage.


William Richard Motherwell: We were short of butter or we would not have ordered any from abroad.


James Dew Chaplin: There is another matter I want to have answered.


William Richard Motherwell: I want this one settled first.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago the minister referred to the fact that there was an automatic dumping clause in effect on Australian butter. Has that dumping clause 14011-134
been enforced against one solitary pound of Australian or New Zealand butter that has come into Canada in the last three months?


William Richard Motherwell: The answer from
the department of the minister of Customs indicates that it has. The dumping clause was applied to Australian butter, as it is applied to all other butter.


James Dew Chaplin: I asked a plain question and the minister is not giving me a plain answer. I want to know whether one pound of Australian butter was subjected to the dumping clause.


William Richard Motherwell: It is all subject to the dumping clause, whether from Australia or elsewhere.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understood the minister to say that this butter from Australia and New Zealand did not lower the price in Canada, but on the contrary almost stimulated it.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister remember the telegrams read in this House from Vancouver and Victoria indicating that the first shipment of Australian butter had the effect of reducing our price by from two to four cents?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say what effect it had; I was assuming for the sake of argument that it did lower the price. I believe that the people of Vancouver, as I know was the case in Alberta, hearing so much talk about great quantities of butter coming in from Australia, lowered the price before that butter ever landed on their shores. Vancouver would be the logical place where the greatest effect would be felt from an importation of Australian butter inasmuch as it is the frontier of the antipodes. I know further that the Alberta creamery men had an arrangement with the produce dealers of Vancouver to supply them with butter at two cents below what it was at the time the treaty went into effect, provided they would patronize the Alberta creameries. They lowered the price in anticipation.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister gave us to understand a while ago that there was such a shortage of butter in this country that we had either to allow Australian and New Zealand butter to come in or eat our bread unbuttered. Now he tells us that in anticipation of Australian and New Zealand butter coming in the price immediately dropped in Vancouver and elsewhere from

Supply-Agriculture

two to three cents per pound. On what? On the butter we did not have, for he said just now that we had no butter. According to his own statement we had a shortage. He tells us however that the price of our butter, which was non-existent, fell two, three or four cents per pound. The minister quoted figures in regard to importations covering a period going back eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen years, but he did not complete his statement Perhaps he has the figures before him. I have not all the facts in my mind, but my impression is that during those years we had a shortage. Notwithstanding the statement of the minister, however, as to the present shortage in this country, I think I am right in saying that we had an exportable surplus of butter last year of between twenty-five and thirty million pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: More than that;
34.000.	000 pounds.


John Wesley Edwards: Then what becomes of the minister's statement that the price went up because there was an absolute shortage here? The position which I take in this matter is this: there are two classes of people concerned in the sale of butter-the purchasers, whose representations have a right to be considered, and the consumers, who have an equal claim upon our consideration. That is the principle that should govern us in fixing the tariff, and I maintain that so long as Canada has an exportable surplus of
30.000.	000 pounds of butter that very fact in itself should be an absolute guarantee to the consumers that they would never have to pay more than they should for the article. That is reasonable. At the same time I hold that the producers of this commodity in our own country have the first claim on our own home market. Australia and New Zealand take that view in regard to their own products. They have a high duty on butter, because they have a large exportable surplus, and they have also a considerable tariff on meats. They are one of the largest meat exporting countries in the world, and they say that inasmuch as they have more butter and cheese and meat than they know what to do with, they do not want outsiders to send those commodities into their country. They guarantee to the farmers that only Australian and New Zealand butter, meat, eggs and cheese shall be used on Australian and New Zealand tables. That, I maintain, is the proper attitude for us to take here, especially in view of this fact, which should not be lost sight of, that the dairy interests cannot be considered only in relation to the summer months, but from the standpoint of

the entire year. In the course of the twelve months we have a severe winter during which the cost of production is necessarily high, and the producers of Alberta and other places in Canada where there exists a surplus of butter have a distinct grievance. At the very time in the winter months when the cost of production is at its highest in Canada, they are forced by the Australian treaty to compete with the product imported from that country, which is produced at a time when the cost of production is naturally low.
,It is all very well to theorize on the subject of free trade and other questions of that sort, but we must not lose sight of the practical element. We cannot afford to forget that climatic conditions in this country are different from those that obtain in Australia and New Zealand, and owing to that difference our farmers are compelled to invest large sums of money in specially adapted barns and stables, in silos and other equipment, and to spend a good deal in providing forage and storing it for the winter, keeping their stock during that trying season at a heavy expense. It is therefore unreasonable, it is eminently unjust to expect the farmers in a country like Canada to compete on even terms with Australian and New Zealand butter and similar products by allowing those products to come into this Dominion at a very low rate of duty, or nominally free. That is the position which I take and it is the position taken by dairymen generally throughout the country. I do not believe that there was any shortage of butter such as the minister speaks of. There might be a shortage in this or that locality, but that might happen at any time; but on the whole our trade figures show, as the minister himself has admitted, that Canada did not have a shortage of butter last year. On the contrary we had a large exportable surplus of some 30,000,000 pounds and as the minister says, even more than that. My contention is that we should so arrange the tariff as to guarantee to our Canadian farmers that their produce shall have first place on Canadian tables and not the produce of countries which have a distinct advantage over us by enjoying a milder climate.


William Richard Motherwell: There is not much in the moralizing of the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) to which I take exception, but he tried to make my statements appear self-contradictory. I admitted that butter-fat prices dropped in October, not only when the treaty came in but even a little before it did, owing to all the noise that was made by my hon. friends prior to the election. But the prices

Supply-Agriculture
went up again before the New Year as soon as it was understood that there was a shortage, and that condition continued until about two weeks ago. That is what I said, and there is nothing contradictory in it. As to our being short of butter, I did not say that; what I said was that we went into the winter with a shortage. It does not matter whether we exported 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 or 100,000,000 pounds of butter; the fact remains that so long as that butter went out of the country during the summer we did not have it in Canada. We could not sell our butter and have it at the same time. We therefore entered upon the winter with a shortage of
12,000,000 pounds as compared with last year, and that is what made butter prices go up. The great tide of Australian and New Zealand butter which had been dammed by the longshoremen's strike naturally flowed, when liberated, into the places where there was the greatest shortage, and one of those places happened to be Canada. Butter made right in this country had gone over to Great Britain, and when the shortage occurred here that butter was shipped back, paying a duty of four cents to enter the country of its origin.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Was that not due to the strike in Australia which prevented the Australian product from reaching the British market?


William Richard Motherwell: The Australian
butter was held back through the strike.


Milton Neil Campbell: That was responsible
for the enhanced price.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, because the
Australian butter could not get to the British market; there was a shortage there which attracted Canadian butter, so that When the winter came we had a shortage as compared with the previous year. We had therefore either to buy butter somewhere or go without it. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) apparently would have preferred to have us go without it, and that is a matter of choice.


James Dew Chaplin: This minister
can argue in a circle about as well as anyone I ever came across. He says there was a shortage here of 12,000,000 pounds, and in a circular letter, written in his own office over his own signature, only a few days ago, he has this to say:
The present agitation originated largely with some dealers and creamery operators who hoped to realize higher prices on the stock of butter which they had on hand and for which the producers had been paid fall prices.
Tf you can beat that I want to hear the next one.


William Richard Motherwell: I can give explanations-


James Dew Chaplin: You bet you
can.


William Richard Motherwell: -but I can never guarantee that the hon. gentleman will understand them.


James Dew Chaplin: You won't yourself.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course there
were stocks on hand, but the fact that is of significance is that we had 12,000,000 pounds too little as compared with the year before. That is the point.


James Dew Chaplin: And 4,000,000 pounds we imported would save the situation?


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, where
would you have got it?


James Dew Chaplin: And we had
butter in storage. How much is in storage now?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, what is the
use of talking?


Mr. FOSTER:: There seems to be in the
examination of this question a doublebarrelled difficulty. The minister himself says that Australian butter coming in cost the consumers a higher price, and if I understood him correctly I think he said that the fear of this same influx of butter drove down prices in Canada. And if we are to believe the statement that has been made, the producers in the country, or at least a great many of them, went out of business reducing their stocks and herds, so that there was an adverse effect, in consequence, as regards the production of butter in Canada and the necessity for the consumers to pay higher prices. I think it is true that the dealers in butter in this country, sometimes in the summer, when there is usually a large quantity produced from an abundance of grass feed, later on keep up their prices anticipating a higher market. When therefore the treaty went into effect, or was about to go into effect, the dealers in Canada were on the verge of panic, and they sold heavily of their reserve stocks. The minister speaks of Tory propaganda, at the time of. the election, creating a hubbub in the country and frightening the dealers and producers; but there would have been no propaganda had there been no legislation of this kind proposed or any treaty in sight. There are therefore two evils in connection with this matter, one bearing harmfully upon the consumer, and the other affecting the producer.

Supply-A griculture
One word more. I listened attentively to the minister and I heard him say that the price in Canada to-day was ten to eleven cents higher than the export price. Did I understand the minister correctly?


William Richard Motherwell: I read the dates.


George Eulas Foster: That is all right, but approximately?


William Richard Motherwell: 1921.


George Eulas Foster: That is so, and that was
maintained for some considerable time?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King) to that remark. Here is a statement by the minister admitting that the export price does not govern the home market price, the spread being 10 cents. I want hon. gentlemen to remember, therefore, that when they say the export price in the world market governs the price at home, it is at last on record, through the Minister of Agriculture, that that is not so.


John Livingstone Brown: When you have an exportable surplus.


George Eulas Foster: We had an exportable surplus.


John Livingstone Brown: Not at the time the minister speaks of.


George Eulas Foster: It is very peculiar, Mr. Chairman; I try to speak in a very mild manner, but the dogs of war hop on me from all comers of the House whenever I make a statement. It must be that I get under somebody's skin, and I can assure you that I do not mean to do so. I merely wish to point out what I hope is quite obvious to anyone giving a moment's thought to the subject. The minister says there is no exportable surplus, but in the next breath says there are
7.000.	000 pounds in storage, and we export
30.000.	000 to 40,000,000 pounds; we have . 7,000,000 pounds more than are normally required. That is an exportable surplus. If the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) cannot see that that is an exportable surplus, he should have a pair of glasses.


John Livingstone Brown: It does not follow that there is an exportable surplus because you have a small reserve stock on hand for your own use.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is like the man in some parts of our own country who, when laying in a little sauerkraut for the winter, puts in eleven barrels for his own use.

Seven million pounds is practically one quarter of our total export.


Edward James Young: How much is
that for each person in Canada?


George Eulas Foster: It is 7,000,000 pounds more than is normally consumed, if that is anything to my hon. friend. Of course it would be a little difficult for him, I fancy, to figure that out offhand, but he may be one of those lightning calculators who come from certain sections of the country, and able to figure these things out rapidly. But my point is that when we have hon. gentlemen here telling the country and this House that the home market price is governed by the export price, we now know once and for all, from an authoritative source-the Minister of Agriculture himself-that that is not always true.


William Richard Motherwell: I feel sorry for my hon. friend if he does not see the difference between what the hon. member
11 p.m. for Weyburn (Mr. Young) said and the conditions which have prevailed during the last four months. We were an importing country for the last four months; that is the reason.


George Eulas Foster: With 7,000,000 pounds in
storage we are importing?


William Richard Motherwell: What is 7,000,000
pounds, spread over this Dominion?


George Eulas Foster: It is a quarter of our
total exports.


William Richard Motherwell: I think perhaps
my hon. friend finds difficulty in understanding the situation. My hon. friends from Nova Scotia make good butter and export it, but Canada as a country has been an importer of butter during the past four or five months. That is what the howl has been about, because we have imported 4,500,000 pounds of butter.


James Dew Chaplin: Under a low
tariff.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what the
kick is about; hon. gentlemen seem to want to pay more. If the producers have suffered, and I do not admit that, it must be remembered that the consumer has benefited. They can take it whichever way they like.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt this question is agitating the rural parts of Canada very much. During the last election the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King) had ^o write a letter to the Globe saying that he

Royal Assent
did not vote in favour of the Australian treaty. Someone inadvertently said that he had voted in favour of it, and he had to go on record to the contrary. That shows the feeling in his riding, when he had to correct that impression before he could hope for reelection. There is one last question I want to ask the minister. What in his opinion will be the effect on Canadian dairying of the recent increase in the American tariff on butter from eight cents to twelve cents?


William Richard Motherwell: We will be less apt to go there. There is very little butter goes there, it will go to the world market, which is the United Kingdom. Occasionally some goes to the United States but not very much, and that amount will decrease under the twelve cent duty.


Donald Sutherland: Would there not be less if our tariff was higher?


William Richard Motherwell: They do not bring butter in here.


Donald Sutherland: I
mean from other countries as well as from the United States. Would not the same principle hold?


William Richard Motherwell: As soon as we begin exporting, which will be in a month or so, there will be no butter coming from anywhere, because we will be exporting it.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I think we have had an
interesting discussion on this very important subject. It is now eleven o'clock and many of our agricultural members who would like to take part in this discussion are not here. I want to say a few words myself, and I think under the circumstances the minister might let this stand over until after Easter.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, if my hon.
friend offers no objection, perhaps we might pass this item, with the understanding that we will have a full discussion on it afterwards.


William Richard Motherwell: We will have the whole question of dairying up again on the live stock vote. I would like to make a little progress.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not forgotten that he made a similar promise once before and when he got into the estimates, where we could discuss the particular item, he called on the chairman to shut discussion off.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not make a promise.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's memory is as poor as his dependability. That occasion is very dear in the minds of a number of us, and I do not think the minister could have forgotten it. It was on a similar vote. I am ready to accept any measure of repentance by the minister, and if he will promise not to do that again, so far as I am concerned I am prepared to let this go through.


William Richard Motherwell: I say I never did it and I never intend to do it.


Arthur Meighen: If we produce the specific case, will the minister beg pardon?


Ernest Lapointe: He will recant.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he will recant.


William Richard Motherwell: He will crawfish.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he, is too old to reform, even yet.


William Richard Motherwell: No, we are always improving.


Arthur Meighen: And with the distance the minister has to go, he can start any time. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to let the item go through, on condition that this discussion will come in at a future time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Wednesday, March 31, 1926