1926-04-09

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization-Mr. Kay.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I would like to inquire of the government when I may expect a return to an order of the House made on March 15 for the production of correspondence, orders in council, etc., with reference to the administration of imperial pensions in Canada by this government.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: As soon as the return
is prepared I will be pleased to lay it on the table.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The minister should be
able to answer better than that. Has he no information about it? This is a simple question.


Ernest Lapointe: The order has been sent to the department which it concerns and I have not as yet received the return. I have been in this House for over twenty years and I do not think a delay of one month is enough to complain about. I have seen longer delays than that.



ACTING MINISTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MANION:: Might I ask who is the
Acting Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in the House of Commons? Is it my hon. friend?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no acting minister, because the minister is in office.


Robert James Manion: Then to whom should we apply in this House for information, if we wish it?


Ernest Lapointe: I do give that information occasionally, but I understand that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish) would answer questions.


Mr. HANSON:: May I ask who represents the Postmaster General in this House?


Ernest Lapointe: I have that honour and * pleasure.
TEST VOYAGE-LINER REGINA*
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. PRICE:: I would like to direct the
attention of the Minister of Railways to an announcement appearing in the Halifax Herald under date of April 3, which is as follows:
White Star liner Regina that is having a test in making Halifax her terminus for this voyage, sails from Liverpool to-day, April 3, with passengers and cargo for Halifax. The liner is expected April 10 and will sail on her return trip April 14. Strenuous efforts are being made to fill the ship with return cargo.
In view of the fact that the Regina is making Halifax her terminus as a test case for this voyage, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways what effort is being made by the Canadian National Railways to furnish this ship with a return cargo.


Mr. DUNNING:: I will be pleased to get
that information for my hon. friend.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
[Stage Direction]
225S
Soldier Settlement Act
Arthur Meighen: I presume the motion is printed or the second reading would not be moved?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: We announced last night that we would take it up.


Arthur Meighen: I am aware of that. I rise only to say that I am not aware of the contents of the bill with reference to the special feature that was under debate, and in so far as that special feature relates to the principle of the bill, I do not wish the fact that we agree to the motion for the second reading to be taken as an acceptance of that feature of the principle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Revaluation of land sold to settlers.
Mr. HANNESSON:: May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to include those who may technically not be on the land, but who have done a certain amount of improvement work, and have resided on the land for, say, a minimum of five years? Is he prepared to put them on the same basis as those who come in under the empire settlement scheme and take up land?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: No. I may say that there is a considerable number of changes in the bill, though no changes in the first page of the bill. Probably I had better read the clause proposed with respect to revaluation.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Can we not have a
copy of the changes?


Charles A. Stewart: I was hoping to have a reprint of the changes ready. I have not got them at the moment, but they may be here a little later. The proposed new clause (c) of section 68 reads as follows:
The difference or depreciation in value to be determined shall be the diminution, not due to neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler, in the present market value of the land as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land from the board provided that in any case where the- actual sale price is greater than the maximum amount which under section 16 of this act may be advanced by the board in the purchase of land on behalf of any settler, such maximum amount shall be deemed the sale price for the purposes of this section.
There are several cases where the board was willing to pay, say for example, SI,000, but where the settler himself was so anxious to secure the land that he paid, say, $1,000 more. That $1,000 will not be taken into considera-

tion in any revaluation, but simply the maximum amount paid for the land by the board.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am afraid the minister did not get my question.


Charles A. Stewart: I was coming to that, but first I wanted to review briefly the provisions of this section.
With respect to the man who is now off the land and the man who is paid up on his land, their contracts are closed out, and they will receive no consideration.
Then there is another case, that of the man who purchased for, say, $3,000. He purchased at that price and paid nothing further himself. He has paid off all his indebtedness, we will say, except for the sum of $800. If in the revaluation he was entitled to a reduction of $1,000, there would be coming to him $200, but under the provisions of this section he will be credited only with $800; he will not be credited with anything further than the amount of his indebtedness to the board.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it was before; it is that way still?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The case I had in
mind was that of a man who has put in four or five years in occupancy and development and who is technically off the land, but has na desire whatsoever to abandon it, and whose contract has not been closed1 out in the sense of his land having been disposed of to someone else. Will he be put on the same basis as t'he new purchaser of the land? I am asking particularly with regard to the man who has put in, say, five years on the land, and has done from, say, one to two thousand dollars' worth of improvements. If he now desires to get the benefit of revaluation and resume possession and continue on the farm, will he be considered under this act, or is the man who comes in under the empire settlement scheme going to get the preference over the returned soldier who has put in five or six years on the farm and actually done work showing that he is a capable farmer?


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid section 68 (a) would cut him out, because he has to foe actually residing on the land. I have not made any change in clause (a).


Hannes Marino Hannesson: There are some men
who for the purpose of making a little money, and with no desire to abandon their land, have gone away, and technically they may be off the land, but if they now desire to continue under this revaluation, will the government consider their case?

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: I could not go outside the limitations of the act, and section 68 (a) says very plainly:
Application for revaluation can be considered only when made by a settleT residing on and himself fanning the said land.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I understand the minister to mean there the man who has definitely abandoned his land, but I am drawing his attention to the case of the man who did not wish to abandon his land, but found it impossible to stay on it for the time being, and I am asking if a preference is going to be given to the man who is coming out to Canada under the empire settlement scheme. Is the new settler to be given the right to buy at a lower price, but not the returned man who has put in many years on the land, and who now desires to purchase at the reduced valuation?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Perhaps
we can get at it in a different way. Is it not possible that t'he man to whom the hon.
. member for Selkirk refers could go back on the land and1 then make application for revaluation? Would not that meet the case?


Hannes Marino Hannesson: That would be satisfactory.


Charles A. Stewart: In that case of course he would come within the provisions of the act as he would be actually residing on the land at the date he made his application.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The minister does not quite understand my point. If a man has been technically off the land for years, having actually determined that unless there was a revaluation it would be hopeless for him to continue, but now under a revaluation he would like to continue, is he not to be given a chance?


Charles A. Stewart: That is, his contract is not cancelled, it is still in existence. If he moves back to his farm and takes up actual residence, he comes within the provisions of the act.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Would the minister undertake to say that the application of any settler who wants to continue on his land will be considered within two months of the passing of this measure?


Charles A. Stewart: I would say most emphatically that if he is on the land at the date he files his application, then he comes within the provisions of the act, and whether it is within two months or up to the date it must terminate, his application will be received.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: But the minister will remember that when this matter was first under discussion both the member for Neepawa (Mr. Murphy) and I drew attention to the men whom the board had tried to put off their lands. It is those men who are not now actually physically off the land that I am dealing with. If within two months of the passage of this bill they come back and say they want to continue on their land and come within the class who have been five years or more on the land and have done improvements to the extent of SI,500, will they be allowed to come in under the revaluation scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I think I would go further than that. I propose to amend the act by giving six months from the date of the passage of the act for the final filing of applications, so if the men were actually in residence four months after this measure becomes law they would come within its provisions.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: And in the meantime those lands will not be disposed of under the allotment to the Empire Settlement Board?


Charles A. Stewart: I have been discussing the matter with the chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board, and he is extremely anxious that urgency be used in clearing this matter up, for the very reason that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson) has mentioned, that a large number of men are waiting to see what is going to happen in the revaluation before they come to a final decision as to whether they will continue on their land or not. That is why we first thought of giving a year from the passage of the act for the filing of claims, but I have suggested that we reduce that time to six months in order that we might facilitate the operation of the act.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: In the meantime the minister will not-


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon. No action would be taken to dispossess any man until he had had an opportunity to make a final decision.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I understand that under the empire settlement agreement a certain number of units have been promised, and that some work has already been done on them. Will the minister give the House an assurance that so far as the soldier settlement lands are concerned none of the units that pertain to any of those men who have not been absent more than a year will be
Soldier Settlement Act

allotted under the empire settlement scheme, so as to afford those boys an opportunity to come back?


Charles A. Stewart: Unless the land was going to be left idle I think I would be safe in promising my hon. friend that no action would be taken on the part of the Soldier Settlement Board. But in the event of a farm being unoccupied and unseeded, it might be necessary to take some action, as would also be the case where the men had voluntarily abandoned their holdings. But proceedings to dispossess them will riot be taken.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: That is hardly wide
enough, Mr. Chairman. If a man by reason of not having the money to seed his land last year, for instance, has gone out tf work and wants to continue his farm, it would not be fair to him to say, "You were not on the land last year and you are not on it this spring," when practically the board had told him that he was not going to be allowed to come back. I am asking that the board reserve to those men who have done a substantial amount of improvements and resided on their land for four or five years-fix it at the minimum of five years-the right to continue. In other words, I ask that their land should be reserved and not allotted to the Empire Settlement Board during the time within which those men should have the option of returning to their farms.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know whether I follow my hon. friend correctly. I do not want to make any promises that would embarrass the board in their operations, but so far as I have been able to learn there is no disposition on the part of the board to dispossess men who evince any reasonable desire to remain on the land and have some chance of making good. But to say that no action of any kind would be taken, might in some cases tie up the operations of the board. Take the case my hon. friend has just cited, if the land was not cultivated last year, and there was not much prospect of its being cultivated this year, it would be a rather serious consideration so far as that farm is concerned. On the other hand, I would be willing to go the limit in giving the soldier every chance, for I would much prefer to have him remain on the land than give it to a newcomer if the soldier has any chance at all to make good. I could not absolutely promise a cessation of operations altogether.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: It is merely the principle that I want accepted.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister can possibly meet the request of the hon. member for Selkirk under this bill. It seems to me the point raised by him is so important, and the minister is going to be confronted with so many cases of the kind in the administration of the act, that it might be well to reserve the clause affecting it and pass on. As it appeals to me, the minister is going to run across cases of the most striking discrimination; he cannot possibly avoid it. There are going to be two or three classes. The class that the hon. member for Selkirk has in mind is this:	Men
have struggled manfully on the land against an inflated valuation, and consequently an inflated obligation, and after three or four years their hearts have grown sick with hope deferred and they have quit. They have used good judgment in doing so. They are not guilty even of bad judgment, to say nothing of bad faith. They simply saw that the land could not be paid for under the price it had to be bought at in 1919. Now that agreement is cancelled. The number of cases where the men are off the land and the agreement would be cancelled is large. It is the duty of the board when the man is off the premises to cancel the agreement and therefore the agreements would be cancelled in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. What the hon. member for Selkirk says is this:	Are you going to
take that man who left the land simply because of the very state of affairs which is sought to be remedied by this bill, left it not because of bad judgment but of good judgment, left it not because of bad faith but of good faith to give the board the best chance to go ahead-are you going to say to that man, "You are in the cold forever, but we will invite people from England and the rest of Europe and loan them $500 to buy this land at a low' valuation." The minister sees that he will not be able to maintain that attitude, but if he leaves the bill as it is he will be in an embarrassing position.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is not suggesting that if a soldier wishes to be reinstated that be done?


Arthur Meighen: It cannot be done under this act.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
understand my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That is the point; the
minister is going to be confronted with those cases by the score.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
I had made that clear when I said that where

Soldier Settlement Act
there was a cancellation of the agreement there would be no consideration.


Arthur Meighen: I agree wholly with the
minister's interpretation of the act as it is. But leaving the act as it is, the minister in its administration will be confronted with a class of cases where the discrimination, the unfairness is so brutal that he will never be able to hold his position, he will have to come back to parliament and get an amendment. The class of cases presented by the member for Selkirk is a large class, and it is a class whose appeal the minister will have to answer. There is .another class where discrimination will come in, but I do not want to confuse the issue by dealing with it at the moment. I suggest to the minister that he leave this clause and take it up with the board again to see if he cannot so recast it that the board will have a discretion; or, better still, that the board will be entitled and asked to give some preference to the soldier who has worked on that land and left it solely because he saw that the obligation was too large for him to surmount.


Mr. CLARK:: The point I want to make
is exactly the point made by my right hon. leader in clearer language than I could make it. I understood the hon. member for Selkirk perfectly. The class of case he desires to protect is that of the man whose agreement has been cancelled.


Charles A. Stewart: Frankly, I
did not get that.


John Arthur Clark: That is the man who is on
the land and is in arrears and needs a revaluation. There are scores of oases to-day where men have found it impossible to carry the burden at the price at which the land was valued when they took it over in 1919. In fact, I drew the minister's attention on the orders of the day at the opening of the session to fifty cases in the Fraser valley, where fifty families had been brought from the Old Country, to take up land that had been abandoned by soldier settlers who could not carry the load. The point is this: we consider that before one of the empire settlers is brought in to take over soldier settler land, the man who was forced to abandon that land should be given an opportunity to come in again and take over the land at a revaluation; otherwise there would be discriminar tion and unfairness to the whole class of soldier settlers who are to-day suffering from the need of revaluation. Under the act as it is drafted, those men will not be attended to. There is no obligation on the Soldier
Settlement Board to attend to them. The minister may desire that they be considered-


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no, I
quite admit that that is not in the act.


John Arthur Clark: The point made by the
hon. member for Selkirk, by my leader and by myself is that those are the men for whom there is need of protection. We all know that the Soldier Settlement Board will not put a man off his land merely because he is lin arrears. We know that if a revaluation is made, and that man is making good on the land, he will not be .put off. We quite understand that. But I think the man who has been forced to abandon his land because of the burden of over-valuation should be given the opportunity to come back. The Soldier Settlement Board should be bound by legislation to reconsider the case of that man, and therefore this legislation is defective. Furthermore, I understand that the bill which is before the House is not yet printed and in our hands.


Charles A. Stewart: The amendments are not there; that is the difficulty.


John Arthur Clark: This is a very vital act,
one for which we have been pressing for several years past, and it involves millions of money. In my opinion it should be given the most serious consideration. I submit that we are not in a position this afternoon to consider the bill when we have not actually got it before us. We are asked to deal with a bill which the minister has read to us. I confess personally that I could not hear his explanation, and I am sure many other members could not hear and appreciate what he said.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
be very glad to have the particular phase which has been brought up by the right hon. leader of the opposition, the member for Selkirk and the member for Vancouver-Burrard, discussed now at a little more length, because I have made it very clear that we are not considering the man who is off the land. If you deal with a man whose contract is cancelled, what are you going to do with the man who has paid in full? Quite a considerable number have paid up.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: They did not get a
bad bargain.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not agree with you. A great many of these men have come into money; money has been left them by their friends, and notwithstanding the fact that
Soldier Settlement Act

they had a contract based on a price which undoubtedly would be reduced on revaluation, they have paid in full. How can we discriminate against a man of that class and in favour of the man who has left the land and has had his contract cancelled? I want to be generous to the soldier, but I want the House to understand that it is going to cost the country a great deal of money if we are going to take into consideration every phase of the act.


Mtf HANNESSON:: Are you figuring on
selling these lands that have been, repossessed by the Soldier Settlement Board? If it is necessary to revalue the land and reduce the price to get settlers why can Canada better afford to take a loss for the newcomer than for the soldier who has spent years upon it and wants to get it back?


Charles A. Stewart: I know that argument is very appealing. I think my hon. friend wants to be fair.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Absolutely.


Charles A. Stewart: If you want to be fair, I doubt if you can draft an act for the purpose for which this act is designed and be fair to everybody. I will admit that at once, but I point out that as you begin to take into consideration various aspects of the soldier settlement scheme you take a mighty 'big contract on your hands. If you are going to be absolutely fair to every man who went on the land, you will find it is a most difficult proposition. I do not see how you are going to discriminate against the man who is on his land, who has made good, and paid the government every dollar. A considerable number have done so. He has made good, because undoubtedly he did not earn that money on the land, but got it from some other source and paid the government. Now, he is to be shut out, and you are going to deal with the man who has a cancelled contract. I do not see for the life of me how you can discriminate in that way.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is abr
solutely right.


Charles A. Stewart: I welcome
discussion.


Arthur Meighen: The bill, as it is seems
to me, is founded upon a principle upon which the minister is never going to be able consistently to stand. Unless you get something that is defensible all around you cannot work it out. You will be driven from one post to another and will not know where you stand. You are quite right that if you come in with

this class you are going to be met with another class, against whom you are discriminating. Under the bill as it stands the minister is trying to be fair only to one class of soldier-the men still on the land. That is the principle of the bill. It is an attempt to help those soldiers who still, after five years are on the land, to the extent of reducing their indebtedness by the loss in land values. I do not believe the minister is ever going to be able to stand on that principle. But if he had said, ''Here, we have done all we can in general for the soldiers; the man on the land has been treated at least e^s well as the man off the land; now we are going to pass a piece of legislation to assist in settlement, in order to do for the settler what the vendor would do under the same circumstances; that is to say, where we have lands that are not paid for against which there is a heavier indebtedness than the value of the land itself, we intend to revalue those lands and reduce the debt to what the land is worth, because we know we cannot get any more an}^way"-if he had said that he would have stated a principle upon which he could stand. I admit it would not be as generous to some as the principle of the bill, but better to others and more consistent.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
quite follow that.


Arthur Meighen: What I suggested was
that the minister might have framed his bill in such a way as to say to. all purchasers of soldier settler lands that wherever there is more money owed us than the land is worth, we are going to reduce the debt to the amount the land is worth. We do it. not because we think you owe us more; but because we cannot discriminate against the soldiers. We have done the best we can for the soldiers all over, but we know we cannot collect any more than the land is worth, just as a vendor would say to a purchaser: we would rather you got the land than somebody else outside. We would rather have you than an empire settler to whom we would have to sell the land at a lower price than that at which we are ready to sell it to you. We will reduce the price to you to a really fair basis and you can have it if you want it. If you do not want it, you do not need to take it. I fancy if the minister had framed his bill on that principle he never could have been jilted around from one point to another.
But how in the world he is going to stand in this position, I do not know. He cannot answer the class of cases presented by the hon. member for Selkirk. Those men will

Soldier Settlement Act
say to him:	We are far more deserving than
the other fellows who are hanging on to the land and who have done nothing. I have sold land to men who are quite content to sleep in a shack, stay there year in and year out, get enough to live on, never pay a cent, never pay a cent of taxes, and do almost nothing. That is the extent of their ambition. But others in a similar condition would simply say:	Well, we owe more than the land is
worth; we will get out and make a living; we will try to get on in the world. That is the class of cases presented by the hon. member for Selkirk. Will the minister say to the man who hung around and did nothing and who really owes far more than the land is worth:	We will help you, and at the same
time say to the worker, the fellow who has realized his position and, like a man of business, has got out and tried to make a living elsewhere, a more deserving man in every way:	We will not help you at all;
you can go and shift for yourself, and we will sell the land you had to an empire settler for perhaps half the amount that stands against it? The minister never in the world will stay in that position. I will tell him right now, he will be back next year, if not this session, asking for legislation to enable him to deal with that latter class of cases. After he has done this, the case he has in mind, that is of those who have paid up, will be back on him too.
Supposing you have two farms, both bought at the same price and both of equal value, one sold to "A," an excellent settler, and the other sold to "B," a laggard. "B" lets his debt accumulate. "A" goes ahead; he and his family labour and they pay off the debt. The minister says to the laggard:	We will
help you out; we will cut your debt down to a third; and he says to the man who has had ambition and who has paid off the debt on his farm:	We have got your money and we do
not care what becomes of you. That case will be hard to meet, although not as hard as those presented by the hon. member for Selkirk.
In a word, if the minister is going to stand only on the principle of helping the settler, he cannot keep this bill in its present shape; he must deal with all settlers alike. But if he stands on the principle of protecting the public treasury and of handling government property to the best advantage of the Dominion, simply giving the soldiers the preference, he has a sound answer to all comers.


Mr. NEILL:: The matter complained of by the hon. member for Selkirk, with whom I entirely agree, is somewhat different and was
not brought about by the bill now under consideration. The grievance was in existence before this bill was contemplated, because it is caused by the government taking salvaged farms of soldier settlers and selling them at a reduced price to British Empire settlers and to them only. That condition existed before and it will still exist even though this measure is proceeded with on the basis suggested by the leader of the opposition, namely, that of making the best of a bad bargain, which, I take it, is practically the attitude he assumes.


Arthur Meighen: That is it.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that we might still deal with this measure and then deal with the other not so much by legislation as by government administration. In the past without any legislation they perpetrated the injustice complained of by the hon. member for Selkirk. That is, they took these salvaged farms and sold them at a reduced price, but they reserved them for men across the sea. The Canadian citizen, whether he was on the land or not, should have had the preference, but the government or the board made some kind of deal for British Empire settlement by which they agreed to provide so many thousand farms and they are apparently adhering to that agreement and reserving those salvaged farms for that purpose. They will not sell them to any Canadian at all; they will give the preference to a Britisher who may never have been a soldier.
The past cannot be undone; they cannot take back such of these lands as have been already resold under this settlement scheme; but they should at least, merely as a matter of administration, declare that the land-I am talking about the salvaged farms-at its reduced price will be offered first to Canadian soldiers and second possibly to Canadian citizens before it goes into the British Empire scheme. That is the weakness of that scheme. The grievance is not caused by the introduction of this bill. I would suggest that to the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that, but the bill creates this discrimination that never can remain. I have been in governments long enough to know that if you have not an answer for a delegation who can show a gross discrimination against themselves, you will yield to that delegation.


Alan Webster Neill: But the discrimination was there before this bill was introduced.


Arthur Meighen: No discrimination.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: May I suggest also
that only 500 farms have been actually given
Soldier Settlement Act

to British Empire settlers? It is proposed to settle 1,3C0 this year.


Charles A. Stewart: Twelve
hundred.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am asking that that be not done in the meantime while this bill is going through.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I would
like to make a suggestion for the consideration of the minister which it appears to me might remedy the situation. To make my point clear, let me give this illustration. Supposing I was a' returned soldier who took up a farm under the board. I remained on it for four years and then I came to the conclusion that I had purchased it at such a price that I never could make good. I left it. I am now off the farm. The government decide in this bill to make a revaluation in such cases. Assuming that I come to the minister and put my case to him, saying:	I
left the farm because it was valued at 87,000; your board to-day will value it at only $5,000; I spent four years of my life on it and I would like to get the first chance to go back. In dealing with an individual case the minister will say to me:	Yes, you did
considerable work on that farm and you will get the first chance as it is now vacant. I think that is what he will tell me. -If I understand the point of the hon. member for Selkirk, he is asking the minister to extend that same principle not to one individual but to all of the class.


Mr. STEVENS:: Opportunity.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In that way men who have made certain improvements on those farms but who, as my leader said, using their best judgment, left them, so that the farms are now vacant, can come to the government after this legislation goes through and say: Under your revaluation scheme we want to go back on our land. Who are their competitors? Their competitors are British Empire settlers, and so we ask that the government reserve those farms for some period to the former occupants. The minister suggested a period of six months, and I think that would be very fair.
I come now to the suggestion that these abandoned farms be not turned over to empire settlers or any other class of settlers coming in for a period of say four or six months, or whatever time the minister determines in his legislation, and that those soldier settlers who have abandoned them be notified that they are now available under this revaluation scheme, the time being fixed within which they must elect. If that period is fixed at six 	;	' ' I al
months, that puts me, for example, in the position that within six months I can come and get my farm back. That gives the man who has done work on that farm a preference over all others.


Robert James Manion: I have been thinking of
offering a suggestion that might be considered to advantage by the minister. It seems to me that any soldier who desired to obtain land which he had himself previously occupied, or which perhaps some other soldier had farmed, should be given the preference over a stranger, coming within our gates. The object of this scheme was no doubt originally to settle people on the land, but it was secondarily-I am not sure that it was not primarily-the intention to assist soldiers to go upon the land if they wanted to do so. I am sure the minister is anxious to further that end. Now, in view of the discussion which has so far taken place today, and in view of the suggestions which have been made, of a very sound and sane character, on behalf of those soldier settlers who may be deprived of their land if this bill goes through in its present form, I would advise the minister, with the most sincere desire to have the legislation improved, to hold up the bill temporarily in order that he may be able to consider it further with the Soldier Settlement Board to see whether some arrangement looking to the end I suggest might not be submitted by way of amendment. I have had no legal training, but I venture to think that I could frame an amendment that would meet the suggestion.


Charles A. Stewart: There would be no difficulty in regard to the amendment. It is a question of principle.


Robert James Manion: There would be no difficulty in framing an amendment to cover the point that has been raised but there might be some difficulty in meeting some other objection that might be involved. It would be better, I think, for the minister to take the matter up with the Soldier Settlement Board and have the bill re-drafted. If there are several branches that might be affected by the amendment, they could also be taken into consideration. I really think that the minister would do w'ell to hold up the bill for the time being and, after discussing it with the board, bring it back next week when the House would be in a better position to consider it.


Charles A. Stewart: There would be no difficulty about amending the bill to meet the contingency raised, but we must

Soldier Settlement Act
bear in mind all the facts. Speaking from memory I think there are 500 farms that have been sold to British settlers, and in addition to these a considerable number have been sold to Canadian civilians. My hon. friends must not forget that in attempting to widen the scope of the legislation we are apt to open the door to unlimited difficulties.


Robert James Manion: I understand that.


Charles A. Stewart: I speak
subject to correction, but I do not think there was very much depreciation in the particular farms I have mentioned.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: There are many
farms in which there is depreciation.


Charles A. Stewart: There may be some in my hon. friend's locality. But as a matter of fact the salvaged farms to date show a profit.
Mr. HAN-NESSON:	Not those sold under
the empire settlement scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: I am now
referring to the whole lot of them.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The minister is speaking
only of farms that have been sold.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but
they are a factor in the discussion. If we say to the man whose agreement has been cancelled, "Seeing that your farm is not sold we will give you an opportunity to purchase," what shall we say to the other 4 p.m. fellow from whom some civilian had bought land for less money than is paid to-day? That man would come back and tell us that had he been treated fairly he would have taken up his farm again.


Robert James Manion: Merely because a wrong
has been done to some in the past is no reason for doing a wrong to others to-day. Certain things that were wrong were done under the act in the past, and they cannot be undone, but that is no reason why we should go on injuring other soldiers whom we might treat more fairly. That is my argument for holding up the bill for the present.
Mr. STEW7ART (Edmonton):	I am not
objecting to that argument, but I want the committee to appreciate the difficulty of securing an equitable adjustment. If I could have conceived any equitable way of meeting the difficulty a year ago I would have been ready to recommend revaluation then, but the whole problem is hedged around with difficulties of all sorts. There are difficulties no matter from what angle you view it. I have no doubt that every individual member can
get up and point to some case of discrimination, and there is no lawyer in this House who in my opinion could devise a means of meeting all those cases.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The minister is referring to individual cases. I would remind him that there is a large class of cases of returned soldiers who on coming back, because of red tape or for some other reason, found it necessary to borrow money on their lands at inflated rates of interest. W7hat will the minister do with such men? These are not isolated cases; they constitute a large class.
Mr. STEW7ART (Edmonton): I agree with the hon. member.


Mr. BROWN:: There will no doubt be
difficulties in the application of the act but probably they will not be so great in actual practice as they appear to be in this discussion. In my judgment, the greater number of those who left the land through discouragement will not want to come back. In most cases they have had enough of hard experience to make them disinclined to return; and their equipment, too, has been sold. I doubt therefore whether there will be any applications from such men to be reinstated. At the same time, however, the bill should be so framed as to allow any such who might care to take advantage of it to do so. I felt from the outset that there would be considerable difficulty in framing a satisfactory bill if wo intended to apply the principle of absolute justice to all. That simply cannot be done. A reference to Hansard will show that as far back as 1922 the hon. member for Red Deer and myself proposed that we should consider the whole question as a new colonization scheme. Whether the principle of dealing fairly as between soldier and soldier was uppermost in the mind of the government of the day when the bill was first passed is immaterial. Whatever objection has been taken to a revaluation has been based upon the fact that we were dealing unfairly with the country. But our answer to that objection has always been that the country stands to suffer a great loss anyway and we might just as well face the situation. Bearing that in mind, may we not adopt the principle of a salvage scheme in framing this legislation? We want to make the best of what, in spite of all good intentions, has turned out to be a bad job, and I fancy that it would be just as well for us to put aside the idea of absolute justice in every case and simply consider the matter as a colonization scheme. I was severely criticized by my opponent in the last election for so describing it on one
Soldier Settlement Act

occasion, but it seems to me to be the only-practical way of dealing with the problem. Let us regard it as a colonization scheme and make the best we can of what has proved to be a bad job. If there are any men who are anxious to go back on the land under a revaluation, let us make it possible for them to do so. In any case, the number in my opinion will be small; but even if it is small let us draw up the legislation in such a way as to take care of them.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: In view of the fact that some amendments have already been proposed, would it be possible between now and next Monday for the minister to appoint a small committee to revamp the bill so as to meet the views held on all sides of the House? I am sure that we all want to see the scheme made workable so as to render justice to all concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: I am perfectly willing to have the bill revamped, but I assumed the general opinion was that we were going to deal only with the men who were actually in residence on the land. But I have been mistaken; that does not seem to have been entirely the consensus of opinion in the House. If I get the opinion of the House there is no difficulty about preparing legislation; the difficulty is to know exactly how far everyone wants to go. I want to say very frankly that when you have thought of all the different people you want to help, you will still have a whole army which you cannot help. I ask my hon. friend again, what right has anyone to prepare legislation that will help the man who has paid up- we have all his money and he is a success- or to help the man who made a failure; through no fault of his own he is penniless; he will have difficulty in buying implements again in order to return to the land. There are two classes; if you help one you must help the other, but then are you to say to the man who has been cleaned out altogether and who has had his land sold, that you cannot do anything for him?
As you go on you will find innumerable cases which cannot be covered by legislation. I want the committee to understand clearly that I started out with the best intentions in the world of helping the men. I do not agree with the statement of my hon. friend that many of these men have just stuck there without doing anything, because most of those chaps are gone; they have been wiped out. The man we want to help is the one who has struggled and stuck and hoped that something would happen, living in penury and still wanting to stick. We might very well help that 
man now; this legislation was drafted for the sole purpose of helping him, because he is still in possession of his contract and he still feels that if he can get reasonable treatment he will continue. If we are to widen the scope I want to know how far we are to widen it, because there is no use in my spending three or four hours working away and then bringing the bill back, to find that some other member has found something else to object to. That is what I am anxious about [DOT] this afternoon; I want co know how far parliament thinks I should go with this revaluation.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: We all realize there is going to be injustice done to some. The man who has paid in full can be considered later; what we are primarily interested in now is land settlement, and fair treatment to the settler. I gave this House a number of instances of men who had been put off the land only last year, or who had been told to get off. Those men have struggled for seven or eight years, and those are the men I want to protect. To-day I mailed to the minister copies of letters from men who have either been driven off their land or have been threatened with eviction. All I am asking is that consideration be given these cases where men are either living on the farm or want to stay there, having done a certain amount of improvement work. Fix a value, if you like, of $1,000 or $1,500 for the improvements; say that he must have been on the land for five years; limit it in any way, so long as the men fitted for land settlement are kept on the farms. There is an idea prevalent among the soldier settlers that other people, empire settlers and civilians, are shown a preference over these men, after they have struggled on the land for years.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is now giving me something on which I can draft legislation. If it would satisfy my hon. friend to say definitely that a man must have been in residence for five years and that he must have created improvements to the value of $1,000, we know what to do. But even so, some other hon. member will immediately present another difficulty.


Mr. MULLINS:: I received to-day a petition signed by fifteen soldier settlers of my constituency, and it might help the situation if I read it:
Seeing that an increasing number of soldier settlers are finding it impossible to meet payments due The Soldier Settlement Board and live in a manner becoming free born British subjects, and furthermore as it appears that settlers coming from Great Britain

Soldier Settlement Act
are being given land, stock, etcetera belonging to soldier settlers at a reduction of at least 50 per cent cn the first cost to soldier settlers, these soldier settlers having been forced off the land through excess valua-t:on at time of purchase.
It is resolved that the time haa come for the government of Canada to make an immediate re-valuation, said re-valuation to be at least a 50 per cent reduction on purchase price.
It is further resolved that no soldier settlers be asked to sign a quit claim deed until the case is investigated by a party of three: first, one party appointed by the Soldier Settlement Board; second, one party appointed by the soldier settlers; third, one party appointed by The Soldier Settlement Board and soldier settler representatives. If after investigation it is shown that the inability of the soldier settler to make the payment due the Soldier Settlement Board is through no fault of the settler, he should be entited to continue on the farm.
Here is a clause which I do not quite understand.
If after investigation the settler is still forced to leave the land, he should be paid $25 for each month he has been on government land.
After the 50 per cent cut on the loan has been approved by the government all arrears should be advanced and placed over the remaining period of the original twenty-five years.
This meeting is on record demanding that these recommendations be carried out before the next Soldier Settlement Board payment is due, otherwise the majority of soldier settlers will be forced to leave the farms.
That petition is signed by fifteen of the boys who have been overseas, giving their regimental numbers. I think we should be as liberal as possible to these men who have been struggling on the land out west. In my opinion it is far better to do that than to proceed with the present scheme of giving $500 to some stranger coming to Canada, and $1,000 to another man who has been here perhaps a year or two and has become naturalized. In these latter cases the lumber merchants in the small towns trust the man with lumber for his buildings; the storekeeper trusts him until he gets his loan; the man has not had very much experience in western Canada, and becomes a failure. I think we should help our soldier settlers first, and so keep on the land the men who have had some experience and who are acquainted with conditions in western Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not wish to go beyond the actual point being discussed. At the risk of repeating a little, let me say that I think the minister recognizes the fact that suggestions coming from this side of the House are not captious and are not intended to place difficulties in the way of the bill. As far as the soldier settlers are concerned, those acquainted with the facts know that they all regard this as a reform, if I may call it such, which is long overdue, and they are very appreciative of the efforts
being made by the minister to give them something in the way of relief. While it may not make any difference to the minister,
I may say that personally the principle of this measure commends itself very strongly to me, and I think he is endeavouring to work out some real redress for men whom everyone in this countiy wants to help.
With that preface let me say that anyone who has studied this problem realizes that it is encompassed with difficulties. You cannot possibly remove the injustice in every case. The case of a man who has paid up fully becomes a very difficult proposition. Take this case for which we are trying to provide a remedy, that of men who have put in time on farms and then left. What galls them is this: if I have put in four or five years on a farm and because the valuation was inflated I have had to leave, you now bring in a principle of revaluation and I see an empire settler or a civilian come in on my farm, under the revaluation.
It naturalljTgalls them, and I feel there is an injustice. I feel that appeals to the average man. So all we say is this, give the man who has put in time on the farm a chance.
I do not think it would be difficult to bring him under the act. It would not be remedying all injustices, but it would be providing a remedy for that class of cases, and I think the minister if he is so disposed can easily draft a clause that will give that class the first chance of farms that have not been disposed of. I would like to see such a clause inserted in the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am intensely in sympathy with the proposal of the hon. member for Selkirk, and I would strongly suggest to the minister the advisability of considering favourably some such amendment to the bill. But there does appear to me to be a difficulty; it may not be an insuperable one; I hope it- will not be, and that is the class of farm which has been abandoned by the soldier one or two years ago and has already been sold or is in the possession of somebody else. If we could get over that difficulty, I see no opposition in this House to the amendment proposed.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The bill as introduced is designed to help only one class of men, those who are still on the land and are fortunate enough to be still in debt. It does not apply to those who are unfortunate enough to have paid up. The minister said that he would like an indication from the House as to how far this bill should go. For my part, I would go the whole way. If you are
226S
Soldier Settlement Act

going to have a revaluation, then to be fair you must revalue al'l the lands, and it must apply to all classes. The man who has paid up is the easiest class of all to deal with. All you need to do in regard to him is to make a refund. His case presents no complications at all. It is simply a matter of money, and he is just as much entitled to be considered as the man who has not yet paid up. The only difference is that you have got his money, and you have not got the other fellow's. You are not going to demand full payment from the man who has not paid up, so I think you should make a refund to the man who has paid up. The only fair legislation that can be enacted is legislation that will deal with all classes.


Charles A. Stewart: You cannot reach all classes. There are 6,000 men now who have abandoned their farms, and a fair proportion of those farms have already been sold, some of them at a reduced valuation.


Mr. BOYS:: How many of the 6,000 have paid up?


Charles A. Stewart: There are 1,000 who have paid up, and 6,000 who have abandoned their farms altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: The 1,060 has no relation to the 6,000.


Charles A. Stewart: No. Now one of those 6,000 may come to you and say: John Jones, a civilian, got my farm; I have no complaint if you create a reduction, but if you do so, you should give me the opportunity to get my farm back at that reduced value. What are you going to do in that case? It is true there will probably be only a few such cases, but undoubtedly there will be cases of that kind, and I merely mention these things to show how absolutely impossible it is to be fair all round.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: It seems to me that
the case raised by the hon. member for Selkirk could be dealt with in a very simple manner by following the same course we take with regard to homestead entries. Under the present regulations any land thrown open for homesteading is eligible for entry by soldier settlers forty-eight hours in advance of the time at which civilians can file entry. It appears to me that this is not a case for legislation at all; it is simply a matter of administration, and if the minister would intimate to the committee that he would make a departmental regulation to cover the ease, I think it would meet the situation fairly well. Put all these soldier lands on the market

again, advertise them for a certain length of time, and let all soldiers who have previously held land be given an opportunity to make application, and their applications be considered before further action is taken. It seems to me that is the only fair way to deal with it. The soldier who has abandoned his land or has been evicted by the board is usually not the very best man to make a new contract with, and I am rather of the opinion that in the great majority of these cases the board would not sell to him. There are oases where they would, but I think, after all, we are making a mountain out of a molehill, because I think very few of these men will be in a position or will want to go back on the land at the present time. To meet the wishes of the committee, I think the minister might promise that some such regulations will be made.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean that he be given a second chance in the event of his exercising his homestead right? He now has a preference if he has not exercised his homestead right.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would give him the
opportunity to make application for available Soldier Settlement Board lands.


Mr. MILLAR:: In such a case what adjustment would you make regarding the payments the soldier had made? I hold in my hand a letter from a soldier who in addition to the grant he got from the Soldier Settlement Board paid $1,000 in cash for his land and $964 for equipment. This man claims that he is almost being driven off the land, that he is just hanging on. Suppose he is forced to leave the land, and seizes the opportunity suggested by the hon. member for Mackenzie, what adjustment would be made with regard to the money he had paid?


Milton Neil Campbell: I cannot see that this should be taken into consideration at all. His equity has all disappeared. He has thrown up the land, he finds his money has gone, and the best thing the board can do is not to sell him that particular farm, for perhaps it is the very last farm he would want, but the board will have these lands written down to their actual value, and I assume the man would have to pay the actual value of the land.


James Arthurs: There seems to be about as much diversity of opinion in regard to this bill as there was when this question was before the committee some years ago. When the bill was up here before, I asked for certain information regarding the number of men in each province in certain categories. I

Soldier Settlement Act
also pointed out that no bill could be successful unless some provision was made for those settlers who had paid up in full, who had perhaps borrowed the money from their friends or outside sources. They should have, in my humble opinion, exactly the same treatment as the man who is hanging on to his land by an eyelash. The minister has also failed to state to the House exactly what he means regarding whose property shall be available for revaluation. I understand him to mean anyone who owes anything to the department, anyone who has any indebtedness. Suppose a man owes ten or twenty dollars to the department, and the revaluation brings his farm down one or two or three thousand dollars, what is to be done in the meantime? Is this man to be handed a cheque for the difference?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


James Arthurs: Why not? And if so,
why should not the man who has paid up be entitled to the same consideration as the man who owes money to the department? Is the revaluation to be only to the extent of the indebtedness presently before the government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Arthurs: That is most absurd and unfair. If a man owes $3,000 he gets $3,000 taken off the value of his land; if he owes merely $30 he gets only $30 allowed under exactly similar circumstances. These anomalies must be considered before the bill is passed by this House. I am firmly of the opinion that any revaluation should take cognizance of conditions all the way through; that is, the man who has paid up, the man who has not paid up, and the man who has been forced off his farm either by the excessive cost of the land or by circumstances over which he had no control.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Chairman, I have not
very many men in my county affected by the provisions, of this bill, but there are some. It seems to me that there are three classes affected: Those who have paid in full and abandoned; those who have partly paid and abandoned, and those who are still upon the land.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
no abandonments where they have paid in full.


William Alves Boys: I understood some of them
had left after completing their payments.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Alves Boys: That is immaterial, then. As
far as I can gather there seems to .be a desire on the part of those who have spoken to make the provisions of this bill applicable to all men who at one time or another have settled on the land. Now, why should not preference be given to every man, whether he is now on the land or not so long as he was once on the land, whether he has paid in full or in part? And why should not a period of say six months be given every soldier to apply for any lands which are vacant? I would not go any further than that,, for naturally he could only expect ito get lands which are vacant. If that was done, you would take care of all soldiers who have still a desire to go on the land. I appreciate the other difficulties respecting the seeming injustice to those who have paiid in full. I do not know whether the minister has made any effort to ascertain how much money would 'be required to carry out a law which would be fair to everyone. It would lead, as has been said by the member for Yukon, to a refund to those who had paid in full. Has the minister any idea how much money that would involve?


Charles A. Stewart: It would
be very difficult to say. We estimate that under the provisions of the present act readjustment would not cost more than $10,000.000. If you were to take in all the classes mentioned it might cost $30,000,000.


James Arthurs: The minister says there
are only a thousand paid up in full.


Charles A. Stewart: But my hon. friend has mentioned a much wider category. There are 6,000 abandonments. You would at least have to take into consideration every one of those men who made application for readjustment. I said 6,000 abandonments; there are 6.000 salvaged claims at the moment.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: There was a profit of
several hundred thousand dollars on part of those.


Mr. FLEMMING:: The minister speaks of some farms having been abandoned. What number would be in the possession of the board now, and what number have been already sold?


Charles A. Stewart: I am told
there are about 2.000 purchased farms on hand at the moment, and about a thousand farms that were crown lands and of course were not purchased. Perhaps it might be well
Soldier Settlement Act

to put on Hansard the information that my hon. friend from Parry Sound asked for.
In British Columbia the number of settlers still actually on the land is 2,283; the number *who have met their due payments in full is 852; the number in arrears is 1,431.
In Alberta the number of settlers still actually on the land is 4,985; the number who have met their payments in full is 2,136; the number in arrears is 2,849.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister the number of farms salvaged in British Columbia and Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister uses the
expression "met their payments in full." Does that mean payments that have been met as they became due?


Charles A. Stewart: The first list I have given is of men who have made all their payments; they are not in arrears.
In Saskatchewan- there are 4,564 who are not in arrears; there are 2,690 who have met their payments in full.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Who have paid up in
full?


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon. In Saskatchewan there are 4,564 still on the land; there are 2,690 who have met their payments in full; there are 1,874 in arrears.


William Alves Boys: There is confusion there, Mr. Chairman. When the minister says that certain of the men have met their payments in full, does he mean that they have made all their payments on their land, or have merely retired all the payments which have matured?


Charles A. Stewart: The annual payments. In Manitoba 2,171 are still on the land; 617 have met their payments in full, that is, their annual payments up to date; 1,554 are in arrears.
In Ontario there are 1,349 still upon the land; 795 have met their payments in full up to date; 554 are in arrears.
In Quebec, 253 are still on the land; 113 have met their payments in full up to date; 140 are in arrears.
In the Maritime provinces 1,023 are still on the land; 441 have met their annual payments in full; 582 are in arrears.
For the whole Dominion there are 16,628 settlers still on the land; 7,644 have met their annual payments in full; 8,984 are in arrears.


Robert James Manion: There is one more figure: How many have paid completely for their land?


Charles A. Stewart: I gave that approximately-about a thousand.


Peter McGibbon: Might I say to the minister that in the interests of the country as well as of parliament he might well take the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and redraft his bill on a different basis? The more we discuss this bill the more difficulties we see we are going to be involved in, and the more unfairness will be inflicted upon certain classes of soldiers. To my mind there was never any justification for the title of this bill. It might have been brought in as a colonization scheme or something of that sort, but it should never have been called a soldier settlement act, for you are automatically disfranchising from three-fourths to nine-tenths of our soldier settlers. Now we are going one step further and excluding from the operation of this measure those soldier settlers who have paid up in full-those who have borrowed money from their friends and put it into their land-some of whom have lost and some of whom have made good. The government have already taken, ten per cent of the value of these lands out of the soldier settlers; now they are going back to take the land itself and keep the ten per cent. How are we going to justify this and then revalue a certain number of the farms, writing down the settlers' obligations and starting them all over again? The unfairness is brought out more strikingly every way you look at this bill. I think the minister would be well advised to redraft the bill and at least remove some of these injustices that result from playing off one class of soldiers against another class, and the bill should be re-introduced under the title of a land settlement scheme. I think the minister will find that both he and the government will be in very great difficulties if the measure passes in its present form.


William Alves Boys: Has the minister given the
House the number of those who have paid for the land in full, apart from the question of arrears? For instance, a man buys a farm for $5,000, with the payments spread over a number of years, has the minister the number of those who have paid the money? I would have thought all the lands were sold on a similar plan, and that the payments would not have matured in full.


Charles A. Stewart: They did
not mature, but the soldier paid it.

Soldier Settlement Act


William Alves Boys: Did he get a discount?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Alves Boys: Just to save interest?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know the incentive. They were all sold on twenty-five year contracts. There may have been some cases where the settler made that amount off the land. I do not believe there would be many. The settler must have got his money from some other source and applied it on the land.


William Alves Boys: I wanted to find out the number of men who have absolutely paid one hundred cents on the dollar.


Charles A. Stewart: It is around a thousand.


James Arthurs: That brings up the point I raised that these men who have paid in full should have the same consideration as the other men. The minister says he does not believe the man earned the money off the land, but must have acquired it from some other source; therefore I think he is entitled to the same treatment. The hon. member from Muskoka-Ontario has raised the question of the ten per cent initial payment on the land. If the hon. member from Marquette is right and the revaluation should be made on the basis of a fifty per cent reduction, it is to be remembered that a certain percentage had been paid by these men before they went on the land in the first place. Serious consideration, therefore, should be given to the cases of those who made payments for a term of years at least and then abandoned the land.


Mr. CHURCH:: I hope the administration of the act will be carried out in an equitable manner and that the soldier settlers will be given full justie. About seventeen thousand of these men went on the land and I am sorry that in a country like Canada they have not received more equitable treatment. Probably one hundred thousand of our returned men went to the United States, but seventeen thousand of these returned men were brave enough to settle on the land. It was a very arduous task to undertake to settle on the land, a task calling for perseverance, courage, cheerfulness, and many other estimable qualities. These men went on the land in good faith, and surely the legislation which we are now considering should be framed in such a way as to deal fairly and equitably with them. It is most desirable that there should be no red tape in the administration of this act, as there has been in the administration of other similar acts. After all is said and done, Canada has not dealt very generously with the returned men. These men are not going to live forever. They went on the land in 1919 and 1920, when conditions were not as good as they are to-day. Some of them were not farmers and could not cultivate the land, or raise any kind of crops. They had to put up with many privations, while the returned soldiers in Australia and New Zealand fared very much better; they received much better treatment from their respective governments.
I have in my hand a book published by Major Belford on Migration within the Empire, showing how the settlements were made in Australia, where they have not as much red tape as we have in Canada. There is just about as much red tape about the application and administration of this measure as there is in a case in the Supreme court. We have had enough legislation with regard to the soldiers, and I think it is time that they got their dues. Legislation has been passed, a pension board was created, but there is so much red tape that it is almost impossible for the returned soldiers to obtain justice.
The government dealt with the men who constructed the railways out west in a very different manner from that which they have adopted in connection with the soldiers who have built the empire. The railway men. were given land of all sorts and cash grants. They obtained from the government the Crowsnest pass agreement; they were given gold-bearing lands and mines simply for the asking, but here we have seventeen thousand returned men who are not treated quite so well. The government deserves great credit for what they did for the men in 1920.
Some of these men who went on the land had no experience whatever, and of course the undertaking required perseverance and courage and demanded men who were one hundred per cent efficient. Do not forget that these men fought the battles of the empire. Some of them are not farmers, and these men should be placed in the preferred class. They are not like the settlers who come from continental Europe, who are receiving better treatment from the government. The government should cut out the red tape and treat these men properly. They are just as much entitled to vested rights out west as the railway corporations who are given grants of land and money.
It looks to me as if this bill would lead to a great deal of difficulty. It calls for valuations and revaluations. Now, who is going to pay the costs incurred by the soldiers when they have to produce witnesses and prove their claims? New Zealand and Australia led the
Soldier Settlement Act

way in showing this country how to deal with returned men. It was hard enough before the war to get the men to go on the land, and the great difficulty now is in. getting men to come out here from England, Ireland and Scotland. I read in the Toronto Star a statement that the government of Canada were going to cut off further immigration of farm workers or something to that effect.
The government should not conduct this act as a mortgage company would a foreclosure. They should be free, easy and elastic in their dealings and the administration should be a little easier than it has 'been in the past. As these men are not going to live forever, the government should give them additional cash. They are spending money to bring in immigrants from continental Europe. They should go a little further than they are going now. Under this -bill the returned men must go to the district superintendent, who will consider their application and the material in support of it and make report and recommendation to the board. Application to revaluation must be made to the district superintendent of the Soldier Settlement Board. They must go to him, and the application must be supported by affidavit, setting out the original purchase price of the land and the value of improvement effected since the [DOT] establishment of the settler thereon, by written statement of the settler setting forth his belief as to present value of the land, his reasons therefor, and so on. With all those provisos, who is going to present the case of the returned soldier? As in the case of the act regarding pensions, there should be some other way of allowing soldiers to deal adequately with their claims. There are too many technicalities in connection with this matter, and by the time we have got to the end of it many returned men will have given up their land as a bad job and will think they are well rid of it. They have been frozen out of the -land in many cases through no fault of their own. I hope the minister will see to it that those who are appointed to administer this legislation will be free from political bias, and that they will endeavour, as regards these 17,000 men who fought for Canada in continental Europe, to re-establish them on the land- under a better and more reasonable agreement by which they will have some opportunity to make good.


Mr. HAY:: I am in sympathy with the principle of this bill. I know it is difficult for the minister to draft a bill that will meet all phases of the question, but I wish to impress upon him the desirability of giving men who have, from whatever cause it may

be, temporarily abandoned their land, an opportunity of again taking possession of it under the revaluation scheme proposed in the bill. The feeling seems to be general amongst returned men on the land that they are being discriminated against in favour of men coming in under the empire land settlement scheme; we have all received letters to that effect. I think the purpose of the bill is to help returned men who are still on the land, and I would like to see it extended to help those who, as I said before, are not now upon the land but have temporarily abandoned it because they found it necessary to make a living for themselves and their families in some other profession. They have no doubt spent a large portion of their lives in an effort to make good on the land, and because conditions have been against them and made it impossible for them to succeed, they have been forced to leave the land for a time. I would ask the minister to see that the bill is amended in some way to give these men a chance to come back and settle on the land under the present revaluation.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member for Toronto Northwest said that he had read in the press that immigration was being stopped. The only difficulty we are facing at the moment arises out of the arrangement that was made a year ago when we had a great number of these farms throughout Canada salvaged, some of them unoccupied, but held by the crown and therefore non-taxable. I am being bombarded daily for the payment of taxes on these lands, and I have written the municipalities and municipal officials saying that we were going to make a special effort this year to clean this up in order that the lands might go back into the taxable category. Having that in mind, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), when he was in charge of the Department of Immigration, entered into an arrangement with the British Overseas Settlement Board whereby the latter provide $1,500 of British money to each settler for the purpose of buying stock and equipment. These things were done with the best intention in the world. These lands have been inspected. It is not fair to say that civilians were denied the right to purchase them if they wanted to do so, but they were not purchasing them and an effort was made to colonize them by people from Great Britain. An agreement was entered into to bring out 3,000 families. Five hundred families arrived last year and we hope to establish 1,200 more this year. Arrangements have been made to bring out

Soldier Settlement Act
at least 1,000 families. They have passed inspection and I am told 300 of them have already arrived here. Hon. members opposite are asking me to hold up 2,000 farms until this matter is settled. I am mentioning these things merely to show them the difficulties we are facing in the matter.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The government has other land.


Charles A. Stewart: We have no lands we own, and as under this scheme we have to provide the land, we would have to go out and buy it.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The government has brought in a bill to provide new land for settlers.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a different scheme. These are all improved lands on which these families expect to go and the government of Canada is under agreement to provide the land. I am not criticizing the suggestions of hon. gentlemen opposite, nor am I putting this forward as a reason why the soldier should not have the first opportunity to purchase. I am simply telling hon. gentlemen some of the difficulties I am faced 'with as minister.


William Alves Boys: That scheme would not be in
conflict with the suggestion made, because-


Charles A. Stewart: If we adopt the suggestion made by hon. members opposite, it means that no settlement of salvaged land can take place until we have revalued them and the soldier who has abandoned them or has been put off has an opportunity to re-purchase.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The minister has
made his revaluation on turning the land over to the Soldier Settlement Board. All these lands were revalued by the board before the allotment was made.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
get the suggestion clearly in mind because it is important that we should understand one another. I understand it means this:	Take
the 1,200 farms, for example, that are now practically under agreement for settlement. We say: We have reduced this farm by $500 or $1,000, if you wish, and we write to the man who abandoned it or whoever owned it previously, if he had been on it for five years and had been a reasonable settler, and we say to him: Do you want this farm? If he refuses, then the farm goes into the category for settlement by someone else.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: That is right.


William Alves Boys: If no allotment has been made, these lands will be available to soldiers who have been on the land and abandoned it. That gives the man a preference only for a period of time so far as available lands are concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: The man
has only an opportunity of going on the land which he formerly occupied?


William Alves Boys: No. The suggestion made
from many quarters of this House is that it should be opened wider than that and that any soldier who has been on the land and has abandoned it for any reason should be given a preference for a period of time to settle on any lands which are still available with the revaluation.


Charles A. Stewart: Our difficulties would be widened by doing that. We would have to advertise the land. We are left open to criticism if we do not advertise it for a month or six weeks. We do not know what man may apply. It is quite easy to deal with the man who formerly occupied the land if we know where he is.


William Alves Boys: That would not be any good, because in many cases the land he was on has been allotted under this scheme and resold to somebody else. There would be discrimination in that way. As regards advertising, one or two insertions in the leading papers of Canada, merely giving some information regarding the provisions of the bill and telling the soldiers that if they so desire they may still get land at the revaluation, would be sufficient.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the committee can readily understand the number will be reduced almost to the minimum for this very reason:	No one will suggest that
the government should again provide loans for the individual with which to buy stock and equipment. He would have to provide for himself in that respect and it would be a tremendous handicap. Formerly he was established with both stock and equipment. I should like my hon. friends to confine it to the individual who owned the land, because in that event the difficulties would be reduced very appreciably. If you make it wider than that we shall have to keep the lands unoccupied for a considerable time.
Mr. BOY'S:	There is where the minister
misunderstands me; I did not suggest that. You would advertise and get an application for certain property, and if that property had since been sold or allotted to someone else it would of course be no longer available. But



Soldier Settlement Act
you could inform the applicant to that effect and tell him that you had a number of other lots to offer.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
serious difficulty.


James Arthurs: Where the revaluation
has been made and' the man has been continuously on the land for a number of years, having made certain payments, I think that some compensation commensurate with the revaluation should be given him.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
going too far.


James Arthurs: I would suggest that the
minister, in order to meet the difficulty, might strike out of paragraph 68-


Charles A. Stewart: If the committee will give me a clear idea of what it would like me to do I think my hon. friend might leave the drafting of the bill to me.


James Arthurs: I am not making an
amendment but only offering a suggestion. I would suggest that the following words be omifted:
-whose agreement with the board has not been terminated or rescinded and who has not repaid his indebtedness to the board.


Charles A. Stewart: I would absolutely refuse to accept that. I am going to deal with the matter on definite principles; 1 will not foe left in the air with a bill that might mean anything or nothing. I want to know precisely what classes are to foe dealt with, and if I can get the consensus of opinion of the committee I shall be in a better position to go ahead.


James Arthurs: Only the soldier who has taken land under the act is being dealt with.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will find that he is doing a great deal more* than that. First we deal with the men who are on the land1 and in ownership, and now my hon. friend wants me to extend that to the men whose lands have been salvaged. If I understand the views of the committee, we are first of all to notify the 5 ip.m. former occupant, the soldier who formerly had the land, and no one else, that if he so desires he can within two months get the land back at the revaluation, provided he can re-establish himself. There are 500 men who have paid in full and 500 whose lands will foe revalued, and if the board should find that these have paid an excessive price for their land they would be reimbursed accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether
the minister contemplates doing that or not, but really I should not care to make myself popular by advocating that. I do not think the minister can do that.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
discussed the discrimination that would arise, as against others, from dealing with the man whose contract had been cancelled and whom I have described. If we gave him consideration how could we avoid dealing with the man who had paid an excessive price for his land? If we did not deal with that man, would there not be a discrimination against him?


Arthur Meighen: If the minister proceeds on the principle of helping a certain class of soldiers to get their land back, then he will continue in the dilemma in which he finds himself now. He will be driven from that class to another and from the second to a third class, and so on, on the ground that if he did a favour to class A he must treat class B equally. The minister need not think that he will ever escape without getting to the last soldier who bought land even to the 500 to whom he has referred They will have a claim in equity which he will never be able to answer. The minister, before pressing the bill further, ought to review in his mind the suggestion I made previously. He cannot maintain this present position, and I have no doubt he will later on get into further complications and a tremendous liability if he continues extending the principle on which the bill is based in this form. Suppose he says to the soldier: "We are not proceeding with any new scheme of largesse or of assistance but we recognize that in the disposition of government property you ought always to have first choice, and we will prefer youi to another. But we do not propose to launch on a new scheme of more help out of the treasury. Here we are, however, with a mass of lands on a great proportion of which there is more money owing than we can possibly collect, inasmuch as the lands are not worth it. Now, we are going to do what any other reasonable vendor looking after his own interest would do; we are going to reduce the value of the land to what the man can get out of it. And we are going to do so in order to protect the interests of Canada and conserve public property."
If the minister does this he will never have to answer the man who otherwise might take this view:	"Here I owe only $1,000 on this
land. The valuation shows that it is worth $2,000, but I paid $1,000 more for it than

Soldier Settlement Act
I should have paid. You must therefore cancel that debt." Should the minister cancel that debt of $1,000 he never in the world could answer the fellow who had paid in full. The minister would not have cancelled that $1,000 in the interests of the people in the country; he would, in cancelling it, merely have given another grant to that soldier. But if he gives such treatment to that particular man, he will have to extend it to all the rest. With the man whose indebtedness is no more, is indeed less, than the worth of the land, the minister need not deal at all. If however he says that only in cases where he cannot collect that debt, for the reason that it is greater than the value of the land, shall it be his policy to treat with the soldier, in the interests of the country and not on any pretence of distributing a grant to certain classes of men, his position will be sound. I hope the minister follows me. I think he does, and I repeat that he can never frame a bill to meet this complicated situation unless he abandons the principle he is now pursuing- in good faith, I am sure-and adopts the other one which I have suggested and which can be defended to anyone. The principle at present being followed cannot in this limited application be defended and it will merely carry the minister from one post to another, until finally he will find himself under the necessity of extending the same treatment to everbody, right down through the list. To every one of them, their heirs at law, even to those who do not need it, he will have io give an equal measure of benevolence out of the treasury of the Dominion.


John Millar: How would the amount
of relief under the scheme proposed by my hon. friend compare with the amount under this bill?


Arthur Meighen: It would be less in one
direction for this reason: all these cases where the amount owing is equal to or less than the value of the land would be eliminated. Under the present scheme the minister has to go into every one of these cases, and if the man paid an excess value equal to or greater than the amount owing, the debt is cancelled although the government could have collected. That class will be eliminated, saving the treasury many millions of dollars, but the class mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk will be taken care of on the principle that we have this plan and we will give the men who had it before, the preference. I would be willing to trust the minister with that. Some regulation might be devised generally defining his duty, but not in the form of an 14011-145i
injunction over which he cannot step. The principle could be laid down and preference given to those who had the land before.


Alan Webster Neill: Supposing the farm had been sold to somebody else?


Arthur Meighen: Then you could not do anything but you are still in a strong fortress; you could never be attacked because you do not pretend to be doing this as a new scheme for the soldier; you are preserving government property-giving him the preference on sale.


Milton Neil Campbell: In that way, would you not create another discrimination? There are twro classes, one whose land has been sold and the other whose abandoned land has not been sold. There would be a distinct discrimination against the man whose land has been sold.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but that has already been created; we are not doing that by this bill. Wherever there is land to be sold we will give the soldier the preference, and the minister should not be tied by very definite restrictions. We will give the soldier the preference as long as we can, without injury to the public interest, but beyound that we do not pretend to go. The whole principle is to properly administer the property of the people of Canada.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Edward James Young: Do I understand that he would reduce the price to the present value of the land utterly regardless of what the soldier has already paid?


Arthur Meighen: I would only deal with those cases where there is more owing on the agreement than the land is worth.


Edward James Young: If a man bought a farm for $5,000 and paid $1,000, and the farm was to-day worth only $3,000, in his case you would have to wipe out $1,000. In the case of another man who bought a similar farm for the same price and paid nothing, you would wipe out $2,000.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, just as my hon. friend would do if he were the vendor instead of the government, because it would be the best thing in his own interest and he would not pretend to do anything else.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not quite clear about one point raised by my hon. friend. The soldier, of course, owes for land, stock and equipment. Does my hon. friend mean to include the indebtedness for stock and equipment?
Soldier Settlement Act


Arthur Meighen: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the only cases we would touch would be those where the soldier settler owes more for the land than the land is worth?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Confining it to that one class?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. You would have to make each property stand by itself.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: In the reconsideration *of the bill would the minister assure the House that no further lands will be allotted to the Empire Settlement Board until the details of this plan are worked out?


Charles A. Stewart: I am in this difficulty, that people are being placed at the present time on some of the 1,200 farms mentioned.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: There are only 300 on the farms now.


Charles A. Stewart: They are coming all the time, you see.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I do not desire to embarrass the minister at all, but it is going to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and trouble if, during the time this bill is under consideration, men lose the farms they are now occupying.
Mr: STEWART (Edmonton):	But if we
follow the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition we will confine this to one class only, men wlho owe more money on their land than the land is worth. I am perfectly willing to do that; I can save the treasury of Canada a great deal of money in that way, but I have very grave doubts whether that will satisfy the soldiers.


Mr. MURPHY:: The minister has said that the object of this bill is to help the returned soldier who is still on the land. If the bill is changed to only affect one class, the object of the bill is changed altogether.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, quite.


Charles Murphy: If the minister still adheres to his resolution to help the returned soldier still on the land I would like to point out a phase of the situation which has not been mentioned this afternoon. Certain returned1 soldiers are in arrear in their payments and cannot at present meet their indebtedness. They are being asked by the board to assign what they have left of last year's crop, and to also assign all of this year's crop. That is a very discouraging situation and it will certainly force more men to abandon their
[Mr. Stevens.l
farms this spring, because if a man is going to be farced to assign all his crop to the board, how is he to live during the summer months, or until the next year? It will increase the abandonments by men who have stayed five or six years on the land. I would like to ladd my voice to the expressions oi those who have already spoken in favour of the man who desires to go back on his farm, but I think the House is anticipating greater difficulties in that connection than will 'arise. If I understand human nature at all, a man who has spent five or six years on a farm without making a success of it is not going to be very anxious to go back on the land again. Only the man who has still an interest in the land, who possibly left his family there, or who only temporarily abandoned it, will go back, but he should certainly be given an opportunity of re-possessing (that land.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope the
committee quite appreciates the idea of the right hon. leader of the opposition, because it does reduce the difficulties tremendously. I was trying to cover a much wider field, and I do not deny for a moment all the d-ifficulti.es with which this proposition is bristling. The proposition of the right hon. leader of the opposition, however, confines it to men whe to-day, at the present moment, owe -more tc the government or to the Soldier Settlement Board than the land is actually worth, and *that is the only class to be dealt with. I want the committee to understand exactly what that means; it cuts out the man who has paid in full; it cuts out the man who has reduced his indebtedness below the value of .the land to-day even by only $200 or any small amount; it cuts out these parties altogether. They would get no consideration under this measure suggested, which would only deal with the man who is not a good, solvent risk for the government. That, in effect, is what it means.


John Millar: I would like to ask the
.minister a question which I should have asked the leader of the opposition, had he been in the House. In a case where a soldier owed, say, $500 on land, but $1,000 on chattels, and was in straitened circumstances and in danger of losing his farm, following the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, he would1 be given consideration for the $500 only. He would Still owe the $1,000 on his chattels and would stand a good chance of being driven off the land. In that case it seems to me the government would' still run a considerable risk of losing the settler, and losing as well the $1,000.

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: I asked
that question myself because I wanted to be dear about it. If I followed the leader of the opposition carefully his answer was no, simply the land-and the land, of course, includes the buildings; stock is not to be taken into consideration. In that case ithe soldier would have to abandon his farm, I presume. I confess that the suggestion of the leader of the opposition appeals to me very much, because it will save the country a great deal of money.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill will be of very little use in that case.


Mr. LOVIE:: Mr. Chairman, I have here
a petition signed by 469 residents in the constituency of Macdonald. The object sought is explained in the heading of the petition, which reads as follows:
We, the undersigned, do hereby place ourselves on record as being in favour of the consolidation of the soldier settlers' debt to date, including tax arrears, and that a reduction of not less than fifty per cen be made of the amount of the total consolidation thus computed, and we will support the efforts of 'the soldier settlers to obtain his redress.
The petition is accompanied by a letter which I shall read to the committee, because the petition has been very largely circulated over the whole district. The letter reads:
Sir,
In re Soldier Settlers' Lands
On the 25th of February, 1926, there met in Carman, at a largely attended meeting, a number of the soldier settlers of the district, who had purchased lands through the soldier settlers' board.
This meeting was the outcome of the increasingly arduous position in which the majority of the settlers now find themselves; the situation i^ beyond doubt well known to you, and may briefly be described as follows:
Owing to the inflated price of land which existed at the time when the majority purchased, followed immediately by an almost unprecedented slump in the selling power of farm produce, followed at a later date by a sharp decrease in land values, which is continuing to-day, the average soldier settler finds that he has now accumulated against him such a volume of arrears, which coupled with the amount still owing by the purchaser as the purchase price of his land, makes his position untenable, and it is felt that the position of the average settler is hopeless, unless some alleviation is forthcoming.
The meeting above mentioned was addressed by several civilians, i.e. other than settlers, amongst them being Reeve Armstrong of Dufferin municipality and Councillors Provo, Murray and Metcalfe, and the meeting passed the following resolution.
"We the undersigned do hereby place ourselves on record as being in favour of the consolidation of the soldier settlers debt to date, including tax arrears, and that a reduction of not less than 50 per cent be made of the amount of the total consolidation thus computed, and we will support the efforts of the soldier settlers to obtain this redress."
A committee was formed, and the above was circulated in the form of a petition in the districts of Carman, Roseisle, Haywood, St. Claude. Somerset and
Treherne, meetings being held at a number of these points, and it has been the experience of those circulating the petition that the entire community, with less than 1 per cent of those approached, is in favour of the redress asked being granted.
At the risk, Sir, of wearying you with facts which doubtless are well known to you, this branch of the Soldiers Settlers' Association desires to emphasize to you that unless this redress is forthcoming, the large majority of our soldier settlers will be forced to give up the struggle, and, instead of being settled on the land, will drop to the status of men without homes and without those ties which it is believed are essential to the building up of the west.
Another point which we would with respect draw to your attention is that as each soldier settler is forced to bandon his farm or is evicted by the board, a revaluation takes place, and the land, with the permanent improvements added and charged against the settler, thus revalued, is sold to an incoming settler, at a price which in many cases is 50 per cent and in seme cases, more than 50 per cent, less than the amount which was owing by the settler with the improvements added; if the loss has to come, and from the policy of the board and the current price of land, it would appear inevitable that a loss will accrue, it is felt and urged that the soldier settler should in all fairness receive the benefit in the reduction of land values.
t As you, Sir, are without doubt aware, a bare reduction in the amount of the purchase price now outstanding will not in itself save a large number of our settlers; they owe such an accumulation of arrears, which, if left in status quo, even if the future debt be reduced, will so clog and hamper the efforts of the settler, that he cannot hope to meet his obligations, or if meeting them, will prevent the necessary development of his farm owing to shortage of working capital.
The legislature of Manitoba and that of Alberta have expressed themselves in favour of some redress being granted; Mr. J. R. Love, U.F.A. member in the House at Edmonton, on March 16th drawing attention to the condition of the soldier settlersi in the Wain-wright district, stated that of 37 settlers, 19 had been forced to quit.
Meetings in support of the movement have been held at Deloraine, Carman, Swan River, Somerset, Treherne, and Deepdale in Manitoba, and in many points as far as Dewdney, B.C. and from Deepdale, Manitoba, there is going a petition to the right hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. W. J. Ward, M.P. The petition from Deloraine has for some time been in the hands of Mr. J. Steadman, M.P., for Souris, and to you, Sir, we beg to submit a petition signed by 469 persons in this district, supporting the legislation asked for by the soldier settlers.
It is felt that all money expended by or on behalf of a settler by the board, i.e. such as the cost of breaking advanced on charge to the settler, and paid by the board should be added to the purchase price of the land in computing the amount of the settlers total outstanding liability on the land; the tax arrears should, it is submitted, be also taken into consideration in arriving at the total debt, and added thereto; if the soldier leaves the land or is ejected therefrom, the land on being re-vested in the board ceases to be liable for taxes until re-sold, and if the assistance is not directed towards the reduction of tax arrears, these arrears will be sufficient to act as a dead weight borne by the settler and a severe handicap; it is indeed felt by very many settlers that it is most vital that in computing the total debt, there should be added to the outstanding capital debt, the arrears both of taxes and past due payments. The revaluation granted in 1925 on settlers' live stock will afford an illustration

Soldier Settlement Act
on this point that revaluation averaged about $150, but taken from the capital debt only; this reduction of $150, divided over a period of say, 25 years, is of little material assistance, whereas had this been deducted directly from arrears, the assistance would have been most beneficial.
The petitions forwarded to you, Sir, are sent in the fervent hope that you may do what is in your power to assist in the passing at the present legislature, such legislation as will, in common justice, alleviate the present situation, and will assist in keeping on the land a type of citizen which Canada can ill afford to lose from her agricultural community;
We feel that in approaching you as the hitting member for Macdonald, we are taking the right step, knowing full well that you with your personal knowledge of farming conditions are in close touch with the situation as it exists to-day, and are conversant with the whole matter, and we trust that our movement will receive your support.
I would ask the minister what he thinks about consolidating all the soldier settlers' debts, including tax arrears and the expense of breaking, and spreading the payment over a period of years. Will the bill make provision for any assistance of that kind?


Charles A. Stewart: Any con^
tributions of the settler that enhance the value of the land would be taken into consideration.


Edward James Young: That could not
be taken into consideration if you adopt the suggestion of the leader of the opposition.


Charles A. Stewart: I was speaking of the bill.


Robert James Manion: I was not listening to the leader of the opposition when he made his suggestion, and I should like the minister to explain what he intends to do. The leader of the opposition was speaking for himself-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: He was speaking for himself just as we all are. I have my own ideas on this question and I am not necessarily controlled by the leader of the opposition, by the minister or anybody else. I am speaking for the good of the soldiers. I might remind you, Mr. Chairman, that nine years ago today was a very important day for the Canadian soldiers, and I think we might commemorate it in this House by seeing that they get a fair deal in this bill. This is not a political question, and I do not suppose the minister is controlled any more than any of the rest of us absolutely by the leader of the opposition. What I wanted to find out before he sends this bill back to the board was what he intends to do with this bill to treat the soldiers fairly.


Charles A. Stewart: To put the
matter clearly to my hon. friend, because I was intensely interested in the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, he said in effect that the only eases to be dealt with were those where the men now on the land owed more than it was worth to-day. Now, this reduces it to the minimum in that respect. If a man owes more on his farm to-day than it is worth, then a revaluation takes place and he is given consideration. The leader of the opposition argued that it was in the interests of the government to do that because it was a case in which the government were liable to lose some money in any event, to treat it only from that standpoint, not from the standpoint that the man was a soldier; but that all other cases where danger of loss to the government was obliterated would not be so dealt with. That concretely is what the leader of the opposition suggested. Of course that suggestion is confined to land only; it does not cover stock and equipment.


Robert James Manion: Of course, that is the intention of the bill anyhow.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Now,
the bill as drafted provides for what the leader of the opposition has suggested; but he confines it absolutely to the men on the land, to those in possession; those are the only cases to be dealt with, all the others are to be shut out. I am quite prepared to deal with the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk that where a soldier has occupied a farm, and that farm has been salvaged and a reduction in value made either by the board or by the committee that will function later, the soldier should be given an opportunity to go back on his farm at the reduced price. But I would confine it to him alone, not spread it indiscriminately among the soldiers. The man who was on the land would be given the opportunity to return to that particular piece of land.


John Millar: In that case would he be
given full credit for the amount he had paid? That is, would the agreement be treated as though it had not been cancelled?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has raised another difficulty. I would not care to give an answer to his question offhand. After all, I am trying to meet the objection raised by the soldiers themselves, "Had you done this for me I could have continued." There is something in what my hon. friend says, but I shall have to consider it carefully before giving him an answer. May I say that that contingency could easily be arranged for in the present bill?

Soldier Settlement Act
Now, the difference between the proposal contained in this bill and that suggested by the leader of the opposition is that the bill would give consideration to every man who is still on the land, whether his indebtedness is more than the value of the land or whether it is less. The restriction we put on is that if he gets a reduction of $1,000, and he owes the board only $700, we would not pay that $300 to him. He would simiply pay out his $700 and get his title deed. The bill is wider in that respect inasmuch as we deal with all the soldier settlers instead of confining its operation simply to the class who owe more than the amount I have referred to. Speaking casually, I cannot believe that it would entail a great deal more money than the scheme proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I admit at once that the difference between the two plans does put the government in a much stronger position with respect to claims that might come from every quarter, such as have been raised so prolifically this afternoon, because under the plan suggested by the leader of the opposition we could confine ourselves simply to the protection of the government's interests, not the soldiers' at all. That is the main point of difference. Under our plan we are taking into consideration to some extent soldier settlement. Outside of that I am bound to say at the moment-I may change my mind on further deliberation-'that our bill will better meet the situation than any other suggestion we have yet had this afternoon. Of course, I may be prejudiced in favour of this bill. Certainly I am not going to argue for a moment that it will remove all discrimination, I doubt if any bill could accomplish that, but in being fair to the government and fair to the soldiers I think the provisions of this measure pretty well meet the situation. I am speaking of course particularly with respect to the classes that will be considered under the bill.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, as I told the minister, I did not hear the remarks of the leader of the opposition to which he has referred, but I do know that all the members on this side of the House-and they are largely returned soldiers-all took the same attitude, and I am quite sure still adhere to it, as that which the minister describes as the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk. In other words-


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
make it clear that the hon. member for Selkirk went much further than I suggested.


Robert James Manion: In other words, there was
a consensus of opinion on this side of the House with what I heard the leader of the
opposition say early in the afternoon, that those soldiers who have been deprived of their land because they were unable to pay should be given an opportunity to resume possession before it is given to some other settler under the British Empire or some other scheme. I think everybody on this side of the House was unanimous on that. Certainly the leader of the opposition earlier in the afternoon agreed that that was advisable.


Charles A. Stewart: I think he still agrees.


Robert James Manion: I am glad the minister
suggests that, because I am quite sure of it. I am not suggesting that the minister did it from any political motive, but it seemed to me that he was rather pointing out that the leader of the opposition favoured restricting the scope of the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I say so still.


Robert James Manion: All right. As a returned soldier, I do not want to see the scope of the bill restricted. I am sure that that is the opinion of every returned soldier on this side of the House, and there are at least twenty. We would like to go as far at least as allowing those returned soldiers who have left the land an opportunity to go back to their farms, which they had to give up through circumstances over which they had no control. I am sure the minister will be carrying out the wishes of the House generally if he goes that far at least. Other amendments may be suggested later, but at the present time I think he would be well advised to amend his bill to that extent.
M,T. BROWN: Would the hon. member for Fort William confine the privilege of the soldier under such circumstances to the land which he formerly held?


Robert James Manion: Early in the afternoon I went further than that and suggested allowing the soldier to apply for any piece of land that another soldier had held. The minister later on came forward with a statement as to which most of us knew nothing-at any rate I knew nothing-regarding the empire settlement scheme, and he said some land had been taken, and he said " we cannot carry out the provisions of this bill without doing injustice to some people ". I want to see the scheme carried out, and to see as much justice done to as great a number of soldiers as we can possibly manage, without costing the country too much money. That is the position I wish to take. I would go as far as the hon. member for Lisgar, and provide that a soldier might apply for any piece of land.

Soldier Settlement Act
Mr. BROW1N: I would not suggest that.


Robert James Manion: I suggest it. But the minister points out that some of that land has been taken up already and that cannot be done; but I would be perfectly willing to go as far as possible in that direction.


Charles A. Stewart: On behalf
of the government, I have stated on many occasions, that I hoped that, in dealing with the returned soldier, either through the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment department or the Soldier Land Settlement Board, we should not make the question a political issue. Such a course would be regrettable. I am anxious to do anything in reason, and I would like to get the consensus of opinion in the House as to the best method of doing it. Then I will do my best to draft the legislation; and may I forecast what I will probably bring down, namely, the provisions of the present bill, including the suggestion of the hon. member for the right of the soldier to make application for his land, providing the land is available for him.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: We will take care that we do not tie up this land to an unlimited degree. I still think the provision of the bill goes as far as the government is warranted in going, and I want the committee to clearly understand that that will cut out the man who has paid in full, and the man who has been salvaged, but not the man who can get back on his own land. That man will be given an opportunity to get back on his land and the provision will be widened to that extent.


John Livingstone Brown: He will have to find his
own equipment.
(Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):	Yes, we
cannot advance him money. The land will be there available for him. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has raised some difficulty to which I give consideration. There is some merit in what he suggested, but I want to have time to think of it. I am indicating the direction in which I will proceed to re-draft the provisions of the bill, and bring it back for the consideration of the committee.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It is not the intention of any scheme, either the one proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition or the one proposed by the minister, to take into consideration those who have already paid in full. I think in some of those cases you will find that, although the government has received full pay for the land, the soldier

still owes the full amount. The payment was brought about through a desire on the part of the soldiers to get the land in their own name, and in many cases-one within my own knowledge-a relative of the settler advanced the money in order that the land might be in the soldier's name. It is very unfair that this class of case should not be revalued, when these other classes are revalued


Charles A. Stewart: I may assure my hon. friend that they will not be considered, as I gather from the discussion this afternoon. Those who have paid will not be considered under the provisions of the bill. I desire to say again that it is very difficult to treat every case with absolute equity, and we have not made provisions for consideration to cases of 'that kind.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OP MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Marine Department-Navigation schools, $8,500.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This item is to provide instruction for seafaring men desiring to qualify as masters and mates of ships, in pursuance of section 84 of the Canada Shipping Act. The proposed increase of $1,500 over last year is to provide for a grant of $500 to the Charlottetown Navigation School, and for instruction to deep sea fishermen at Prince Rupert, B.C.


Mr. ROGERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for temporary relief to distressed seamen, $5,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for relief to distressed Canadian seamen abroad and for the temporary relief of seamen at Canadian ports. It is done in accordance with the provisions of the act. It is not altogether an expenditure, because on some occasions we request the navigation companies to reimburse the department for the expenditure. When we can arrange to be reimbursed we do so.


Robert Rogers: What does the minister
mean by seamen abroad?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In foreign countries.


Mr. FRASER:: What was the expenditure
of last year?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the 28th of February, 1926, the expenditure for relief to distressed seaman was $217. Of course the amount expended is never the same. It depends on the number of accidents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Registration of shipping, $3,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for the purpose of
defraying the cost of registration of Canadian shipping. According to the law all ships before trading in Canadian waters have to be registered.


Robert Rogers: How much was spent last
year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the 28th of February, $1,936.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is the name of
the company registered?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The name of the proprietor of the ship.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister
taken into consideration the difference in regard to boards of directors as between Canadian and United States steamship lines?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No foreign company can
be registered as being the proprietor of a ship.


Arthur Edward Ross: Everyone on the
board of directors of a United States shipping company must be a United States citizen. There cannot be a Canadian on it. I want to bring the other side of the question to the attention of the minister. We allow United States citizens on boards of directors of Canadian steamship companies, and the result is that a United States company can register in Canada and take business away from our Canadian steamship lines by having one Canadian director on the board. That is called a Canadian board of directors, and it is most unfair. United States ships can bring grain down to Buffalo; then they organize another steamship line on this side by putting one Canadian director on it, and in this way they cairry the grain further on, whereas on United States steamship lines no Canadian can be a director. We ought to have the same custom in Canada; no United1 States citizen should be a director of a Canadian steamship company.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that any
comipany which is legally organized in Canada can be registered as the proprietor of a ship.


Arthur Edward Ross: I ami pointing
out the unfairness. If a Canadian cannot be a director in a United States company then our Canadian steamship lines should be organized1 under the same regulations.


Mr. QUINN:: I am not quite clear as to
what this item of $3,000 is for. Is it to defray the cost of registration of shipping in addition to the fees that are paid?
Mr. CARDIN There are no fees for the mere registration of a ship. Fees are paid to the officers taking the measurements of the boats.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister take into consideration the point I have raised, which is very important to our really Canadian steamship lines?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be only too glad
to look into the matter.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: What was spent last
year out of the $3,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $1,936.


William Garland McQuarrie: This year the minister has estimated for more than $1,936. Does he anticipate he will spend more this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very hard to say in
advance what the expenditure will be.


Robert Rogers: The vote is the same as
that of last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. In fact the vote has been reduced since 1921-22 from $6,000 to $3,000. In 1920-21 the appropriation was $10,000 and the expenditure $1,769. In 192122 the appropriation was $6,000 and the expenditure $2,790. In 1922-23 the appropriation was $5,000 and the expenditure $1,500. In 1923-24 the appropriation was $5,000 and the expenditure a little over $2,000. In 192425 the appropriation was reduced to $3,000 and the expenditure was $1,865. This year we are asking for the same amount, $3,000. It is not a very large amount over the expected expenditure.


Robert Rogers: I do not think there will
be much objection to the amount, but I would like to point out to the minister that the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) is a very serious one. On our grain passing via United States bottoms and rails to the markets of the world, they get from fifteen to eighteen cents per hundred pounds, or per bushel, I do not
Dominion Express Company

know which, and everything should be done to keep our grain within our own channels and on our own rails. Years ago when the National Transcontinental was built under the direction of a government such as that of hon. gentlemen opposite, great care was taken to provide, for the benefit of the people of this country, that our grain would' be carried on our railways at rates similar to those which would be Charged if the grain went by United States routes and in United States bottoms. That was the pledge made by the Liberal government of that day. Now we have the opportunity, we have the railways in good shape, and surely we ought to be able to take advantage of the promise then made. By continuing this practice, whereby the mere fact of one Canadian being on the directorate enables an American company to evade the spirit of our law, we are placing Canadian shipping at a distinct disadvantage. The Americans do not allow their regulations to be violated in this way, and the competition which Canadian concerns have to put up with is therefore altogether unjust. I hope the minister will take steps to provide some relief in this matter and to see that traffic in this country is directed over our own railways iinstead of being taken by American vessels for transportation over American rails to the markets of the world.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I fully appreciate the importance of the question raised by my hon. friend, but he understands of course that the subject cannot be considered under this item. It will, however, no doubt come up during the discussion of the vote in connection with the Canada Shipping Act.


Robert Rogers: I know it has nothing to do with this item. I was merely bringing it to the attention of the minister.


Arthur Edward Ross: What companies, if any, registered on the Great Lakes in 1924-25?


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


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish the minister would bring it down. There is an American shipping concern now operating on the lakes carrying grain to Buffalo. I have forgotten the name of the company but although there is one Canadian director on the board it is a purely American concern.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Is it the Eastern Shipping Company?


Arthur Edward Ross: I think that is the name, and if the minister will verify this
	.
information he will find that the company is purely American and is taking advantage of our law on the strength of having one Canadian on the directorate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to change the name of the Dominion Express Company to Canadian Pacific Express Company.	-
Mr. 'MEIGHEN: I have no doubt this bill is correct, if for no other reason than the hon. member who stands sponsor for it. I do not think, however, we should allow the second reading without having an explanation.
Mr. F'OURNIER:	I hardly think any explanation is necessary. All rights are safeguarded; any legal proceedings already undertaken will not be affected at all.
Motion agreed to, bill1 read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
explain why it is desired to change the name? I have always wondered why the company was not always called' the Canadian Pacific Express Company, and1 I would1 like the hon. member to explain how it was that the name Dominion Express Company was taken, and why it is now being changed.
. Mr. FOURNIER:	The Canadian Pacific
Railway Company owns the Dominion Express Company, and it was thought better that the express company should bear the same name as the railway.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
know why they took the other name? It is simply a matter of curiosity; I always wondered at it.


Mr. FOURNIER:: The operations of the
Dominion Express Company extend all over the world, and it was thought by the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities that in order to prevent any misunderstanding the name should be identioal with that of the railway.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was wondering if this
bill would have anything to do with express rates, any tendency to raise the rates?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: I think I have been
given the explanation; the Grand Trunk Railway took the name Canadian Express for its express company. Is that name still used?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is now called the Canadian National Express Company.


Arthur Meighen: That makes it all quite clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Marine and Fisheries-removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $5,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
give details?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is for
the purpose of defraying the cost that may be incurred in the removal of obstructions in navigable waters. I desire at this juncture to make a rectification. The other day when we were discussing another item the hon. member for Simcoe asked me if we had made provision for a certain wreck in a certain river in his constituency. Having in mind the request that he had made last year, I answered, that it had already been removed1, because last year he had asked that a sunken vessel at the wharf at Big Bay be removed. This particular wreck has been removed, but the one he had in mind the other night has not as yet been removed. Request for its removal has been made to the department only in the last few months, and it has been impossible to have the wreck removed so far, but we are going to remove it as soon as circumstances will permit.


William Garland McQuarrie: What waters are included in this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All navigable waters all
over Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much was spent
last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the 28th of February last we spent $2,954.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does this item take
care of all work of this kind?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: It does not take care of the operation of snag boats, and that kind of thing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Department of
Public Works does similar work? In the Fraser river for instance, the Department of Public Works has a snag boat operating all the time. The Department of Marine and Fisheries does not take oare of any work of that kind on the Pacific coast, does it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are only taking care of occasional obstructions, for example, vessels that have sunk in rivers, but the whole work of opening water for navigation is under the control of the Public Works department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How is there any obligation on the government to remove wrecks that may be obstructing navigable waters? In most cases these wrecks are insured, and when they are abandoned to the underwriters it seems to me the obligation is on the underwriters to remove them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We can collect from the
owners when they are financially responsible, but in order that there may be no delay in the removal we have to provide a certain amount of money so that we may proceed with the work ourselves, and afterwards we try to collect from the owners of the vessel if they are financially responsible. But in cases where they are not, it would not be safe, of course, for that reason, to leave obstructions in navigable waters, and we proceed to remove them at our own charge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose a vessel sunk
in navigable waters would be abandoned by the owners to the underwriters. Do you ever collect from the underwriters? They own the hull if the vessel is abandoned and becomes a total loss.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we do sometimes
collect from the underwriters.


Mr. HANISON:: Have you made any collections in the last three years, and if so, from whom, and for what amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there
was no insurance on the boats that were removed1 from navigable waters in 1925-1926. I might say, however, that the barge Nash has been removed at Barachois de Malbaie by the Fidelity Insurance Company of Canada. In cases where the vessel owner or the insurance company can be forced to remove the wreck, it has always been the policy of the department to act accordingly.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Edward Ross: While this item
refers to obstructions that interfere with navigation, what is the procedure with regard to derelicts which, while they may not directly interfere with navigation, become a nuisance and a danger when left lying around docks? A company, for instance, will bring some old boat into a dock; it gradually goes to pieces, and is left there, and it is very difficult to get them to take it away. What are the regulations governing the removal of these derelicts?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The section of the statute on which we have always acted reads as follows:
The minister may, if, in his opinion the navigation of any navigable water is obstructed, impeded or rendered more difficult or dangerous by reason of the wreck, sinking, partially sinking, or lying ashore or grounding of any vessel, or any part thereof, or of any other thing, or by reason of the situation of any such,. . . cause such. . . to be removed or destroyed.
That is the power we have.


Arthur Edward Ross: Suppose the company refuses to remove it; will the government remove it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and afterwards we
try to collect, if the company is financially responsible.


Arthur Edward Ross: But in the case
of these old derelicts, deserted bottoms, and so on, the government will remove them if the company refuses to do so?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, if they are an obstruction to navigation.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston).: Suppose they interfere with anchorage, which is a part of navigation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is included in the
meaning of the words "interfere with navigation."


William Garland McQuarrie: What wrecks did you remove last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The list is as follows:
Obstuction and Location-
Steamer Lillie, Shippigan Harbour.
Steamer Birchbay, St. Lawrence River, near Portneuf.
Logs, Alberni Harbour.
Logs, St. Andrews Harbour.
Schooner Clarence Trahan, Meteghan Harbour.
Barge Badger, St. Clair river, near Russell Sound.
Tug Andre Dupre, St. Lawrence river, between Sorel and Lanoraie.
Tug Macsin, near Three Rivers.
Tug Edward G., Seven Islands, near wharf.
Logs, Maitland Harbour.
Steamer Wm. H. Wolfe, near Sombra, St. Clair river.
Scow, Burlington channel.
Logs, Weymouth Harbour.
Barge, Netley Cut, Manitoba.
Tug Seymour, Windsor, Ont.
Barge Nash, Barachois de Malbaie.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very frequently we see
notices in the newspapers of ships becoming derelicts, and these are a grave menace to shipping, especially to liners. What is the policy of the government in this respect? And if any contribution is made to the sinking of such derelicts is it paid out of this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are contributing two
or three thousand dollars a year towards the holding of a convention for the preservation of life at sea, but the money is not taken out of this vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a suggestion tc
make to the minister. We have a very valuable navy, consisting of a few trawlers and torpedo boats, which most of the time, I understand, are lodged in a boathouse down in Halifax. Indeed the member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) suggested they were stored in a garage. Why should not these boats be used for this service? It seems to me that it would be the best purpose to which they could be put. The minister might pass on my suggestion to his colleague, the Minister of National Defence.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is this work done by contract, or how?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is usually done by our
own divers, but in very important cases we have it done by contract.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do you keep the divers all the time?
Mr .CARDIN: One diver. He does this work.


William Garland McQuarrie: Did you let any contracts last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: The work was all done by this one diver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: So the amount expended was all paid to him?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not only to him; he has
to get other men to help him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the removal
of obstructions in navigable rivers? I am interested in the river St. John, which is navigable for some 84 miles from its mouth. Very frequently navigation is obstructed by sunken logs. Is the removal of such obstructions paid' out of this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much work was done on the St. John river last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: None at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not? There is never a season when it is not necessary to remove snags from that river. I have heard complaints from St. John river captains that the work has not been done recently. Under the old government the work was let every year to one of the tug-boats companies. I asked about the item a few years ago and was told the service was done very efficiently by a certain company, but I was never able to find out the name of that concern. I should like to know what work has been done since the navigation season of 1901.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no information that any work has been done on the river St. John. We have no record of any complaints having been made of the nature mentioned by my hon. friend. Possibly the work to which he refers has been done in years gone by by the Department of Public Works.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what I was going
to suggest.


Mr. BELL (St. John):: The owner of the
steamer that plies between St. John and Fredericton writes me that his boat has grounded two or three times during the past season. Would the work of keeping the river safe for navigation come under the Public Works department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If my hon. friend will be kind enough to send me the letter I will make the necessary investigation, and if the work does come under our jurisdiction, I shall be quite ready to have it attended to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think dredging comes *under the Public Works department. I hope the minister will give the matter attention.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Most decidedly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If this is the item under which the department in previous years has paid for removing snags from the St. John river, I hope something will be done this .season along the same lines.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have never performed *any work of this kind; this work is under the jurisdiction of the Public Works department.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: This item also *applies to the Great Lakes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: Does the same amount each year, $5,000, take care of the removal of snags everywhere, or is this item simply for salaries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This applies really to the removal of sunken vessels which have become obstacles to navigation. It does not apply to the dredging of navigable waters, which is attended to by the Public Works department. We only look after exceptional cases.
' Mr. ANDERSON (Halton): It would be interesting to know whether any obstructions along the Great Lakes were removed during 1923-24, for I notice the vote is the same for each year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The only case I have is the removal of an obstacle in the St. Clair river last year.


Robert King Anderson: I would have thought that if the vote was for the removal of snags from navigable waters it would- vary from year to year. Why is the same amount asked for every year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We never know how much will be required for this work, so we follow the practice of asking for $5,000, which for a number of years has been found sufficient to meet any requisitions for the removal of obstructions. We have nothing definite upon which we can base our estimate.


Robert King Anderson: That amount is expended every year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is not entirely expended every year.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Can the
minister tell me what amount was expended in removing the sand and gravel at the point where the waters from lake Huron enter into the St. Clair river, and the number of yards that were removed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that this is not under our jurisdiction.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Does the minister tell me that the obstructions to navigation at the point where the waters of lake Huron enter the St. Clair river are not under the control of this government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They might be under the control of the department of Public Works.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What obstructions did the department remove from the river St. Clair?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We removed a steamer, the Wm. H. Wolfe, which was wrecked and abandoned.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What did it cost to remove the steamer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost was $1,654.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Could the minister tell me what dredging, if any, was done, or what obstructions the department removed from the river Thames between Wal-laceburg and Chatham?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We performed no such
work.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: No dredging was done by the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not by our department.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I suppose it would be the Public Works department that removes obstructions in those rivers.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The dredging is done by the" Public Works department. My department is looking after the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel only.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: And the removal of snags?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: In what year was that removal made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why is it that the
minister's department has charge of the dredging of the St. Lawrence and not of the other rivers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Prior to fifteen or twenty years ago the St. Lawrence ship channel was under the control of the Department of Public Works, but there was a change; the St. Lawrence channel was transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If I remember correctly it was during the time that Hon. Mr. Prefontaine was minister of Marine and Fisheries.


William Garland McQuarrie: What were the reasons?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know what the
reasons were at that time.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister does not know the reasons now.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know why they did it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why is it not retransferred to the Public Works department, to make it uniform?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That might be a subject of consideration in the remodelling of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that the transfer of the dredging of the channel of the St. Lawrence from the Public Works to the Marine department has been the cause of great expense to the public, on account of the overhead involved ? The Department of Public Works has a complete outfit of dredgers, superintendents, and so on, and the transfer of this dredging from the Marine department to the Public Works has necessitated a duplicate system of overhead which is very costly to the country. If the minister wants to make a name for himself he will retransfer this dredging to the department of Public Works. The reason why it has been retained in the Marine department, I imagine, is that the St. Lawrence channel is under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and of course having charge of this dredging magnifies the importance of the department and gives them more money to spend in Quebec, from which province for many years the minister of Marine and Fisheries has come. I suggest that if the minister wants to save the country a considerable amount of money he will do away with this duplication of overhead in the dredging service, and vest all that service either in his department or in the Public Works department. Let us save a little money on the dredging.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the work on the St. Lawrence ship channel come under the engineer of the Public Works department, or is there an engineering department in the Marine and Fisheries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have an engineering department looking after the work we are performing. There is a vote regarding that which will be considered later.


Mr. LANGWORTHY:: Does this item
apply wholly to the obstruction of navigable waters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Fitzgerald Langworthy: I have in mind the state of affairs in Port Arthur, where we have plenty of derelicts which poke their noses above water. We call it the graveyard. It is an eyesore to the community. Has the .Marine department any control over that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That would come under the jurisdiction of the Public Works department. We have the same thing in the Richelieu river, in the constituency I represent.


William Fitzgerald Langworthy: I wish the minister would see that the other department looks after this graveyard in Port Arthur and gets the obstruction cleared up. It is an unsightly place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Inspection of live stock shipments, $4,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This proposed appropriation is to provide for the inspection of ships carrying live stock to European ports, to see that they are properly fitted up and equipped in accordance with the provisions of the live stock act. The act provides that ships carrying live stock cannot clear from any port without a government certificate.


Mr. TOLMIE:: How many cubic feet do you allow per animal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I must admit that the
legulations are rather complicated and rather long. I see, for example, that cattle carried on third deck must in all cases have a space of two feet eight inches in width and eight feet in length. For fat cattle earned on the upper deck there must be a space provided of two feet six inches clear in width by eight feet in length, and not less than six feet three inches in height.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Can you say whether there is any marked superiority in those new cattle shipping boats-I think it is the Jensen line- which have been put into commission recently, compared with the old system?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no exact information as to the advantages of the new system. The only information we have is that it provides for carrying cattle on five decks instead of three. The results are satisfactory, but we cannot say whether there has been any improvement over the other system.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What are the general provisions for ventilation and at what temperature are the cattle kept?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is part of the report that has been made:
The system of ventilation arranged is ample for the requirements as set out by the British Ministry of Agriculture.
In liie compartments where the change per hour is slightly under ten, the loss in efficiency can be attributed to:
1.	The zero conditions prevailing at the time the tests were made, one of the fans being frozen.
2.	Lack of steam pressure at intervals, and
3.	The storage of fodder by the stevedores in every available space, irrespective of the location of the air supply and exhaust ducts, the free circulation of air in certain compartments being badly obstructed.
With higher temperatures at sea, steadier steam pressures, and consumption of the fodder during the voyage, conditions would be improved.
A survey of the four lower compartments aft during Sunday afternoon after the cattle had been two days on board showed the atmospheric conditions to be excellent.
Hon. gentlemen will understand that the matter is complicated.


Henry Alfred Mullins: What are the regulations in regard to shipping store cattle-that is cattle under 1,000 pounds-on these vessels? Are five being put in "four" space and if so what is the size of the space-two feet eight, or two feet six?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid my hon. friend is asking about a matter with which he is more conversant than I am. Probably he is asking for something that he already knows. It is rather hard for me to find it in the long list of regulations which I have before me.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am asking for information. It is overcrowding cattle to put them in a space two feet six inches wide. It is not fair to put five cattle in space for four, giving each only two feet six.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have two inspectors in Montreal, one in St. John and one in Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have been wondering why this appropriation comes under the Depart^ ment of Marine and Fisheries. Logically speaking I think it should come under the purview of our friend the Minister of Agriculture, who has taken a great interest in this matter. It pertains to the safe passage of cattle and their arrival in a proper condition in the Old Country. Has this always been under the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Probably the idea is that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is dealing more directly with steamboat inspection.


Mr. DAVIS:: Has the minister seen the results of any inspection that has taken place of the shipment of cattle from Canadian ports?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are not making an inspection of the cattle. We inspect only the fittings which are placed on the ship.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Has the result of the work
of those inspectors been to bring about changes for the better in regard to the shipment of cattle?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The idea was to bring about better results but the inspectors we have are not interested at all in the cattle. They inspect only the fittings upon the vessels in order to ascertain whether or not they comply with the regulations.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Alfred (Fred) Davis: During the inspection has any change in the fittings ever been made upon the recommendation of the inspectors?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Numerous changes have been made.


Henry Alfred Mullins: To whom do the inspectors report? If five cattle are put in space for four, do they get the standard two feet eight inch space they should have? '


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Perhaps I could
supply the information. If animals are under
1.000	pounds, five are put in a stall; if over
1.000	pounds, four are put in a stall. With respect to the first report we have had from our inspectors who accompanied the first consignment by this specially equipped boat, the results have been quite satisfactory as regards the cattle. Of course the first shipment was made under very difficult circumstances owing to the storm, about which my hon. friend knows; but notwithstanding the arduous voyage the animals had they came through with less shrinkage than any cattle on any other boat that was on the Atlantic at the same time. This was due to the better facilities for taking care of the animals during the storm through which they were passing, and their increased comfort during the voyage; although there was not complete satisfaction because it was the first shipment and certain difficulties were experienced which they had not anticipated. They had a shortage of coal and they had to slow up the boat to six knots an hour, so that the voyage took several days longer. But in spite of all those difficulties this cattle shipment came through better than any other boat that carried cattle during the same period. We have no report as to the second boatload, except a wireless as to its arrival on the other side. Everything seems to indicate that the five-deck boat has come to stay. Some changes have been made in regard to ventilation after the experiences of the first trip. The facilities as regards cleaning the animals have been improved. They provide for taking them out every day. According to the report that has been submitted to us, the facilities will have to be considerably enlarged to provide for the proper cleaning of the quarters. Otherwise the necessary sanitation will have to wait until the arrival of the ship on the other side. The first attempt at improving the facilities has been successful and the second trial promises an equally satisfactory result.


Peter McGibbon: What is the sense of
inspecting the hygienic surroundings of the animals when the animals themselves are not examined for disease?


William Richard Motherwell: The vessels are
equipped to comply with the regulations of the British Board of Trade, and our cattle are not allowed to land unless those regulations are observed.


Peter McGibbon: The health of the
animals is infinitely more important than the surroundings in which they are shipped. It was simply because of an alleged outbreak of disease among some of the cattle shipped from this country twenty-five or thirty years ago that our Canadian animals were kept out of the Old Country for so long a period.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The animals are inspected by the officers of the Department of Agriculture. .


Henry Alfred Mullins: It is important to know definitely whether the animals are given adequate accommodation. To whom do the officials report in this regard? Does the inspector report to the minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This officer reports to the
Department of Marine and Fisheries if the fittings, and so forth, are in accordance with the regulations.


Henry Alfred Mullins: He measures the space?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the inspector at
St. John, and what is the salary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The inspector, Mr. J. M.
Martin, receives a salary of $300, working part time.


Mr. FOSTER:: Who is the inspector at
Halifax?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no inspector
there.


George Eulas Foster: If we succeed in re-establishing the industry in Nova Scotia, will the minister give us an assurance that 9 p.m. he will appoint an inspector at Halifax and that the department will lend every assistance in building up the trade again?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Most certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants-Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This subsidy applies to
the St. Lawrence and to the west coast. There are two plants in the Maritime provinces, the St. John Shipbuilding Company in New Brunswick, and Beasley Brothers in Halifax. Why does the item discriminate

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
against these firms? Why is this all allotted to one firm on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic, without any allotment to the salvage companies of Halifax and St. John?


Mr. HEAPS:: I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to have an answer, with all due respect to the hon. member for North Winnipeg.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that in years past we gave a subsidy to a salvage company on the Atlantic coast, but it has been discontinued on account of representations made by other companies interested in salvage work. They preferred to have the competition open to all companies, instead of giving a preference to any one firm. That is the reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite understand that
they wished to get the work on a purely salvage basis; they make or break, as the case may be. If they win they win big; if they lose, they do not get anything. It seems to me that if there is enough work that scheme should be followed out by the government and the vote should be abolished. I suggest to the minister that he consider the advisability of cuting his vote out here and now. It will save the country $35,000. It has been demonstrated by the minister himself- and I am sure that he was backed up by his deputy, from whom no doubt he got the information-that so far as the Atlantic coast is concerned they do not want a subsidy; they prefer to have it in a go-as-you-please way, taking a chance on the work. There is a well-equipped plant in the city of St. JohD and another, I believe, in Halifax; they are private firms and do work at a profit. They take their chance on getting the work, and on being paid if they are successful. Usually they take work on this basis: if they do not complete the job they get no money at all. It seems to me this principle could well be applied on the St. Lawrence, and there is no necessity for this subsidy to the Davie Shipbuilding Company at Quebec. I invite the minister to delete this item from his estimates this year and thus save the country $35,000.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I would like to ask the minister if these subsidies were granted by tender or by competition, or how they were granted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The reason for giving this subsidy to the Quebec plant is that first of all it is the only plant on the St. Lawrence river. This plant was not prosperous; it was 14011-146
about to close on account of poor business, and it was represented to the department by the shipping interests that we should give it assistance in order to keep it in operation. The Canadian Pacific Railway has taken over the plant and apparatus and formed a subsidiary company, so in reality they are operating this salvage plant on the St. Lawrence in order to have at least one such plant on that river. It was thought that this establishment, which is very useful to the steamship companies on the St. Lawrence, was about to be closed; the plant is absolutely necessary, and we extended the subsidy, as I desire to insist, upon recommendations made to the department by the shipping interests.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister has given an additional first class reason why this-vote should be eliminated. In other words the government are giving a subsidy to a great company like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which operates an immense line of shipping on the St. Lawrence and to whom $35,000, or-how much is allotted to the St. Lawrence?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Twenty-five thousand dollars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a mere bagatelle to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If that plant is necessary to the company they will take its cost out of the travelling public, and that amount should be saved to the public. A subsidy is not necessary on the Pacific coast, and I suggest that if a great casualty should happen some ship the salvage facilities of St. John and Halifax could very well be brought up to where they were needed. I again invite the minister to cut out this vote. It is there because it has been there for a good many years. It is like a great many other votes; once they get in the estimates-and I think the minister will be the first to recognize this truism-it takes a team of oxen to get them out again. A great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway can get along without this subsidy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This subsidy is not granted merely to meet the requests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; this plant is absolutely necessary to all navigation companies having boats plying the St. Lawrence. The situation there might be different from that which prevails in the Maritime provinces. There is probably not sufficient work to develop the St. Lawrence plant and have it maintained by a private company. If we do not give a subsidy to this company which now exists, this plant may be done away

Supply-Marine and Fisheries

with and we would be placed in a very embarrassing position. I would not care to take upon myself the responsibility of stopping its operations and thus exposing the government to the very severe and well founded criticism of all the companies drawing benefits from this plant. Navigation on the St. Lawrence is a very important matter, as is navigation everywhere, and the government should take and is trying to take every precaution and every C9re in order to protect navigation. We have been informed that if we do not pay this subsidy the plant'wilil be closed, and what then will be the position of the government? We will be exposed to the criticism of the companies and probably to the criticism of the members, voicing the public interest of this country. I would not care to take the responsibility of dropping this vote, 'because I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary.


Robert Rogers: If it is necessary at Quebec why is it not necessary at Halifax?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because there are several
other companies at Halifax, and they have informed the department that they want to be free in competition; they do not want any company subsidized by the government. There is no such thing at Quebec; there is no such thing on the St. Lawrence at all, because there is only one company, which, unassisted, is not capable of making both ends meet.


Robert Rogers: What about the $10,000
which is given to British Columbia? You have a number of private companies there; why should this company at Quebec be favoured above other companies?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Probably the representations which have been made in regard to British Columbia were similar to those made regarding the St. Lawrence. The situation might be very different from that of the Atlantic coast.


William Anderson Black: I would like to
point out, Mr. Chairman


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the minister would
take a great responsibility in eliminating this particular vote with regard to British Columbia and the Pacific coast,


Ernest Lapointe: And Quebec also.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am not so familiar with Quebec, but I want to say that the salvage companies, keep excellent boats on hand, fully equipped for service. One company recently paid a high price in England for a very power-	I ,	,	: , ,	.
ful tug, one of the most powerful on the Pacific coast, for the purposes of salvage. These boats are kept under steam, and their crews are maintained on their regular wages, ready at all times to proceed to sea on the shortest possible notice, with the result that when a wreck takes place they are able to render immediate assistance and save very often a large amount of money, in many cases perhaps many lives. They are rendering a very excellent service. If this subsidy were wiped out and this work were split up it would probably not be nearly as efficient as it is at present, and the minister would be assuming a very grave risk if he did anything of the kind without first making a very thorough investigation of the situation. The more he investigates it the greater reason I am sure he will find for maintaining this subsidy.


William Anderson Black: By this subsidy
the government is creating unfair competition with the Atlantic coast. Wreckage occurs, and tenders are asked for salvage of that wreckage. The Atlantic coast companies are handicapped to the extent of the $25,000 which is given to Quebec, to the salvage association there. So far as the Atlantic coast is concerned, we do not want any subsidy for that kind of work, and we do not think-I do not think- that any subsidy should be paid to any company for work of that nature. It is unnecessary. The wrecks are numerous enough, and the work in connection with the salvage of these wrecks is profitable enough, to permit these companies to work without any government assistance at all. I quite agree with my hon. friend from York-Sunbury that there is no occasion for a vote of this kind, and I endorse his suggestion that the minister drop the item from the estimates. It is money that can be well saved. I repeat that the expenditure is unnecessary; it creates unfair competition, and the wrecking companies are doing quite well enough without any government assistance.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend
does not suggest that the Atlantic coast companies would come up into the St. Lawrence river to do salvage work there; they would arrive much too long after the accident happened to be of any use. This salvage plant is just as necessary for the equipment of the St. Lawrence route as are the lights and buoys and other aids to navigation which are provided. The salvage plant which was operated by the Davie Company-I happen to know something about it-was operated at a lops.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
It could not continue, and the shipping companies got together and came to the government, and finally the Canadian Pacific railway agreed to take over the plant and operate it with any losses that might occur in operation, provided that the Department of Marine and Fisheries, acting in the interests of the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, as well as for the benefit of all the shipping companies, would pay the subsidy. This salvage plant is needed for the St. Lawrence route, and I am surprised to hear my friend from Halifax suggest that it comes in competition with the Atlantic coast companies. I thought we were friends. I thought Halifax and St. John were interested in the navigation of the St. Lawrence river, using Quebec in the summer and Halifax and St. John in the winter, and I am surprised to see him working against the St. Lawrence route.


Robert Rogers: My friend from Quebec
East is apparently very anxious that Quebeo should get the whole vote. Neither St. John nor Halifax gets any of it.


Ernest Lapointe: They do not need it.


Robert Rogers: Why do they need it in
Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: Because the company
was operating at a loss, and it could not go on.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Was it not
efficient?


Robert Rogers: There is no reason why
the company should not be efficient and make money at Quebec the same as at any other place.


Ernest Lapointe: It could not be done.
There is less business than on the Atlantic coast.


Robert Rogers: The Canadian Pacific will
not go broke on that work. You are just wasting $35,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries when this government came into power in 1921, and this condition existed then. This subsidy was paid by the government, I was going to say of which the hon. member for South Winnipeg was a supporter, but at all events it was paid by the government which most hon. gentlemen immediately opposite w7ere supporting at that time. It was done because it was necessary, and we have to continue this arrangement because it is necessary.


Robert Rogers: Two wrongs do not make
a right.


Ernest Lapointe: It is two rights.


James Dew Chaplin: In reference to what itjhe Minister of Justice has just said, I wish to call his attention to the Estimates for 1920-21, in which this vote for $35,000 appears, and this is how it read1:
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants in Quebec, Maritime provinces and British Columbia.
So since that time the vote has been changed1.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I feel inclined to agree with those who are opposed to this subsidy. I have heard no good reason given yet why it should be continued. If every concern in Canada that is losing money can come to this government and get a subsidy, there will be no end of applications for subsidies. What I really wish to ask the minister in charge of the department is this: What is the actual amount of work that was done in the St. Lawrence by the company that has received this subsidy for the last few years? What service have they performed for the subsidy of $25,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It might be of interest to the committee to know what are the earnings and the expenses of this wrecking plant. Their expenses are $81,000, and their earnings, including the subsidy, are only $56,000. They are receiving from their private work only $31,555.79. They have a loss every year, and the loss last year was $25,136.95.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely the minister is not so guileless as not to know how easy it is to show a bookkeeping deficit to suit the circumstances and get a subsidy. It would not be the first time that has been done, and he would not be the first minister. While I am on my feet, let me say that the Minister of Justice cannot get away with any such story as he has told us to-night. Everybody knows that there are more wrecks in the St. Lawrence than on the Atlantic coast around St. John and Halifax, and if the salvage operators at St. John and Halifax are willing to take their chances on this class of work without a subsidy, surely there is some concern on the St. Lawrence that can take the same chance. The way this works out is just this:	The shipping companies
which have losses on the St. Lawrence are probably getting their work done at a very great deal less than the tramp steamers and liners which have to have work of this kind done on the Atlantic coast, because they have to pay on a true salvage basis, and if the salvage operators make a successful job of it they get a large sum in compensation. That is 'how they make money if they make any money a.t alll. There is no longer any real
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

justification for this vote, especially in the light of the circumstances and the information that the minister has given to the committee since this item came before it.


William Anderson Black: The Minister of
Justice seems to have come to the relief of his colleague in a very heated1 manner; he seems to have lost some of his patience. I want to say to him that I am not attacking the St. Lawrence route. If this subsidy is withdrawn, and if the company which is enoying the subsidy ceases to do the work, I am perfectly satisfied that the combined steamship companies operating on the Atlantic, together with the underwriters, will very soon provide themselves with an efficient salvage plant to take care of any wrecks that may occur. Probably under those conditions they would confine themselves to the St. Lawrence and not get beyond its mouth. I repeat the subsidy is unwarranted, and 1 would again suggest to the minister that it be withdrawn.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the callous indifference with which hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces, after advancing what they think to be good reasons why the Atlantic vote should be reduced or withdrawn, cheerfully propose to throw British Columbia into the discard by simply sweeping away the whole vote without advancing one particle of reason why that province should be discriminated against. I must support the attitude taken by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). The company that got this subsidy are, I believe, very good friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have no doubt they support the exMinister of Agriculture, But that is by the way. Their services are absolutely needed on the Pacific coast. We have not got any other private companies there interested in the wrecking business that amount to very much. I think my hon. friend from Victoria will confirm my statement that this wrecking company brought their latest boat out from England last year at enormous expense, it being fitted not only for wrecking purposes but for life-saving, and the subsidy covers the dual services. As my hon. friend said, the steamer is kept at Esquimalt harbour with steam up all the time. What the conditions may be in the east, I do not propose to discuss, but I do not think hon. gentlemen from the Maritimes should try to interfere in regard to this matter with which they are not acquainted. Conditions in British Columbia are totally different to those in the east. Not only that, but if

there is to be any change I would say that the subsidy for British Colombia should be increased. It is well known that the government have gone to some expense, and I give them credit for it, in improving the life-saving appliances on the west coast. It is essential during four months of the year to have a boat of the same character stationed at a .place called Bamfield, where it would be more readily accessible to respond to calls from ships in distress on the west coast than. at Esquimalt, which is too far away. I have always tried to get this boat stationed at Bamfield for the winter months, but they say the subsidy is not sufficient, as they would have to keep another boat at Victoria, and the extra expense would not be justified. For the last three or four years the government has put one of its naval boats, the Thiepval, and one of their trawlers, the Givenchy, on this service. Those boats are very well in their way and are betteT than nothing, but they are quite unsuited, for they have neither the requisite speed nor power. If a boat is disabled on the west coast you need a craft powerful enough, such as that subsidized by the government, to go and pull her offshore before it is too late. The naval boats utilized by the government are not fit for this work for, as I say, they have not sufficient weight and power. But they are better than nothing and have rendered very good service, as the committee will appreciate from a letter whidh I am about to quote:
The Thiepval did very good service during the winter, Lieut. Godfrey in command. Recently he got out of here and got a line aboard the Mexican sailing ship disabled off Garmanah, beating the fast U.S. Snohomish by a few lengths, although she had only a 24-mile run from Flattery.	[DOT]
He concludes his letter in this way:
We are glad that sensible people are running these affairs of the navy and would like them to know of our appreciation.
Nevertheless those boats are not suited for the work. Some time or other they will be called upon to go out and save a lot of passengers or a valuable cargo, but they will be unalble to do so for lack of power. I call on my hon. friend from Victoria to support me that if any change is made in this vote it ought to be by way of increased subsidy to enable that wrecker to be placed on the west coast during the winter months.


Robert King Anderson: Will the minister tell us how many wrecks have occurred along the Atlantic coast, in the St. Lawrence river, and on the Pacific coast?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no record at hand
of wrecks on the Atlantic coast because these estimates do not deal with that part of the work. I had a record of wrecks on the St. Lawrence route where the Quebec Salvage Company is operating. Last year from June to December they rendered assistance to sixteen ships in distress.


Robert King Anderson: Was that for the navigation season of 1925?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: Has the minister any records of wrecks on the Pacific coast for the same period?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There were fifteen on the
Pacific coast.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Were they all assisted by this salvage company?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: As practically every member from the eastern provinces is opposed to the part of this subsidy relating to the Atlantic, representing $10,000, and as the minister himself has expressed hi3 agreement with them, I am at a loss to know why he does not reduce the item by that amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The subsidy for the
Atlantic ports was dropped three or four years ago. The work is now done under contract.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I understood the minister to say that he was paying $10,000 of this subsidy towards the Atlantic service.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; $10,000 is for the
Pacific coast.


William Alves Boys: Of course if it is under contract we have simply got to pay it until the contract expires. How long does the contract run?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract with the
Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company was renewed May 1, 1922.


William Alves Boys: For how long?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five years.


Robert Rogers: You have to pay it anyway for five years.


William Alves Boys: Can the minister give us any
further information in regard to this contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was renewed last year.
It was for a period of ten years from the 2nd of July, 1925.


William Alves Boys: If the committe had that information a little while ago the discussion would have terminated, because we could not get out of it if we wanted to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In previous years, I know in 1919 and 1920-a subsidy was given to salvage companies operating on the Atlantic coast. Why was that cut out? Was it at their own request?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is important to note
that on the Atlantic coast several companies are doing the same work. They are not in the same position as we are on the St. Lawrence route. We have only one company there. There are several companies on the Atlantic coast and they have made representations to the department that they preferred to be free to compete for the work to be done on the Atlantic coast, and we have stopped giving subsidies to the Atlantic companies.


William Alves Boys: When was that done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About 1922.


William Alves Boys: Was that done absolutely on
the request of the wrecking companies?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, on account of the representations made by the companies that no assistance be given to any company; that they preferred to be free to compete for the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, one company which has a monopoly of the traffic on the St. Lawrence is not able to make both ends meet, while several companies in St. John, Halifax, Sydney and elsewhere are competing against each other and desire to wipe out all government assistance and1 go ahead on their own account. But they cannot do that in the city of Quebec. I always understood that Quebec was a pap-fed province, and now I know it.


Ernest Lapointe: Those words will be taken down.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give us an explanation why a bonus should be given to companies from Montreal down the St. Lawrence when it is not given to companies from Montreal up? There is the Donnelly wrecking company of Kingston; they get no assistance. They do all the work in the upper part of the river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No representation along
those lines has ever been made for assistance to any other port, anywbwe.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the hon. member not think it a peculiar thing that this company above Montreal can carry on, make money and maintain a big plant, while the companies below Montreal must get assistance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The figures speak for themselves. This company has expenses of $81,000, and its return, without including the subsidy, is only $31,000. Even with the subsidy of $25,000 that we are giving them, they are making a loss every year of $25,000. Is there any chance of their keeping their plant in operation if we do away with the subsidy? They would certainly close, and the minister of Marine and Fisheries, whoever he .might be-it might be my hon. friend opposite- would be criticized if anything happened.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is peculiar that one company from Montreal must get a grant, while above Montreal no company asks for a grant.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Possibly the reason is that there is no necessity for assistance.


Robert King Anderson: I think the
minister stated that they gave $10,000 for fifteen wrecks on the Pacific coast.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That was not all for wrecks. Assistance was given to them.


Robert King Anderson: On the St.
Lawrence there were sixteen cases, and the minister states that $25,000 was given for salvaging those cases, why is there such a difference in the figures?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is comparable to the
case of a man who insures his house. We have to insure and protect the navigation company, and we have to be prepared to proceed to the wrecks and give assistance. We do not know what will happen. A man may pay a premium for many years and his house will never bum, but he is fully justified in paying that premium. We do not know what position we may be placed in, but we are taking the precautions indicated to us as necessary by those who are supposed to know. We are doing this in the same manner as we are giving all the other assistance to navigation in this country. The Minister of Justice has referred to lighthouses, buoys, and so on; we are doing all this to help navigation and to have our waters as safe as possible, to protect the trade of the country. If we should stop such aid now we would have to bear the responsibility.


Robert Rogers: I suppose you have more
wrecks on the St. Lawrence than you have on the coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Judging from the earnings there seem to be less, because they have not enough to meet their obligations.


Robert Rogers: That would not follow.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the Atlantic they do
not want the subsidy, and say "Let us compete."


Robert Rogers: What would be the earnings of the wrecking plant in British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not a statement
of the earnings and expenses of the British Columbia company.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The minister has frequently stated that owing to the competition among the wrecking firms in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there is no need for a subsidy being given to any of them. It seems to me that the granting of this subsidy' of $25,000 to one concern on the St. Lawrence tends to prevent competition, because it is only natural that a wrecking company which anticipated going into that business would not think of establishing a plant where there was already a plant subsidized to the extent of $25,000. I suggest that the minister withdraw this subsidy, to encourage competition and obtain the results which we are enjoying in the Maritime provinces. He stated a few moments ago that the St. Lawrence was too far away from the wrecking plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I might draw his attention to the fact that we have had successful operation of wrecking plants from Halifax as far east as the straits of Belle Isle, and only two years ago the Beasley firm, well known to members on the other side of the House, successfully salvaged a number of guns from the H.M.S. Renown. If they can do that I submit they can go as far as the St. Lawrence river. The government might well withdraw this subsidy of $25,000-I say nothing about the British Columbia subsidy-and let the companies proceed as they do in the Maritime provinces.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Has the
minister had any request from wrecking companies on the Great Lakes? The minister has some idea of the enormous traffic on those lakes. He has already had a vote passed for the removal of one wreck in the river St. Clair. During the busy season of the year a boat passes that place every seven minutes going down or up the river. I cannot

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
understand why these subsidies should be granted to wrecking companies in the lower part of the St. Lawrence and other parts of Canada and not extended to the Great Lakes if the scheme is considered a feasible one.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No request has been made to the department to subsidize any companies in the territory mentioned by my hon. friend.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the fifth session
of parliament that I have brought up this question in connection with this $35,000 item, and I wish to protest on behalf of the ports on the Great Lakes regarding all' these maritime votes not covering the Great Lakes as well as the ocean and river. I want to find out from the minister whether this lis just a vote for the ocean. Where do the Great Lakes come in on this particular proposition? Are the people of the Great Lakes just to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to the ocean and its traffic and to pay the cost thereof? Is this department going to continue to be a political department?-because it has never been anything but a political department for both parties since confederation. It assists certain sections at the expense of the rest of the country. We have passed four or five items to-night but I was not here when two or three of them were being discussed.
The other day I introduced to the minister a delegation representative of all the shipping interests, captains and Canadian lake navigators on the Great Lakes, and he received them very courteously. They were asking for certain reforms in regard to this particular department. The people of the Great Lakes are getting sick and tired of paying taxes and getting nothing at all in return. As I pointed out two or three years ago, these votes should be cancelled altogether at the end of the five year contract period.
This particular item of $35,000 for wrecking plants in Quebec and British Columbia, is mixed up in politics and it should never have been granted by parliament. If you have a vote like this for one or two plants in Quebec and British Columbia, why not have grants for wrecking plants throughout the whole of Canada? Why is there not equality of treatment? The Railway Act provides for equality of treatment in regard to transportation and wrecking plants on land; why is there not .equality of treatment on water? Are we to continue as in the days of John and Sebastian Cabot and Christopher Columbus, who never heard of the Great Lakes? The department has always been a political department and will always continue to be as long as the
ports on the Great Lakes fall for it. I am sorry to say that when this vote has been up in this House during the last three or four sessions the members from Ontario have been afraid to get up in their places and speak about it.
In front of the Niagara there is a large sand shoal where there a wreck may occur to any of the wonderful boats which carry a million and a half passengers a year, yet the government will do nothing. We have pointed this out to the government. I do not blame the present government at all in regard to this matter because the late government was just as bad. The quicker the Department of Marine and Fisheries gets out of politics the better.
I received a letter from Commodore George
H.	Gooderham, of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club, Toronto, asking that certain shoals in the bay of Quinte and the Murray and Trent canals be removed, but four or five years passed and nothing was done. They had a wreck in Toronto off the exhibition on the Modgeska and a very fine officer, Captain Henderson, lost his certificate. Why? Because the wreck commissioner was an oceangoing officer who did not understand lake waters, and he cut off the certificate of a man who knew more than the wreck commissioner did. I am pointing this out just because you, Mr. Chairman, have been a good friend of the Great Lakes. The day is coming when the general policy of the government regarding Dominion services such as aids to navigation, wrecking plants, life-saving, navigation schools, examinations of masters and mates and all these other items we have passed to-night, should extend not only to the St. [DOT]Lawrence and the gulf but right to the head of the lakes.
On lake Superior and lake Huron wrecks occur in bad weather, and if you look around for a wrecking plant you cannot get one. On lake Ontario conditions are so bad that you have to get a private wrecking plant at Kingston, and it may have to go two or three hundred miles to reach the scene of the accident. A Dominion government dredge, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was wrecked off Newcastle in a storm involving a cost of $700,000, and it took seven years to find it. They had to import wrecking plants from Germany and other parts of the world to find where that dredge was, and they discovered it in about sixty feet of water off Newcastle.
I do not oppose this vote at all. It may be necessary. I pointed out, as reported in Hansard of 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, that if you are to apply a general policy of subsidizing

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
private wrecking plants in Quebec and British Columbia, and other aid from this department, that general policy should apply to the Great Lakes as well as the ocean and the gulf. If 'you read the returns of the Department of Marine and Fisheries you will realize what a great tonnage there is on the Great Lakes without any wrecking plant or aids to navigation, and yet sectional interests are allowed to interfere with the work of this department. There is a good deputy at the head of this department. The present minister, whom I met with a delegation of people on both sides of politics, received us courteously, and we were pleased with the reception we got. This policy should be extended to the Great Lakes, in view of the memorandum which has been laid before the government by the shipping interests on the Great Lakes and by the captains and mates who have to sail boats on those waters in season and out of season, in all kinds of weather, and who have to put up with the intolerable state of affairs on the lakes, such as lack of aids to navigation, lack of proper lighthouses, lack of proper wrecking plants and proper lifesaving equipment.
We in the city of Toronto have to be a sort of Department of Marine and Fisheries for lake Ontario, the Niagara river, lake Erie, the Muskoka lakes and Georgian bay when our citizens go there in the summer time. If the government are to vote $2,500,000 along these lines there should be reciprocal treatment between the ports on the ocean and ports on the Great Lakes. I would support liberal expenditure for ocean shipping. We hear talk about Maritime rights and British Columbia rights, and nothing should be too good for these distant provinces; but when the port of Toronto, which contributes large sums to the Dominion treasury, has to spend its own money on aids to navigation, the Marine and Fisheries department should see that traffic on the Great Lakes gets a fair share of this vote. We ought to know what these wrecking plants do, what they cost, what dividends they pay, what insurance they have-in a word, what justification there is for this expenditure. I should think that in the course of five years the government would have been able to devise a policy of its own in this matter. I certainly must protest against the discrimination against the Great Lakes while maritime ports are being taken care of. The lake ports are becoming an important factor in transportation to-day and when we consider what the United States gov-
{Mr. Church.]
emment is doing at Cleveland, Buffalo, Toledo, Detroit and elsewhere, we are astounded at the way in which navigation on the lakes on this side is being neglected. The United States government is doing everything it possibly can to aid navigation, in the provision of buoys, beacon lights, lighthouses and all other necessary equipment. It is small wonder that there has taken place in this country one of the biggest mergers we have ever seen.
I appeal to the minister to make a thorough survey of the situation on the Great Lakes. The matter was brought clearly to his attention in an elaborate memorandum submitted to him by the delegation which I had the honour to introduce, comprising representatives from various lake ports, who asked that the vote be extended to include provision for aid to navigation on the Great Lakes. I trust that the matter will receive the serious attention of the government.


William Garland McQuarrie: What do the contracts call for ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under the contract with the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company the steamer Lord Strathcona must be maintained in service, together with such plant as may be required, to the satisfaction of the department. The service extends from May 1 to December 1.


William Garland McQuarrie: Just what has the
steamer to do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is required to assist vessels in distress in any accident that occurs in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


William Alves Boys: Upon what basis is the subsidy granted? Does it depend upon the value of the plant or the number of wrecks?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is arbitrary,
and if the company is able to show a surplus it is supposed to divide it with the department.


William Alves Boys: I notice that in one case the
grant is $25,000 and in the other $10,000. Is the smaller amount given to British Columbia because they could get along with $10,000, while owing to disasters Quebec found it necessary to ask for $25,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I cannot
give the details of the transaction. I was not in the department when it was entered into.


William Alves Boys: I do not suppose the British
Columbia company would Tefuse $25,000?

Minister of Labour


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sure not, but they
were satisfied with $10,000.


William Alves Boys: Perhaips that was all they
could get. But viewing the matter from a business standpoint there is pal-
10 pun. pably some reason for giving one concern $25,000 and the other $10,000. Possibly the distribution is based upon the number of wrecks, the amount of capital involved, or some other consideration. The minister has not explained this point.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In British Columbia the
company is free to operate the whole year round, and in that way is in a position to earn money in addition to the grant. In Quebec, on the other hand, they operate only during part of the year. This explains it in part. The investment is the same in both cases, but there is the difference in duration of earning capacity.


William Alves Boys: What amount did British
Columbia require-just the $10,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Ten thousand was satisfactory to them. They requested a renewal of the contract.


William Alves Boys: Is it the same as the contract
of last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract has been the same for ten years.


Mr.   POSTER@: Has any other salvage
company in Quebec applied to the government for a similar subsidy?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, this is the only one.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How
many wrecks have been removed on the lower St. Lawrence during the past two years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vote is not exactly
to provide for the removal of wrecks; it is for assistance to be given to ships in distress.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Has the
minister a statement of such aid given?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have a statement, yes, although I have not given it in detail. The company has been called upon to render assistance in sixteen instances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.
Monday, April 12, 1926