1927-03-04

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 116, to incorporate "La congregation de Saint-Dominique du Tiers-Ordre en-seignant."

Mr. Raymond.
Bill No. 117, respecting a patent owned' by The John E. Russell Company, Limited.- Mr. Chevrier.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) presented the second report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as follows:
He moved:
Your committee have considered the following bills and have agreed to report the same without amendment, viz:
Bill No. 71, an act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
Bill No. 76, an act respecting La Compagnie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.
Your committee have also considered the following bills, and have agreed to report them with amendments, viz:
Bill No. 73, an act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

Old Age Pensions
Bill No. 77, an act respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.
A resolution has been referred to the committee in respect to a direct railway outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast. Your committee recommend that 300 copies in English and 100 copies in French of the evidence to be taken by the committee in connection therewith be printed for the use of the committee and of the House of Commons, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
He moved1:
That, in accordance with recommendation contained in the second report of the select standing committee on railways canals and telegraph lines, 300 copies in English and 100 copies in French of the evidence to be taken by that committee respecting a direct railway outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast, be printed for the use of that committee and of the House of Commons, and that rule 74 be suspended in connection therewith.
Motion agreed to.
OLD AGE PENSIONS The House resumed, from March 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 70 respecting old age pensions.-Hon. Mr. Heenan- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 9-Maximum pension $240.
Mr. CANNON:: Before we consider section 9, with leave of the committee we might return to section 8 in order to meet the objection raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. iStevens).


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the desire of the committee that we return to clause 8?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
On section 8-What persons are pensionable.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre raised certain objections to the wording of paragraph (a):
Is a British subject, or, being a widow, was such before her marriage.
There was quite a discussion about it. Since the point was raised I have had time to examine the law, and chapter 44 of the statutes of 1914 covers the case of an alien woman who marries a British subject as to her status when she becomes a widow. Section 11 reads:
A woman who, having been a British subject, has by or in consequence of her marriage become an alien, shall not, by reason only of the death of her husband, or the dissolution of her marriage, cease to be an alien, and a woman who, having been an alien, has by or in consequence of her marriage become a British subject, shall not. by reason only of the death of her husband, or the dissolution of her marriage, cease to be a British subject.
Therefore the argument which I ma.de last night that the clause as it reads now covers both cases holds good, I submit, but there is no doubt that the phraseology might be improved. My hon. friend from Toronto referred to the interpretation which should be given to the word "such". If the interpretation is to be restricted to the rules of grammar, my hon. friend would be right. I move, Mr. Chairman, that paragraph (al be amended by inserting after the word "widow" the words "who is not a British subject."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SPENCER:: Referring to paragraph
(cl, which reads "has resided in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the date aforesaid," I would refer to those people who come here from Great Britain say at the age of 58, who in twelve years would be 70, and who would have to sacrifice any right to a pension they might have received from Great Britain. At the same time, under this clause, they would have no right to a pension in Canada until they had reached the age of 78 and completed twenty years' residence in this country. I would ask the minister if there is no way of meeting that situation, so that these people who come here from Great Britain and have been in this country twelve years by the time they reach the age of 70 may receive a pension.


Mr. HEENAN:: That has been considered, but we do not want to load the bill up with any more provisions than it had last year. This bill may not be all that we require- and here I am taking the same ground that I took last year, and the same ground that was taken by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre-but we feel that it is a step in the right direction, and we do not want to do anything to jeopardize its passage through the second chamber If the bill works any hardship upon any British subjects, there will be time enough to look after that once we get the principle established.


Mr. SMOKE:: In connection with the same paragraph of this section, may I cite the case of a person born in this country and who fifteen years ago went to the United States, and then came back here in a couple of years. Under this clause he would be entirely deprived of any benefits under this bill until he had lived here for twenty years after his return from the United States. Surely it is not intended that the bill should not provide for a case of that sort. There ought to be some provision in the bill that exceptional cases of
Old Age Pensions

89U
this sort should be treated as if the person had continued to live here for the twenty years.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be bobbing up and down all the time answering questions, but I think my hon. friend- will realize that we must draw a line somewhere. This bill is not intended to provide that the man who leaves this country for the United States and stays there until he gets too old to work shall come back here and then get a pension from Canada.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to
have an answer from the minister to the question I raised last night in regard to certain immigrants from England who might be qualified under the old country scheme, who come to this country and forfeit any rights they have in the old country to a pension, and who would not have any rights under this scheme short of twenty years' residence in Canada. It was suggested at the Imperial conference that an arrangement could be made by which there would be some sort of reciprocity between this country and the old country, and in that case the old country could give a financial consideration to cover its proportion of the period. I would submit to the minister that this is not a matter that would interfere with the passage of the bill through the Senate. It involves no extra expenditure by this country in any way. It would simply mean the insertion of a clause in the bill providing that in the case of such immigrants it might be possible that the British government would advance certain amounts of money; that the time spent by the immigrant over there would be, as it were, credited to him. I think in view of the very large number of old country immigrants coming to Canada it would be wise to have a provision of this kind, and I would like to ask if it is not possible still to insert such a provision.


Peter Heenan: I think there is a great
deal in my hon. friend's contention, but as I said before, we want to get the principle of old age pensions established before we load the bill up with further provisions. Let us get the scheme into operation and see how it works out.


Mr. IRVINE:: If we cannot insert a single provision in the bill, why not just come here and say, this is an old age pension bill, and then let us pass it and send it on to the Senate, and then when it comes back here, we can make a bill of it.


Peter Heenan: Perhaps that is what my
hon. friend would do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The proposal I am making, Mr. Chairman, would not involve one dollar of expense to this country. It is simply to insert a clause by which we could enter into an arrangement with Great Britain that, if they wished to do so, they could advance certain moneys, and the immigrant would benefit under that arrangement. This is not something that I am proposing. It is something that was proposed at the Imperial conference, and it is a suggestion that was accepted by the government of Canada at the Imperial conference. Now that we are drafting this bill, I do not think it is too much to ask that a clause along this line should be inserted, which would leave us free to enter into an arrangement of that kind in the future.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend will
realize that we have had a whole lot of trouble with this bill coming from the other side on account of our having to come to certain agreements with the provinces, and on account of our lack of jurisdiction over the provinces. His suggestion, which certainly contains a whole lot of good, immediately opens up another difficulty, that of our legislation having the effect of encroaching, so to speak, upon the imperial jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh no, not at all.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. Here in this
parliament we pass legislation which concerns us. My hon. friend suggests that we should have a clause saying that we arc going to enter into an agreement with the Imperial government on certain subjects. My hon. friend has been very well disposed towards this bill both last year and this year, and has endeavoured to put the legislation through this House and through parliament, and if I might be allowed to suggest it to him, would it be wise to open up this question now of an agreement with the imperial authorities on certain subjects, when that matter could be taken up later?


Franklin Smoke: The answer given by the
Minister of Labour to my question is like many of the answers given to us on this side of the House-no answer at all. It is the duty of any country to take care of its old people. The point whether a person happens to have lived in Canada for twenty years makes no difference whatever. If a person over seventy is unaMe to provide for himself, the country has to take care of him. If a person lived two years in the United States fifteen years ago, and comes back here, why should he not be taken care of under this bill, the

Old Age Pensions
same as if he had lived here all his life. I think these cases should be given a little more consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Maximum pension $240.
Mr. LADNER:: Section 9 was the subject of very considerable adverse comment amongst the people at large during the recent election, and the objectionable feature is that the home of the pensioner can, under certain circumstances, be taken and used to reimburse the government for pensions paid. I am not arguing as to the merits or demerits of that point. It has been argued before, and I know the position the members of the government took at that time. But I should like to draw to their attention the fact that in some other countries, particularly New Zealand, they grant an exemption. In my judgment and in the judgment of all fair-minded Canadians, all old folks who have been thrifty, saved their money and own their home should not be penalized for owning that home. I think a halfway measure, or a compromise, Which is the true viewpoint on this question, should be reached by following the provision which is now the law of New Zealand, and that is that this clause does not become operative, so far as the taking of the home is concerned, to reimburse the pension authorities, unless that property 'has a value in excess of $2,000. Would the minister not be favourable to consider an amendment in both subsections 2 and 3 which could be properly inserted-and I have worked it out -after the word " therein " in the twelfth line. I suggest that we insert the words in subsection 2:
In excess of the sum of $2,000.
In subsection 3, after the word " pensioner " I suggest that we insert the words:
In excess of the sum of $2,000.
What objection can there be to the granting of that exemption to the did folks for the homes and property which they have lived in?


Mr. NEILL:: I think-


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was asking the minister
a question.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought my hon. friend
was making a speech.


Peter Heenan: I thought we discussed
that suggestion very fully last night. In this bill we are not limiting the value of the property to $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000. In the case of an old couple living in a home, having reached the age where they desire a
pension and apply for it, we do not say that if the property is worth $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 they must give it up. We place no restriction on the value of the property, but we do say that if a person is making over $125 a year he is not entitled to the full pension of $240. In the case of those who have property and occupying premises, where no one is contributing to their support but the estate, we take the excess of what they have paid, after they die, over and above what the man would take if he was simply earning his wage, about $125 a year. Section 3 provides that if anyone has contributed in any manner whatever to the upkeep of those people the board has no claim whatever on their property. If they had a son in good circumstances we all agree that it is his duty to contribute to the upkeep of his parents, but if he fails to do so the pension board would not put that old couple out of their home; but on the other hand, when this couple die the board would not allow the whole property to revert to the son, but would take the excess out of the value of the building or the home. If they have contributed ever so little to the upkeep of the father and mother, the board has no claim whatever on the property.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the case of a man over seventy, having a wife of the age of fifty-five, where the husband leaves the home to the wife, who gets the home-the pension authorities or the wife?


Peter Heenan: Naturally, the wife would have contributed something towards the upkeep of the home.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In my hypothesis she has contributed nothing. He has been supporting her, as it is his duty to do. The husband owns the property and dies. Does the pension authority take the property from the widow?


Alan Webster Neill: May I reply to the hon.
member's speech?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the hon. member answering my question? I am asking the minister what I consider a very personal and important question.


Peter Heenan: I think that is right.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like the minister to answer and I would like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to permit me to have an answer.


Peter Heenan: I think the clause is wide enough to cover what my hon. friend has in mind. If anyone has contributed to any extent the board have discretionary power- in fact they have no claim.
Old Age Pensions


Leon Johnson Ladner: But in the case I have
given the wife has contributed nothing and the husband has looked after the wife. As a still better example, let us assume that the wife is an invalid, the husband is looking after her, and they are living together in a house. He wishes to leave the house to his wife. My interpretation of that section is that unless somebody has contributed something in money-


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Or otherwise.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What would "otherwise"
be?


John Campbell Elliott: Looking after his household. Surely that would be contributing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My understanding of that
section as a lawyer-


Mr. BROWN:: That does not matter.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think the observation of the hon. member for Lisgar is quite correct- it would not matter to him for he would not have understood it. This in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, is a very important section, and if we can avoid doing a palpable injustice to unfortunate people in the future now is the time to do it. I think a proper reading of the section will disclose the fact that if the husband dies owning a house, and leaves it to his wife, and, let us say, she is an invalid, the pension authority takes the home and not the wife.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince.):: Perhaps they
would prefer to have the house rather than the wife.


Peter Heenan: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that this is as broad as it could possibly be drafted:
-regularly contributed to the support of the pensioner by the payment of money or otherwise to an extent which, having regard to the means of the person so having contributed, is considered by the pension authority to be reasonable.


Mr. HANSON:: Is the minister aware that the words, "money or otherwise" must mean in ordinary judicial construction, "money or something equivalent to money?" The ejus-dem generis rule will always govern in that case. I leave it to my friend the Solicitor General to say if I am not right.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend from Vancouver (Mr. Ladner) is perfectly right when he says that in case a pensioner dies and leaves a dwelling the pension authority has a right to recover out of that dwelling or the value of it whatever has

been paid to the pensioner in excess of what he might have received from other people in money or otherwise. It is very easy for an ingenious mind like that of my hon. friend to make an argument which will appeal to the sympathy of his listeners by describing the unsympathetic action of the government in taking away in such a case the house from the poor widow. I do not blame my hon. friend for giving us that pathetic scene. I have some experience in politics, and I know that on the hustings it always has a good effect. But talking as a law'yer to a lawyer, that is, dealing with this matter according to the strict principles which underlie all our legislation, suppose a man owns a house in the city of Ottawa but fails to pay his taxes, after his death if his widow appeals to the city hall officials and says, "You are not going to take away that house from me?1", what answer is she going to receive? When we pass a law imposing certain taxation and providing, in order to protect the rights of the exchequer, for a lien on the property of any defaulting taxpayer, in what position are his children or his widow? Are we to renounce our rights? If this argument of sympathy is to be invoked to cover these cases how are we going to collect our revenue?


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I think some
confusion has arisen through considering these subsections together rather than separately, because their two aspects are entirely remote one from the other. To begin with, I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that under subsection 2 the whole action is absolutely permissive on the man or on the government. That it is not obligatory will be seen by looking at the way in which it is worded:
Where a pensioner is the owner of an interest iD a dwelling house,-
and so on
-and the pension authority "accepts" a transfer thereof.
The pension authority does not need to accept a transfer of the dwelling house, and undoubtedly the pensioner does not need to give it unless he likes. That aspect has been entirely ignored. The reason I think it is so phrased is to provide against oases where the pension authority perhaps would be importuned to take a house under unreasonable circumstances. It merely says that the pension authority has the option and, inferentially, that the pensioner has the option, because there must be an offer before there is an acceptance. That is a phase which I think is somewhat lost sight of. This section of the bill was much abused on the platform. It was said, "This bill is going to rob the poor old couple of their home. It is too bad. These wretched people are going to come and rob the widow and the orphan of the only home they have." I was asked on one occasion to go to see an old man who was too infirm to visit me. He lived with his wife in a beautiful little home, and this lovely old couple
were of the very type that needed such assistance as is given in this bill. It was a nice little house, worth perhaps $10 a month. They were old and infirm and unable to work, and they had been told that if this bill passed or if the Liberals got into power their home would be taken away. They were much upset, and realizing that the pension was all they could look forward to, they asked me, "If our home is taken away from us, what shall we do?" No explanation should1 have been necessary had the matter been truthfully stated to the people, 'but I had to explain to this old couple that there was no danger of their losing their home. I pointed out that 't would be rated, perhaps, at ten dollars a month, and twelve times ten being $120 that was less by $5 than the amount Which the pensioner would be allowed without any reduction. So that this particular couple would have been allowed to live in their home and draw the full pension, and when they died the house would belong to their heirs. This was a typical case.
The intention of the section was to meet the case of the owner of a house worth, say, $30 a month, which he might not be able to sell or dispose of otherwise-this happens in the country-although he would be technically charged with that $30 per month by reason of the fact that he occupied the house. It was to meet such a case that the section was framed. If he wanted to do so, and if the board were agreeable he could turn the house over to the board on certain terms. It has been popularly stated, erroneously and even maliciously stated, that when a pensioner owning such a house died, the house would go to the government who would sell it to recoup themselves to the full amount of the pension that had been paid out. This of course is not so. The government will recoup themselves, not for the full pension but only for that portion which the pensioner would not have received had he not transferred the house. The pensioner cannot live on the proceeds of a house which he cannot eat, sell or rent, and it is to meet a case of this kind that the section has been drafted.
An hon. member has referred to the situation in New Zealand. I think he misunderstood it, for the situation there is more severe than it is in Canada. It is provided in New Zealand that:
Any person otherwise qualified to receive a pension who owns property on which he resides, and which does not permit of the granting of a full pension, may qualify for the full pension by transferring the said property to the public trustee. The pensioner is permitted to reside on the property rent-free during his lifetime, but lie must pay all rates and charges thereon.
Old Age Pensions

The taxes there are considerable in many cases. In our bill we propose to carry these charges so long as it is necessary.
If a husband and wife, both being pensioners, are living together, and one dies, the survivor is permitted to continue to reside on the property. On the death of both pensioner and survivor, or where the pensioner is no longer entitled to a pension, the public trustee shall sell the property, and, after deducting from the proceeds of the sale the amount of pension paid as a consequence of the transfer of the property, together with his commission and interest at the rate of four per cent, shall pay the balance to the person or persons entitled thereto.
There is nothing wrong there although that provision is not so generous as the one in the bill before us.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 'Either Australia or New Zealand has an exemption of property up to four hundred pounds, as my hon. friend will see if he refers to the book which may be obtained from the department.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Lucien Cannon: I do not agree.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: -then the widow is
not in the same position as was the deceased, and in this particular subsection provision

should be made that she should have the right to continue to occupy the house so long as she lives, just as the deceased pensioner would have done.


Lucien Cannon: The opinion expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South, with which I agreed, was to the effect that under certain conditions the pension authorities had the right to recoup themselves by the sale of the house. One of the conditions is that when any person has contributed to the maintenance of the pensioner, the amount so contributed shall be taken into consideration. How can one contribute to the maintenance of a pensioner? In two ways: in cash or otherwise. What is the meaning of "otherwise?" Obviously one need not be a lawyer to know what otherwise means in this act; it simply means, in other ways which are not directly pecuniary. My hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie) suggests that this would not apply to the widow. If a woman has nursed her husband through sickness or old age and if she has acted also as housekeeper, I appeal to the common sense of the committee whether "otherwise" does not cover such a case. It certainly does; if it did not there would be no reason for including it in the bill. The bill would simply be restricted to the word "money," a pecuniary contribution. It was to meet precisely the cases pointed out by hon. gentlemen from British Columbia that the other words were added.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the case of the wife,
so far as the legal interpretation goes, you have the words "payment of money or otherwise," and I admit that if food or clothing or something of value of that nature were furnished, something that might be exchanged for money, the contribution would fall within this category.


Lucien Cannon: Or services.


Leon Johnson Ladner: A wife giving her services to her hudband is not entitled to a salary or any payment in money, and therefore those services could not be considered as a payment of money or otherwise, and accordingly she would be dispossessed of her home by the pension authorities.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend would be
perfectly right if this clause were interpreted according to what was to be paid to the person giving those services, but that is not the case. We are not legislating now as to w'hether or not a wife is entitled to charge her husband for whatever care or services she may give him; we are legislating to meet another eventuality, the case of the wife who, after her husband has died, appears before

Old Age Pensions
the pension authorities and explains that while her husband was living she kept house for him, cooked his food, looked after his clothing and did all the household duties. In such a case, would the authorities decide that the word "otherwise" did not cover such services? I do not think anyone called u-pOD to make a decision in any such case would decide otherwise than I am now pointing out To make my contention more clear, what are the words used in the act? The act says, "any person", so who is excluded? That is a general expression which means that any person no matter what his or her relation may have been to the pensioner is covered by this act and may make a claim before the proper authorities.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But supposing the wife
has been an invalid for ten years and was able to contribute nothing -in services or otherwise; will not the minister agree that the pension authorities Would then have a prior claim and take the house?


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about
that. In discussing legislation it is always easy to point out extreme cases which are exceptional in their nature and very few in number, but this law applies not to these exceptional cases but to all cases. My hon. friend will admit that general legislation is t-o meet general oases and that special bills are introduced to meet exceptional cases. If we in this House are to consider general legislation to meet extreme and exceptional oases as indicated by my hon. friend the task of legislation becomes impossible and beyond the wit -of humanity. These extreme -cases are cases of hardship, but such things exist under any law. Last night, for instance, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) pointed out exceptional cases of certain soldiers, which goes to show that with all the legislation introduced in parliament during the last six or eight years to meet the needs of soldiers, everything has not been done to meet all the oases which should come within the scope of that legislation. Again I say that we are now simply in the position we find ourselves in dealing with legislation of any kind. General legislation along general lines can very seldom, and as a matter of fact I may say never, include every case which might come to the conception of any member of this House. This is an extreme case pointed out by my hon. friend, it is a case of hardship but so long as we legislate generally we cannot legislate especially and particularly.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why not include a
provision giving some discretion to the 32649-57
pension authority to exempt certain houses under these -circumstances?


Lucien Cannon: There is a good deal in
the suggestion of my hon. friend and evidently the author of this bill thought of that. In the last lines of subsection 3 of section 9 great latitude is given, and if I am not mistaken power is also given under section 10 to the governor in council to make certain regulations. I have no doubt that when these regulations are drawn up the governor in council will give to the authority dealing with these cases the necessary discretion to deal with them.


Mr. BOYS:: As a matter of information I
should like to ask the Solicitor General how it is proposed to transfer an interest in a dwelling house.


Lucien Cannon: I think the only way to
transfer an interest in a dwelling house is to sell it.


William Alves Boys: I do not believe the minister understands me to mean that. It cannot be done. I do not want to be too critical, but at the same time I suppose we should have things so they can be carried out. You can transfer land and chattel property by a bill of sale, but how to transfer an interest in a dwelling house is a new proposition, under the law of this province.


Lucien Cannon: This bill was drawn up by the parliamentary counsel, Colonel Biggar, who has given great thought to all of these clauses, and I may say without fear of contradiction that the ability of Colonel Biggar is fully recognized by every member of this committee. Furthermore as I stated last night, all these Clauses offer difficulties of execution; this law will certainly offer a number of su-ch difficulties and as my friend will fully realize, I am not prepared to give a ready answer to all the objections which might occur to the minds of legal members of this committee.


William Alves Boys: Supposing in the province of
Quebec you wanted to transfer an interest in a dwelling house. How would you do it? I suppose you could sell the land -on which it stands, but I think there should be a change made here in order to have things as they should be. As this is now worded it is impossible to make that transfer. You can transfer the land on which the house rests, but you -cannot transfer your interest in the house.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend will admit that as a rule the owner of a house owns the land on which it stands. No man with ordinary common sense will consfruct a house on

Old Age Pensions

land that does not belong to him. If my hon. friend wants to point out difficult cases, it would be easy for him to point out the case of a man who erected a house on another man's property, with the consent of the other man. Again I must say that these are exceptional cases. In my own province we have the system of what we call emphyteutic leases, by which a man can lease his property for 99 years or for 999 years, and the lessee can build a house on that property. Strictly speaking he does not own the land; he has only a lease. When the lease terminates, the house remains on the property. These are very exceptional cases, and I do not think at this stage we need bother about them. The provinces will have the machinery in hand, and I have no doubt that these exceptional cases will be met as they should.
Again I repeat that it is very easy for any lawyer in this House to bring forward these cases that may seem to be difficult to meet. I may say in justice to my hon. friend that if I were sitting on that side instead of sitting on this side, I might also find certain cases that would embarrass my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: I am not making this suggestion in order to cause any trouble. I am suggesting to the minister that he should so word this that the intention' of the clause may be carried out as I submit it cannot be at the present time.


Lucien Cannon: If I make that amendment, my hon. friend might find other cases that would compel me to amend it again.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend seems to have a high opinion of my ability. He has only to consider once again that what he has to deal with is the interest in the land, not in the dwelling house.


John Campbell Elliott: We have in Ontario, as the hon. member (Mr. Boys) well knows, a clause that corresponds almost exactly with the clause in this bill, that is a clause by which the county that helps an indigent person shall have a right to a transfer of the property belonging to that person and the county judge is resorted to for his decision whether or not under all the circumstances the transfer should be made. In that case they charge the full maintenance and six per cent instead of $ve per cent. I happen to have the Ontario act in front of me.


William Alves Boys: Would my hon. friend read the wording? I am quite familiar with the act but I do not recall the exact wording.
rMr. Cannon.]


John Campbell Elliott: It is chapter 290. [DOT] Section 12, subsection (3), reads:
Where an inmate of a house of refuge is or becomes possessed of any real or personal property out of which the cost of his maintenance or any part of it can be paid, if any sum is due for such maintenance and has not been paid, a judge of the county court of the county in which the house is situate may, on the application of the council of any municipality interested, and upon such notice to the inmate as he may direct, order.that any part of such real and personal property be vested in the corporation or corporations by which the house was established for the purpose of securing payment of the cost of the maintenance so due, or which may thereafter become due, with full power to take or recover possession of, manage, lease, mortgage, sell and convey all or any part of such property in the name of the inmate, or may make such other order, limiting oi' extending such powers, as may be deemed proper, due regard being had to the value of the property, and as to what part, if any, of it is necessary for the support and maintenance of the family of the inmate.
And so on. May I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the clause in question provides for a greater safeguard to the widow about whom the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was quite properly concerned?


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend will agree with me at once that that demonstrates the point I am presenting to the committee. That deals with real property and personal property. Real property is the land; personal property is something that is movable. I am suggesting simply that the wording in this particular clause is wrong and that what we ought to have is what is in that very act.


John Campbell Elliott: The clause reads:
Where a pensioner is the owner of an interest in a dwelling house.
That is an interest in a dwelling house, I do not care whether it is an interest which enables him to use it for one month or six months or a year or for life, or an interest in tenancy, or an interest in fee simple. My hon. friend knows quite well that if a house is built on a freehold, it becomes part of that freehold.


William Alves Boys: Real property.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. But any interest in a house covers every possible interest that he might have and he can convey it.


William Alves Boys: In the house, yes.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no interest in a
dwelling house which cannot properly be conveyed under the law of Ontario or of any of the other provinces even if that interest is only a weekly or a monthly tenancy. My hon.

Old Age Pensions
friend will recall that under the maxim that has already been referred to, if you build a house on a piece of property that house becomes immediately affixed to the freehold and passes with the freehold, and the only way you can deed it is by a deed of the land. I submit that under the circumstances the clause in question has made the most ample and careful provision for the unfortunate widow. May I call my hon. friend's attention to the last clause which I think has been somewhat overlooked?
But no claim shall be made by a pension authority for the recovery of such debt directly or indirectly out of any part of the pensioner's estate which passes by will or on an intestacy to any other pensioner or to any person who has, since the grant of such pension or for the last three years during which such pension has continued to be paid, regularly contributed to the support of the pensioner by the payment of money or otherwise to an extent which, having regal'd to the means of the person so having contributed, is considered by the pension authority to be reasonable.
I think that meets what my hon. friend has in mind. If the widow was not able to contribute any more, what she contributed will be considered by the pension authority to be reasonable. If, having regard to her means, the pension authority considers that what she has done has been reasonable in assisting the pensioner, then no claim will be made.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Those last few words refer only to the extent. The operating portion is the one which specifically states:
To the support of the pensioner by the payment of money or otherwise-
And then it goes on to say:
*-to an extent-
Then of course the pension authority calculates the extent; but if there has been no contribution, if the widow has been an invalid or for any other reason has made no contribution, the Solicitor General will agree with me that she would not have consideration; the home would be taken from her on behalf of the pension authority to pay the pension.


John Campbell Elliott: Can my hon. friend conceive of any one case where there would be no contribution either by money or otherwise by the deserving widow of a deceased person?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I can conceive of the most deserving of all cases, the sick wife, the woman who perhaps with a large family has been an invalid for years.


John Campbell Elliott: Then she did the best
she could.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Certainly she did. Providence did not give her a constitution strong 32640-574
enough to stand up to her ailments, and during, let us say the last five or ten years of her life, she finds herself an invalid contributing nothing in money or services or otherwise. Yet that most deserving of all cases is the very one which will suffer under this clause while others less deserving have the advantage of it.


Mr. GLEN:: There are two different points of view, one with regard to the income of any two persons who might be living together. I think my hon. friend has omitted to look at the whole of the bill. If he will refer to section 19, he will see that power is given to the governor general in council to make regulations and among the regulations are these:
(e) The manner in which the income of a pensioner is to be determined for the purpose of this act, and in particular the mode of reckoning the income of either one or two spouses who live together.
Under paragraph (m) regulations can be made with regard to:
(m) The administration of a pensioner's property by a pension authority.
I have had some experience with the administration of old age pensions, because I happened to be the secretary of one of the committees that was in charge of the old age pension bill when it was first introduced in Britain, and I can remember quite well that all the discussion that has taken place here to-day and yesterday came up in Great Britain. The act as first drawn by the Imperial parliament was altered out of recognition almost after two or three years experience with its provisions, and I think the same thing is likely to happen here, because we shall find so many circumstances that will have to be provided for in the general act. The Solicitor General is perfectly right when he says that a general provision in the act giving power to the authorities to do certain things cannot take into account every exceptional circumstance that may arise, but we have that general provision backed- up by the power that is given to make regulations, and we may assume that these regulations are going to take into account all the arguments that have been submitted here to-day and yesterday, and that they will be framed ac-' cordingly. But apart altogether from that, my experience has been that the committees and those in charge were always willing to give the very best possible view to a pensioner, and I think in common humanity no province will take away from the surviving widow of a pensioner the little piece of property which her husband had accumulated
Old Age Pensions

from, his earnings. I think wei may feel perfectly safe in leaving it to the authorities to carry out the regulations in conformity with equity and justice.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will my hon. friend,
as an expert in old age pension legislation, say that this act follows the act at present in force in the old country?


James Allison Glen: This clause 9 was not in the'
act of 1904.


Mr. BRADY:: I would like to ask the
Solicitor General what is the connotation of the phrase "dwelling house?" In British Columbia many of the fishermefa who possess land live habitually in a boat. That is their home. Would "dwelling house" include such a place?


Lucien Cannon: I do not think there is
any doubt that the words "dwelling house" would include that.


James Charles Brady: The dictionary definition
does not cover it.


Lucien Cannon: Again that would be a
question for the pension authority to* decide, but notwithstanding the findings of my hon. friend in the dictionary which he consulted,
I have no doubt that any person who would represent to the pension authority that his dwelling place was a boat would not be forced by the pension authority, notwithstanding any dictionary, to live anywhere else. It would be considered as the pensioner's regular dwelling place. I had a somewhat similar case in our city of Quebec, where it was decided that if a person lived habitually in a boat which was moordd to a wharf within a certain constituency, he was entitled to vote as being a dweller in the constituency.


James Charles Brady: I regret exceedingly, Mr. Chairman, that the Solicitor General should consider that every question asked has an ulterior motive. I had no intention of prolonging the discussion or objecting to the passing of this clause. I asked my question simply for elucidation.


Lucien Cannon: I may say to my hon.
friend that I did not impute to his remarks any ulterior motive. His suggestion may bo due to the instance which I quoted, but only when my hon. friend gave it that interpretation did it occur to me that he might have got that impression. I just quoted the instance as an experience I had had in my profession as a lawyer, and my hon. friend may rest assured that when he has known me a little longer he will realize that I do not impute motives to anybody.
I Mr. Glen.]


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask the minister
in charge of the bill, as one layman speaking to another, a plain, simple question? Let us get away from some of this technical, legal phraseology. In the case of an applicant for a pension owning a house, irrespective of what it is-we will say it is a small home-can he receive the pension and continue to live in the house without either transferring the house to the pension authority or suffering any deduction from his pension?


Peter Heenan: Yes, it is intended that
he shall get the full pension and still reside in his own home.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no question
about that?


Peter Heenan: No question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this transfer is
purely optional?


Peter Heenan: Surely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like that made
perfectly clear so that no dispute can arise later.


Peter Heenan: If that is not perfectly
clear, we will make it clear in the regulations.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is meaningless altogether as it stands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do wish to keep
away from a technical argument in this matter. Will the minister, as the one in charge of this bill, and speaking for the government, say that the intention is clear and definite that an applicant for a pension who owns a house may continue to live in that house without transferring it to the pension authority and without suffering any deduction from his pension?


Peter Heenan: Without transferring it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Peter Heenan: Oh, no.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend asks, if a
person owns a dwelling house and refuses to transfer it to the pension authority, will the value of his interest in that dwelling house be deducted from the pension he receives? There is no doubt it will be deducted. But this clause provides simply for the case where the owner of a dwelling house transfers his interest in it to the pension authority, and the pension authority recoups itself after his death. But if the pensioner refuses to transfer that interest, clause 9 does not cover that case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it is not optional,
as indicated by my hon. friend from Comox-

Old Age Pensions
Alberni a moment ago? I was quite sure my hon. friend was in error there. I do ask that this point be made absolutely clear because there is a marked difference of opinion between the interpretation of my hon. friend and myself, both of us laymen, and consequently giving a common sense interpretation. I would like now to have the assistance of a legal adviser to make the intention abun-dantlj'- dear. The point my hon. friend takes is that it is purely optional with the applicant whether he transfers his dwelling to the pension authorities or not, leaving the inference -I think he believes this-that the applicant will not suffer a deduction from his pension if he does not transfer. My interpretation is that if he fails to transfer to the pension authorities a deduction will be made from his pension.


Mr. CARDIN:: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I am afraid my hon. friend is not correct in his statement.


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend has not interpreted my remarks correctly. I was saying that it is absolutely optional. The words used must indicate that. The pension board may accept, but before they accept somebody has to make the offer.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why should any person offer a dwelling house to the pension board?


Alan Webster Neill: For some advantage to be
gained.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the advantage to be gained?


Alan Webster Neill: If he does not wish to transfer to the government he does not have to. If he does not transfer to the government, the rental value of the house will be deducted from his pension if it is worth more than $125 a year, but if only worth $10 a month he will suffer no deduction, and will be able to continue to live in the house. Where the house is of a greater value, for instance, a white elephant, worth $30 a month, of course the case is different. 'He does not want to live in such a house. Therefore he says to the board, " Will you take a transfer of this property from me "? Later, when the government sell the house, they recoup themselves not to the full amount of the man's pension but only for that portion in excess of what he would have received if he had not transferred the house.


William Garland McQuarrie: That would necessarily be much more than the pension, would it not, according to your statement of fact -$30 a month for the house?


Alan Webster Neill: He does not have to transfer, but if he does not transfer the rent of the cottage will be charged against him, if over $125 a year.
Mr.'STEVENS:	Deducted from his pension?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. But in the other case
he does not require to have any deduction and he gets his full pension.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not wish to continue the legal argument with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Works, because I do not think we can ever agree. A feature in section 2 I desire to call attention to, is the provision for the payment of interest at the rate of five per cent per annum compounded annually. I do not see why we should charge this rate of interest, or in any event why we should charge compound interest.


Mr. HEAPS:: This is one of the clauses to which I took objection last year, but I have no desire to prolong the discussion on the bill, as no doubt the clauses will go through as they are framed at the present time. However I have had a little experience in the city from which I come of a similar clause of an act in which they provided social relief, and I found that it worked out unsatisfactorily. In addition to that, as far as the pensioners are concerned there will be opportunity for evading this particular provision of the bill. If a pensioner at the age of sixty-eight or sixty-nine, who is about to receive a pension, has a certain amount of real estate, he may either transfer that property or sell it and retain the proceeds, in which case the government will not be entitled to take anything out of the proceeds of that property.


Alan Webster Neill: He cannot do it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are always ways and
means of overcoming these provisions. There are many lawyers in this House who could devise means of overcoming the provisions of the bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: Winnipeg lawyers.
Mr. HEAPS. And New Westminister lawyers as well. The act works out very unsatisfactorily in Winnipeg. I hate to think the authorities could go to a person who is about to receive a pension, and say, "You own a piece of property, and you will' have to sign the agreement or we will put a lien against your property." That would take away a good deal of the benefit to be derived by the recipient of the pension. Personally I would far rather see the bill go through
Old Age Pensions

without any clause of this particular character. It would be much better, and I think it would have the effect of giving a real pension to the pensioner. Under the present bill we give with one hand and we are likely to take away with the other. The average pensioner owns very little property. If a person happens to own a few hundred or a few thousand dollars' worth of bonds, his estate will not be confiscated by the authorities, but those who happen to own a home are likely to have it confiscated. I do not see why we should differentiate between the two cases, or why one should be exempt and the other confiscated by the government. I suppose the bill in its present form is going to be passed and anything I miay say will not change the intention of the government.
In addition to this particular clause we have a clause which allows a petitioner to receive from wages or other forms of income a maximum of $365 a year only. He must be receiving less than that before he can obtain a pension. Where a person receives $125 per annum, the pension is deducted, and consequently I think the clause is rather harsh. It will work a great hardship on some people. One consoling feature I see in the measure is that a great deal will depend on the regulations which will be framed by the department. What appears harsh just now, might not, after the working regulations are framed, result in any hardship to the recipient of the pension. I hope when the government drafts the regulations they will see that the least possible hardship is imposed on the recipients of a pension and they will allow a wide latitude to the authorities who are to administer the act.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I hope, with the hon. member who has just spoken, that when the regulations in connection with this measure are framed considerable latitude will be given along generous lines. I rise for the purpose of stating what I stated when the bill was before the House last year, and I wish to place myself on record again. I stated, and I gave a reason for my statement, that in my judgment the amount of $20 a month was too small a pension. I made inquiries from the country clerk of the county municipality, as to what the municipal corporation was paying out for the poor of the county, who were taken care of in the two institutions in Kingston. I found that for food and clothing and such incidentals as tobacco it was costing the county of Frontenac more per head for each person cared for than is being allowed by this bill. It was costing more in short than $20 a month for each individual, and that did not take into con-
TMr. Heaps.]
sideration the overhead charges, such as heating and lighting the buildings and so on. The actual cost to the municipality for taking care of the poor in those institutions, for food, clothing and such incidentals as tobacco and so on, amounted to more, on an average,	than	$20 a month.
I stated then, I repeat now, that I do not agree with those who think that the passing of this bill will relieve the municipalities of taking care of their poor. Allow me to repeat one or two of the reasons I gave on that occasion. At present an aged man or woman is taken care of in one of these institutions. The older the inmate gets of course the more care he or she requires, including medical attendance, all of which is free. But undoubtedly there would be a disposition on the part of an aged person to take the pension of $20 a month and stay in his or her own home, for there is a natural dread or dislike to go into a house of refuge or a poorhouse. But out of that $20 per month the pensioner must provide not only food and clothing but light and heat and also medical attendance whenever required. In the institutions I have mentioned in the various counties of Ontario it costs for maintenance and medical attendance more than $20 a month per individual. Therefore this pension of $20 per month will be inadequate to enable the pensioner to take care of himself or herself in the same manner as he or she would be cared for if in one of these institutions. I made this statement last year. I make it again now because I want to place myself on record as I did then in that regard, and to emphasize as far as I can what has been said by the hon. gentleman who preceded me and by other hon. members, that in framing regulations to make this measure do what on the face of it it is supposed to do there should be the most generous latitude possible in order that its purpose may be carried out and real relief given to those who are supposed to be benefited by this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read a third time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Next sitting of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Mr. FORKE:: Finish it.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be read a third time?

Soldier Settlement Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, go ahead.
Bill read the third time.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the bill be now
passed and the title entered as on the order paper?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, during the time this bill was in committee I took the opportunity of criticising it in several particulars. Now that it is about to be passed I wish to assure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) that I hope to see it put into operation and that he will get my hearty cooperation in making it effective.
Motion agreed to and bill passed.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT 1919 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORIvE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 61 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act 1919.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went mto committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Revaluation of land sold to settlers, etc.
Alan Webster Neill: As this bill consists of one
clause only I suggest that we consider it by subsections.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill last year received a good deal of consideration and it was demonstrated fairly well then that in its drafting as well as in many of its provisions it was quite defective. We have also had some discussion of it this session, on the resolution. There is not much disposition on this side to haggle over the bill, and I gathered from the minister's attitude a few weeks ago that it was the intention of the government to put this legislation through practically as it stands. As the hon. member (Mr. Neill) observes, the bill consists of a single clause, but I do not think that any great purpose will be served by going into any detailed analysis of it. The government is determined to pass it in its present form, and the minister showed a very slight inclination to consider the suggestions offered on this side to make it somewhat clearer than it is at present. I do think however that the minister should make some statement to the committee indicating precisely what the government's plans are should the bill become law. We asked him to do so when the resolution was introduced and he said, "Read the resolution."
I presume we shall get a more civil answer to-day. I hope the minister will be in a more communicative state of mind than he was on the former occasion and tell us what his intention is with respect to the bill. There are points in it regarding power of arbitration, and so forth, on which we should like to have some definite information.


Robert Forke: I am very sorry that the
hon. member should draw the inference he has taken from the remarks I made when I introduced this measure. I can assure him I had no intentiol of doing anything but giving the fullest information in my possession; and that is my disposition to-day. I will give all the information I possibly can and I am willing to discuss the bill in detail if the committee so desires.
Since last year some changes have taken place in relation to soldier settlers, and while they are not extensive, the figures are different in many instances. Altogether 24,428 returned soldiers were settled on the land under the provisions of the act. Of these 4,250 were settled on free Dominion lands. This bill does not touch their case. A further 2,521 were advanced money to pay off mortgages, or to erect buildings, or to provide live stock and equipment on land which they themselves owned. This leaves a total of 17,657 for whom land was purchased, but of these 440 have paid off their loans in full and are no longer soldier settlers. The proposed bill does not deal with these cases at all. A further 6,098 men for whom land was purchased have sold their interest under assignment to other persons, or have abandoned the property, or have been foreclosed. In the main, this bill does not deal with these cases. There remain, therefore, 11,119 soldier settlers for whom land was purchased and who are still active settlers. These constitute the soldier settlers who are privileged to apply for revaluation.


John Wesley Edwards: Can the minister tell us how these men are distributed by provinces?


Robert Forke: I am sorry I have not the
figures showing their distribution. The committee will understand that in the case of any soldier settler who is satisfied, who has no complaint to make in regard to his land, the property will not come under review.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In other words, you will
not thrust your attention upon him?


Robert Forke: No. The advantage to the
* men who were advanced money to pay off their encumbrances was that they could get their money at five per cent, whereas in
Soldier Settlement Act

many cases they had been paying eight per cent. As I say, there is provision in the bill to deal with the 6,098 men. who have abandoned their property or who have been foreclosed. There is a section providing that if the land is still available it will be possible, should he so desire, for the soldier to return under a revaluation.
A good deal of money has been spent in assisting soldier settlers in the way of reduced prices for stock and equipment and reductions in interest. In 1922 the soldier settlers then on the land were given a rebate in interest, in an interest exemption for four, three and two years, dependent upon the time they were settled. This interest rebate aggregated some $10,000,000. In 1925 they were given a further rebate, in that their capital indebtedness was reduced by cutting off 40 per cent or 20 per cent-dependent upon the time they were settled-of the cost of all live stock purchased for them before October 1, 1921. The cost of this measure of relief amounted to over $2,000,000. Altogether, therefore, in previous relief measures, soldier settlers have received a rebate amounting to more than $13,000,000. The present land revaluation bill provides for a further relief in addition to the two measures already referred to.


John Wesley Edwards: Was that
done as a general policy or was it a matter of dealing with each individual case on its own merits?


Robert Forke: It was a general policy applying to all. Some estimate has Seen attempted of what this bill is likely to cost the country. This at best can be but a guess, but taking the figures I have mentioned and the number of men to be dealt with, should they all come under the act, and placing the average reduction at 25 per cent, the cost would amount to $10,000,000. It is manifest however that until the individual cases are dealt with it is quite impossible to make any estimate as to what the measure of relief given will aggregate in actual money. I think, however, it will be approximately $10,000,000 putting the average reduction at 25 per cent.


John Wesley Edwards: That is
assuming that all are dealt with.


Robert Forke: Aes. I may be wrong but
I am inclined to think that this will be the maximum. The committee will realize of course that I have no means of judging precisely. A certain percentage, it is to be ' assumed, will not apply, but with the reduction at the suggested percentage, the amount I 
have mentioned will no doubt cover the cost.
The question has been asked, what relief has been given to soldier settlers in the past? Their capital indebtedness was reduced by 40 per cent or 20 per cent, depending on the length of time they had been on the land and on the live stock purchased for them before October 1, 1921. The cost of this measure of relief amounted to $2,903,656. and altogether the relief received by soldier settlers on stock and implements and the rebates on their land has amounted to $13,000,000. The proposed measiire does not include the granting of any further money by the Dominion government, but will bring about a reduction in the liabilities of the soldier settlers to the government.
I have been re-reading the discussions which took place in this House last year and I have noticed that hon. members were continually bringing up individual cases which they desired the bill to cover. It was a very natural thing; hon. members would think of someone near their homes whose case did not seem to be covered by the bill, but I think it will be found practically impossible to draft a bill to cover every individual case. There is no doubt that there will be a certain amount of hardship to some of the men who will not come within the provisions of this bill, but that cannot be helped.
There is another view which is sometimes left out of consideration, Perhaps one-half of the soldiers who went on the land never came under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, making their own arrangements in different ways. Consequently those soldiers got no relief and no assistance at all. Others again have perhaps struggled along, just hanging on, and during the last year or two have been forced to leave and will not be provided for. To get the matter down to a working basis we must consider only the soldiers who are now on the land and actively engaged in farming, with the exception of cases where 'they have only recently left their farms and the land is still vacant. In those cases under the provisions of the bill an opportunity will be given them to try again, with a reduced valuation.
A good deal of discussion took place last year with regard to different methods of revaluation, and a considerable number of members at that time favoured a flat rate which, I think, would not be found practical.
It does not follow that all the farms occupied by soldier settlers were over-valued or that they paid more than the land was really worth at that particular time. I have no doubt that some farms were well worth the money paid for them and I know some soldiers who

Soldier Settlement Act
would not sell their farms for what was originally paid for them. In New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain they have had their returned soldier problems, and in each of these countries the flat rate has been discussed and abandoned as impractical and unsuitable. It was perhaps unfortunate, although there is no use crying over spilled milk, that this plan of dealing with soldier settlers was brought up at a time when prices of land, stock and implements were inflated. That is past history, although I have no doubt a good many people think Canada has been particularly unfortunate in relation to the land settlement of her soldiers. A little inquiry into the facts in New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain will convince anyone that Canada has been after all more fortunate than any of these three countries in relation to this question. All these countries have made drastic reductions in the prices of land, stock and implements to the soldiers who have been placed on the land, so in this case we are only following what has been done in the other British countries in matters of this kind.
It is also unfortunate that this matter has been so long delayed and that many who might have been able to stay on the land and perhaps become prosperous and successful if they had received assistance in time, have been forced to leave. We cannot help that, and I may say that one reason why the bill has been introduced in its present form is because this is the form in which it passed the Senate last year. I am sorry the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) misunderstood me and thought perhaps I was not anxious to give all the information ppssible to the House when this resolution was introduced. I want to remind the hon. member that I am a new minister, and perhaps some of the replies I made were sharper than I had intended them to be. I remember making a reply in regard to a particular section, stating that it meant what it said. When I thought it over later it did seem a sharp answer, although I simply meant that it seemed to me to express the intended meaning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is making
amends to-day.


Robert Forke: I think when the hon. member is a little better acquainted with me as a minister he will find that whatever my faults may be I am not extremely bitter or vindictive. I am not trying to apologize but am simply trying to explain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And we are accepting
your explanation.


John Wesley Edwards: The company you were in made you nervous.


Robert Forke: I do not know that I was
exactly nervous. However, that was my idea introducing the bill in this form. There was a good deal of discussion in the House last year; almost every member had a different opinion of what the bill should contain, and I do not know that we were perfectly satisfied with the bill when we finally passed it. [DOT] It went from here to the Senate where it received some overhauling and was finally passed. My idea was that if we could pass the bill in much the same form as it was passed by the Senate last year it would again go through the Senate with very little trouble and this revaluation would come into effect without further delay. If we change it again and cut it up in all directions it may be thrown out in the Senate, and if the bill is not passed this session the men on the land will lose this benefit, because it is not going to do them very much good unless it is passed right away. That does not mean that we cannot discuss the different sections of the bill as we go on, and I am prepared to say that if any real amendment is proposed which will be acceptable to the House as a whole, I will be quite willing to accept it. I want the House to think this over carefully however, and hon. members to be sure that by the amendments offered they will actually help the soldier settlers, because after discussion with the different members I am satisfied that each one has some particular case he wants the bill to cover, and that cannot be done.
I do not know that I should take up any further time just now; I will be glad to answer any questions that may be asked and to give any information in my possession.


William Garland McQuarrie: As stated by the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and by the minister this bill was under discussion last session, when I took part in the discussion and offered certain criticisms. I did not oppose the bill then and it was not opposed by anyone on this side of the House, and I do not intend to oppose it to-day. In the meantime, however, and within the past few weeks, a very large and representative meeting of returned men from all parts of Canada was held. That was the Dominion convention of the Canadian Legion which was held recently at Winnipeg. I have received from one of the delegates a copy of a resolution which was passed unanimously by that convention and which contains its views. My informant was the secretary of a special committee which was appointed to consider soldier settler problems. That committee consisted of four delegates from each of the provinces. They were practically all farmers and eighty per cent of them were soldier
Soldier Settlement Act

settlers. A representative of the Soldier Settlement Board was present during the whole of that convention and took part in the discussions. As it is only right and proper that a resolution passed by that important convention should be laid before the House, I have undertaken to read it and I would ask that it receive careful consideration, representing as it does the views of many of the returned men of this country on this important problem. I will take the time of the House for a few minutes to read the resolution, which is as follows:
The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League in convention assembled this 26th day of January, 1927, gratefully welcomes the announcement by the government that at the coming session of parliament legislation providing a measure of relief to the soldier settlers will be introduced;
The convention, however, is unanimously of opinion that the re-valuation of lands,-being the form of relief generally indicated by government speakers will be slow costly and inad-quate; and the convention, knowing well the problems of the soldier settler calls earnest attention to the following minimum requests and requirements:

*
1.	(a) That pending the effective application of relief measures no settlers be evicted from their farms, and all distress proceedings be stayed;
(b)	That all interest charges on loans be waived, and that all payments already made on account of interest be applied in reduction of principal; this provision to cover the entire contract period, and to include interest consolidated into loans.
(c)	That a general reduction of twenty-five per cent be made to the settler on the original cost of the farm, the permanent improvements and the equipment.
(d)	That, further, where special hardships have arisen from climatic disaster, ill-health or other cause beyond the control of the settler, provision be made to reduce the indebtedness to such a sum as the farm can fairly bear as a commercial investment.
(e)	That after the foregoing adjustments have been made the total debt remaining shall be payable in equal annual instalments over the remaining period of the loan.
2.	Be it resolved that the Soldier Settlement Board shall have discretionary power to relocate bonafide soldier settlers who are found to be located upon manifestly unsuitable farms; such re-location to be made without financial loss to the settler.
3.	Be it resolved that the Soldier Settlement Act be extended so that returned soldiers may take advantage of it, and at least be given rights equal to those accorded immigrants under the Empire Settlement Act.
4.	Be it resolved that the government should again open up school lands for purchase by exsoldiers through the Soldier Settlement Board.
5.	Be it resolved that where an ex-service man has not had a soldier grant but has paid his pre-emption dues, these dues be repayable from the Department of the Interior.
[Mr. McQuarrie. 1
6.	Be it resolved that on application by the settler the board release caveats filed by it where it already holds primary security.
7.	Whereas in March, 1924, when the government instructed the Soldier Settlement Board to eliminate further loans to returned soldiers no provision was made for building, clearing and equipment advances to returned soldiers located on homesteads and soldier grants;
And whereas those men have been doing and are doing a real colonization service to the country in that they are occupying and developing raw bush areas and have proved their capacity and sincerity as land settlers;
And whereas the advances required by those returned soldiers are very small, involving no expenditure for land purchase.
Therefore, be it resolved that the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. do respectfully urge upon the government that in fairness to returned soldiers settled on homesteads and soldier grants, in the interests of the development of the country, the provision of the Soldier Settlement Act, with respect to advances on Dominion lands should not be altogether curtailed and that the government instruct the Soldier Settlement Board to continue advances to soldier settlers on such homesteads and soldier grants.
W. A. Irwin,
Chairman.
8.	That the act of salvage be a complete quittance from all indebtedness to the board.

Along with this resolution the secretary sent me a synopsis of the arguments which were advanced in support of it, and I would like to read a few quotations from those arguments:
The Winnipeg convention fully demonstrated the fact that the revaluation of lands scheme appeals only to the officials of the board and to a favoured few who had expectations of being on the re-valuation commission.
Then again:
As one of the board's provincial superintendents recently stated, "The scheme has its weak points, and we see that appraisers will probably be influenced by sympathy and by politics." It is now generally recognized that the re-valuation of lands scheme is not feasible. In addition to reasons enlarged upon in another article herewith, we claim there cannot possibly be any equity in it.
Then again:
A re-valuation of lands by a government commission will lower not only values of settlers' lands but will have an adverse effect on all lands.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from ?


William Garland McQuarrie: From a synopsis of
the arguments in support of the resolution which I read. I have received this synopsis from the secretary of the special committee which dealt with this matter. Then it said:

Soldier Settlement Act
Re the reduction of principal. The government of British Columbia, having a similar problem to deal with, though on a smaller scale in the Merville soldier settlement scheme, recognized that a physical revaluation was impracticable, and granted relief by making a straight thirty-five per cent cut in all loans. This has been received by the people of British Columbia, as being the most equitable solution of the problem. A precedent has been established and the ex-servicemen of Canada have no hesitation in drawing the attention of the federal government to it, confidently believing that relief in similar form will be granted.
I would be very glad to put on. Hansard all the arguments that are contained in this synopsis, but I am afraid the rules of the House would not permit me to do so. I would, however, direct the attention of the minister to these arguments. I presume he has received a copy, but if not, I should be glad to supply him with the copy I have.
In my constituency there are a great number of returned soldiers. I know what those men have had to contend with. I know that they went on the land in a great many cases without the necessary knowledge to enable them to make a success. I know that certain of those men got land which was not suitable for their purpose at all. I know this also, that those men with very few exceptions have done their very best to make good. They have had difficulties of all kinds to contend with, particularly on the brush lands, but they have done splendid work and in no case that I am aware of have those men got a fair return for their work. I say to the government that it is only right and proper that the opinions and recommendations of a convention such as the one I have mentioned should be taken into serious consideration. I do not think this bill is a perfect one. I think improvements can be made in it, and I was very pleased indeed to note that the minister was prepared to take suggestions into consideration, and in proper cases accept amendments to the bill. I am not going to take up any more time, but I do again urge that the recommendations of the returned men themselves at the Dominion convention of the Canadian Legion be given serious consideration.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether the W. A. Irwin mentioned as chairman of the special committee is W. A. Irwin of Edmonton?


William Garland McQuarrie: It does not say. but I have a letter here which I shall be glad to show the minister from the secretary of the special committee, who sends me a copy of this resolution purporting to be signed by ''W. A. Irwin, chairman." I subsequently received a telegram from the same gentleman dated Langley, B.C., February 25, 1927, reading as follows:
Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association over two thousand members in annual meeting unanimously endorse Canadian Legion convention resolutions regarding soldier settlers. Still oppose bill six one.
(Sgd) Payne.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman is familiar with the resolutions. Would he mind enumerating the salient points? I did not follow them all, but I noted one concerning the application of all interest payments against principal, and another suggestion of a 25 per cent reduction on top of that on the valuation of the land.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is right. There are other recommendations here, but I do not want to go over them all again.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not ask that, but perhaps my hon. friend would summarize in his own way the salient points.


Robert Forke: I think the Canadian Legion might at least have sent me a copy of this resolution. This is the first intimation I have had that such a meeting was held and that such resolutions were passed. Surely the hon. member does not expect me to be able to pass judgment on them without a little consideration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister will probably know that a representative of his department was there and took part in the discussion. Surely such an officer should have reported to the department.


Robert Forke: He did not.


Mr. McPHERSON:: I notice that the minister agreed with my interpretation that revaluation would be given where the agreement had not been cancelled. Under the original clause, and under the last clause, where the land had not been disposed of, but the soldier had left and the agreement had been cancelled, the soldier could apply for reinstatement and re-purchase. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down mentioned, in drawing attention to the resolutions, an item that is of considerable importance, and that is that no action be taken by the government to evict those in possession of the land where agreements have been terminated.
The point I wish to make is this, and it does not change, I think, the intention of the House or of the minister: If this act receives the same strict interpretation by the officials in charge that they are used to giving in connection with other Dominion acts-the
Soldier Settlement Act

Pension Act, for instance-if they go by the letter of the law instead of the spirit, then the soldier who is on the land and whose agreement has been terminated cannot get the advantage of this act. There are a great number on the land to-day whose agreements have been terminated and cancelled, but out of sympathy, or because the department could not use the land anyway, these men have been allowed to remain on. I submit that it does not change the principle of the act at all, but if you wish to protect the rights of every soldier, and I think that is the intention of every hon. member, he should be in the position, although his agreement is terminated to come within the provisions of this amendment if he is still on the land. What I am afraid of is the system the officials of the department have in adhering so strictly to the letter of the law in the interpretation of these matters, if they can possibly do so. The officials seem to think the letter is of more importance than the spirit. Paragraph (j) speaks of any settler " who is desirous of returning to the land ", I am not prepared to trust that to the interpretation of the officials. The words are reasonable enough, but the interpretation given to some Dominion acts, by the pension board, for instance, has been unreasonable and harsh, and I would suggest that we say, " Who is desirous of re-purchasing the land shall have the right to re-purchase ".


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The minister said in
connection with that clause that it would apply if the agreement had been terminated recently. The word " recently " is very vague and paragraph (j) mentions no specific time within which this shall take place. I think that should be given consideration.


Robert Forke: It would be applicable only where the land is still available. If the farm had not been re-settled or taken possession of by any other party, if it was still available, the soldier would have the opportunity of going back.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there any time limit? The minister used the word " recently ", I thmk we should have something more specific.


Robert Forke: I do not think there is any limit so long as the land is vacant.


Mr. GARDINER:: What would be the
situation with regard to the great number of farms you have contracted to provide for the British settlers? Would these be available in case this bill carries?


Robert Forke: Not in cases where the
settlers have taken possession of the land.


Robert Gardiner: I mean lands already
on the list. You have thousands of farms listed for the British government.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the answer given to
the hon. member for East Calgary is not. quite correct, because there is a limit tc. the time under the bill, which provides that any settler whose agreement with the board has been terminated or rescinded can apply for reinstatement; but he will be governed by the general regulation found under paragraph (d) which provides:
All applications for revaluation must be submitted to the board prior to the first day ofso-and-so. So that he will not be able to come in after that date. It is limited to whatever period we now insert in that sc tion, I suppose.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It must be 1927.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, in section (d). I think there is a mistake in that section. Subsection (g) says that the board shall credit the settler's account as on the standard date m 1926. The act as passed last year gave the date 1925.


Robert Forke: Yes, that should be 1925.
It is a misprint.


Alan Webster Neill: Then in connection with thp remarks of my hon. friend from New Westminster, I do not know that he lent himself to the statement, but he put forward the views of the Canadian Legion in Winnipeg, and they ask for a flat rate and some remission of interest. The soldier settlers I represent are absolutely against a flat rate, and while it may seem unreasonable to combat the views of a large body of men such as attended the meeting at Winnipeg, still there are reasons for it. After all, self interest governs most of us. The majority of the settlers throughout Canada would not get any rebate under the revaluation. Some of the lands are worth a good deal more than they were when they were bought; consequently these men have nothing to hope for by the revaluation which is suggested. But if they can get the government to change the policy into one of a flat rate, no matter what it is, it is so much money to them. But that is going to do a great injustice to the people who need the money most. The minister says that a rebate of twenty-five per cent all round, as asked for at the Winnipeg meeting, would mean $10,000,000. But a rebate of twenty-five per cent will not be sufficient in many cases. With the exception of the district of my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Ward), there is no riding in British

Soldier Settlement Act
Columbia where the conditions are worse in that regard than the one I represent. The rebate of twenty-five per cent will not begin to do justice. The member for New Westminster has quoted a case where the British Columbia government gave a flat rate of thirty-five per cent, and in many isolated cases you would need a rate of fifty per cent. He cited the case of British Columbia giving a fiat rate as an argument why a flat rate should be given all over Canada. But the reason for this is that the number of settlers are only forty or fifty; they are all congregated together, in one group, and it is reasonable that what you give to one of them you can give to all, because conditions are the same. But the same cannot be said of any other district. There is no other district in a similar position to that and a flat rate would not be fair. What would the government give as a flat rate? It would certainly be something not exceeding twenty-five per cent, and perhaps only ten per cent. If you granted a flat rate you would be giving men who did not need the money, and in their hearts did not want it, $200 or $300, and you would be taking away from men, who are up against it, their only hope of being able to stay on the land and you would diminish your chances of getting settlers on the land. The land in British Columbia, to which my hon. friend refers, and adjacent to which many of the settlers I represent reside, apart from the original cost, which in many cases was five times its market value, must be cleared, and the cost of clearing is heavy. I have cleared such land and I know that it costs from $200 to S400 an acre to clear it, and when it is cleared it is not worth half the lower figure, because it is poor land. When you have taken out a stump you have spent $20 and you have got a hole in the ground and nothing will grow there for four or five years, because the sub-soil has been brought up and it will not grow anything for years.
I went out there with the Premier and they showed us a place where the stumps were so close together that you could nearly walk across the lot by jumping from one stump to another, and this is the land for which we are asked to fix a flat rate, compared to the land on the Fraser river to which my hon. friend has referred.
That flat land has been made productive by the flow of the river through that section, and of course men will do well there. These men realize that they cannot get anything by revaluation, so they want a flat rate.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does my hon. friend
refer to cleared land or uncleared land in the Fraser valley?


Alan Webster Neill: Cleared land.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is not the kind
we have.


Alan Webster Neill: In many cases in the Fraser valley that is the class of land they have. I wish to explain to the House why this resolution was passed at Winnipeg. It was simply because the majority governed, and that is the only reason. If it is at all possible let us see that the valuation is based on the value of the land now, as compared with what the value was when they bought it.
Another important matter I want to allude to is this. The hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) said that this was practically the bill we had1 last year. So it
is,	with this exception, that there are one or two features of it we have not discussed, and the most important one is the change made by the Senate in the arbitration clauses. We never had an opportunity of discussing that in the House, because dissolution occurred before we had an opportunity to consider it, and that is one of the most important features of the bill. I know the government are anxious, as they were in the case' of the old age pension bill, to pass the bill as nearly as possible in the shape it was when it left the Senate in the hope that they would be able to induce the Senate to pass it on this occasion, but hon. members must remember that there have been changes in the Senate. The personnel of the Senate has changed since last year considerably, and possibly there has been some change of opinion. Possibly some of the members have gone to their districts and are able now to realize the feeling among the settlers, and it may be that they will be disposed to accept another form of arbitration. At any rate if the government insists on it going through as passed by the Senate last year, well and good; we will have to accept
it,	but it is my duty to give an idea of how the men in my district look at this matter.
I have a letter from the settlers association in British Columbia which reads as follows:
That we strongly urge Mr. Neill to use every endeavour to have all cases for re-valuation dealt with by on arbitration board as called for in original Bill No. 17, and not by Exchequer court judge.
I trust therefore if at all possible you will obtain this amendment ivhen the bill again comes up for discussion as our members consider it of vital importance.
The writer says he is writing to other members of the House whom he thinks might be helpful to him. Under the old act the board of arbitration consisted of three men, a county court judge, a representative of the board and a representative of the settlers. I know it is necessary when putting through anything of
Soldier Settlement Act

this kind not only to do what we think is fair, but to make it appear fair to the settlers before they are asked to accept it. There is a popular idea among the settlers-I do not agree with it, I think it is a mistake-that the officials of the Soldier Settlement Board are more or less antagonistic to the interests of the settlers.. The officials are the vehicles by which the board's orders come to these men, and these officials put pressure on the settlers to pay up their indebtedness and carry out their obligations. As between the debtor and the pressing creditor, or the pressing creditor's agent, there is naturally a certain amount of ill-will created, and the settlers have an idea that if the Soldier Settlement Board has too much control in the revaluation it will 'be to their disadvantage, and that is one of the reasons why they wanted to have this board composed of a representative of themselves, the county judge and a representative of the board. In this bill it is put in a different form from that in which it appeared in the original act. It says that he can apply for a revaluation, and if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the board he may apply to the Exchequer court.
Now, applying to the Exchequer court under ordinary conditions involves an enormous amount of cost and very considerable delay. I understand that in proceedings before the Exchequer court all the evidence and other material must be printed. The soldier settler will have to do that. Then when the settler complains as to this he is told, under subsection (i) that:
The governor in council may make such regulations as he deems fit for the procedure in appeals to the Exchequer court.
Yes, but that is where the suspicion between the board and the soldier settler is aroused again. The soldier settler says, "Well, I don't think I can get a square deal from the board" -I am only quoting the opinion very generally held by soldier settlers; I think they would get a square deal-"and when I appeal to the Exchequer court I shall have to do it under such conditions of expense and delay with all the inconvenience incident to the long distance between my home and Ottawa as will render it impossible for me to appeal. But I am told that somebody is going to modify those conditions in a way that wall give me justice." Who is going to do the modifying? The Soldier Settlement Board.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. The subsection says
the governor in council. That means the board. So the soldier settler apprehends that if he does not take the valuation given him

by the Soldier Settlement Board in the first place, he must appeal to the Exchequer court under conditions that to him are utterly impossible unless modified by the very party against whose decision he is appealing.


Mr. GEARY:: That is unreasonable.


Alan Webster Neill: I think in many cases the
Soldier Settlement Board will do what is fair; but you have to settle with these soldiers on the basis of something more than legality- you have to satisfy them. Otherwise in years to come the matter will be brought up in this House again and again. And the appeal of the soldier settler for justice or even for leniency never can be denied. Therefore this will never be settled unless it is arranged in a way that is satisfactory to the soldier settler. I think that means of satisfactory settlement was provided for in Bill No. 17 of last session, under which the soldier picks his own representative to act with the representative of the board, and the third party is the county court judge.
There is another objection of my own conception against the Exchequer court judge. I recall that many years ago in British Columbia an industry was going to be wiped out, and it was felt that the United States should compensate those who would be adversely affected. The United States government paid about half a million dollars to the Canadian government under a treaty for the compensation of those people who were going to be deprived of their livelihood. The Canadian government appointed a judge of the Exchequer court to go out to British Columbia and sit on those cases very much as he would do under this bill. What happened? As my friend behind me says, that judge took a narrow, technical, lawyer-like view of his commission. He so narrowed down what he conceived to be his line of procedure that he gave justice to only two or three people and threw out the claims of 90 per cent of those who were entitled to compensation. Those claimants are without their money to-day. The Canadian government holds it in trust, I suppose, and does not know what to do with it. It is pretty certain that the United States government as a rule does not pay more than is strictly coming to any claimants, but 90 per cent of those entitled were deprived of compensation by a too legal interpretation. That is another reason why we want to have men who are not lawyers to act in combination with a lawyer to sit on these cases. The lawyer, of course, would give them the legal aspect of each case.


George Reginald Geary: Cannot you have that under this bill?

Soldier Settlement Act


Alan Webster Neill: No. For that reason I think it would be infinitely better for the government to go back to the system devised in last years bill, which met with the unanimous consent of the House. Hon. gentlemen opposite wanted the change made, and the county court judge was inserted to meet their views. That was the best form of arbitration that the House could frame. I do not think it would imperil the passage of the bill in the Senate, because after all it would be open to the other House to strike out the amendment and again insert its own. Anyway, I have no hesitation in saying that that is what is wanted in the matter of arbitration by the district 1 represent and by some of the adjoining districts.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, the
remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) justify me, I think, in reading to the committee another document which I have. It is as follows:
Memorandum from the Soldier Settlement Committee of the B.C. Executive Council of Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League for the lion. Ur. J. H. King, Minister of S.C.R., with copy for the Hon. Mr. Stewart, Minister of the Interior, pursuant to interview' with the Hon. Dr. King of General McDonald, President B.C. Command, Canadian Legion and members of the executive council on 27th October, 1926.
re Relief for Settlers under the "Soldier Settlement Act".
Reasons Warranting Relief from the Heavy Debt now on the Settler
The introduction by the government of a bill to re-value lands held under the provisions of the S. S. Act, the manner in which this bill was received by parliament and the favourable comment made on it by the people is evidence that it is recognized that some form of relief is necessary; we beg however to give a resume of our views on the subject.
1.	During the past several years there has been depreciation in all farm land values. The settlers' lands were acquired at the peak of prices in the short-lived post-war boom, causing a much heavier load of debt on the settler than would have been the case had normal prices prevailed.
2.	The load of debt now on the settler is such that there is no hope that he will ever be able to get from under from earnings from the land.
3.	To contract to pay off such debt entirely by the earnings from the farming operations was an experiment never before tried.
4.	Our old established debt-free bush farmers have, in thirty-five years done little more than just keep free from debt, by the sale of timber that have been able to carry on. Few soldier settlers got merchantable timber with their lands.
5.	In the majority of cases the settlers were inexperienced farmers. They have now had experience, to them costly though necessary and valuable now to both the man and the country.
During the years in which they were gaining this experience they were unable to keep up their payments, with the result that arrears have accrued causing the demand now made on them by the board to be for staggering amounts: for instance $1,100.00 and $1,200.00 for the 1926 payment.
6.	Not one settler on a bush farm in B.C. has been able to make his payments to the board from the earnings of his place, such earnings to make the payments have had to be supplemented from other sources. With reference to the Fraser valley this statement is made without fear of contradiction.
(10th February, 1927. This is now found to be applicable to practically the whole of the Dominion. Prairie farmers state that only by a miracle could it be done by them.)
7.	In many instances payments are made to the board by men who are heavily in debt to local merchants, as well as being in debt to the friends and relatives for borrowed monies, borrowed in an endeavour to meet the demands of the board. Merchants are now obliged to refuse credit and many settlers with their families are forced to do without actual necessities.
8.	The wonderful spirit with which the men were imbued when they undertook to reestablish themselves, and to pay for it, is fast breaking. The continued hard grind early and late, the privations he, his wife and family have to face, the insistent demands for payment of debts, the almost forced from him assignments to the board of the monthly milk, or other produce, cheque, and now the knowledge just coming to him that after over seven years of struggle he can never be the owner of the home, into the making of which he has put all of what the ravages of war left to him of the best years of his life, and every dollar of his savings-are some of the forms of adversity which are causing this spirit to break-sufficient to break the strongest spirit.
9.	The feeling that he may never be the owner of the farm has now changed his perspective. Whereas he has looked on the farm as his own, and has worked it as an owner, he now works it as a tenant.
10.	Loss of live stodk. On the Pacific coast in an area defined as from California north to Squamish in B. C., there is a peculiar disease prevalent amongst cattle known as "red-water". In this area veterinary surgeons will not guarantee any cow immune to this disease. Many settlers in B.C. have suffered very severe losses from this cause. Instance: one who during the past three years has lost six milk cows with tw'O new cases showing at this date

another in a shorter period has lost seven animals. With few exceptions the only reimbursement the owner of the animals gets is the value of the hide. Many have had very serious losses in the recent T. B. tests.
11.	Save the country from the ignominy of having to eject the soldier. With broken spirit his temperament is changing: ejectment in its literal sense may not have been carried out. but we know of settlers being threatened with it.
12.	Save the lands from reversion to the Crown, becoming non-taxable and a burden on municipal tax payers. On an abandoned property improvements at once depreciate in value,
Soldier Settlement Act

and continue to depreciate until, and sometimes after, an inexperienced (in so far as the west and the bush is concerned) overseas farmer, who in the majority of cases is without money), has been placed on it under fairer conditions and circumstances than our own soldier settlers.
Finally: The relief-a full measure-is necessary to return to the men their spirit, the spirit which won the war, and to retain the men as farmers and as good citizens of the empire.
Why these men chose the Soldier Settler Scheme of Re-establishment
Though the scheme may have been conceived in a spirit of gratitude, is did appeal to the government as a wonderful and expeditious solution of the great problem of demobilization, when large members of men would be suddenly returned to civilian life, with, it was expected, a disrupting effect on the labour market.
The government did its work thoroughly. As early as the spring of 1918 Y.M.C.A. officers in France were busy expounding by lecture the merits of this marvelous scheme, and urging the soldier to go on the land, on his return, if ever, to Canada. Think of the effect of such a project dangled before the war-weary eyes of men who for years had trodden the wastes of the trench zone-peaceful home life instead of the crowded life of trench and camp; independence in place of a rigid, if necessary, discipline; privacy in exchange for the somewhat excessive society of His verminous, if heroic, comrades. He thought of the joy of his wife and children having the great open spaces to roam in. to play in, compared with the city flat. Fie thought of the milk, the honey, the fruit, all the good things his children could have. (In his past city life he knew that the farmer got all of the good things to eat, and always plenty of such good things.) Many a man, who until then had no thought of farming, had visions of all these; he saw the peaceful green fields pastured by herds of beautiful cattle; the appeal was too strong for him, and he determined that should he survive he would go on the land.
The man who had no such visions found, to his dismay on his return, that his war service was considered a detriment rather than an advantage in the eyes of most employers. He was told that his nerves could not be in shape to enable him to resume his former employment, and he was advised that the farm was the only place for him. After weary weeks walking the streets in search of employment, he found himself with diminishing funds and lessening assurance being inevitably drawn to the ever open door,-the Soldier Settlement board. There is thus a dual responsibility on the people of Canada as well as on the government.
Why, if not Successful, do they Stay?
The savings of their lifetime are gone. All have made payments to the board, some have made heavy payments. Those who owned other properties either in their own or wives' names had to give them as security to the board, chattel mortgages were taken by the board on privately owned stock and equipment.
Are they to lose everything? In plain justice it is not right that they alone should stand the loss.
[Mr. McQuarrie.l
They stay because the community wishes them.
They stay because the experience dearly bought is valuable to the country.
They stay because they have local debts which in time they are going to pay, and they are determined to redeem their good name.
The average age of the settler is forty years. It is well known that war service aged a man; it is conceded by the medical profession that according to the length of time a man had in actual foward area service, years have been taken from his life, in some cases five, yes and ten years. At his age, with the old spirit broken in his heroic but vain attempt to establish himself through the soldier settlement scheme, prematurely old, he has, in the matter of obtaining employment, placed on him a most severe handicap.
They stay with some hope that the government will in time give them alleviation.
Some reasons for British Columbia's Opposition to the Revaluation of Land Scheme
We do not believe it can be either workable or equitable. It will take too long to work out, and it will be very expensive both to the government and to the settler. Revaluation is impossible with a bush farm. No one can visualize the cleared, levelled, cultivated, drained, fenced fields of to-day as the bush, stumps and logs, both above and under the ground, roots, brush, stones and holes of seven years ago.
Provided the scheme was possible of execution, and it can only be possible where the lands, in a general way, appear to-day as they were when bought by the board, we fear there are manj instances where relief afforded would be inadequate.
We fear prejudiced judgments where the board is both defendant and judge and we consider the idea of an appeal to the Exchequer court impossible.
In provincial convention held in May last, the form for relief asked was that there be a complete cancellation of all interest charges and reversion to principal account of all payments already made on account of interest, and that there be a straight reduction made in the principal amount shown in all agreements. This has been endorsed by new branches formed since the convention.
The cost of putting this scheme into effect would be very small, as would also the time taken to do so and to complete it. It would be entirely a matter of office work to be done by the staff already in the employ of the board. We venture to say that the cost of relief in this form to the country could be grealy offset by a reduction in cost of administration of the Soldier Settlement Board, which we believe will be made possible by the putting into effect of this scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask a question? I
quite agree with all the hon. member has said with one exception. Is it not obvious that in the sad and desperate case just laid before us more would be required than an average flat rate, and that that can be done by revaluation instead of taking a flat rate along with men who do not need the re-valuation?

Private Bills


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like to finish this statement first.
The soldiers who are still on the land are recognized as some of our finest citizens. They are now established in the community, where the people desire them to stay in preference to the untried and "out-of-his-element" imperial settler;. Out of the hundreds who took up land it is reasonable to expect a percentage of failures. There were failures, but the failures are long since gone, and the board is now satisfied that all are good settlers.
Recognition is fairly general of the fact that all farm lands are over-valued, over-capitalized. Surveys made in recent years by various bodies have proven this. Regarding our claim that it is impossible to pay for a farm from the earnings of the farm, may we mention that such surveys have shown that the farmer gets a return from his investment of two and one-half per cent, and never more than five. A survey made by the university of British Columbia showed a return of two and one-quarter per cent.
Some months ago one of British Columbia's best known, and most successful farmers, not an ex-service man. who for some time was chairman of one of the Soldier Settlement Board committees in the Vancouver office, and before whom hundreds of settlers and prospective settlers had to appear, was asked for a candid opinion of the soldier settlement scheme. His reply was, that it was "A fantastic dream which never could be realized."
This is signed by R. A. Payne, acting secretary of the soldier settlement committee, British Columbia executive council, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League, and is dated ait Langley, British Columbia, November 1, 1926. I have taken about twenty minutes to read this document; I noticed some hon. members who seemed to be getting uneasy, 'but I submit that it is only fair that the views of these men should be placed before this committee, particularly after the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill).
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44, respecting the Ottawa Gas Company.

Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 74, respecting the Canadian Transit Company.-Mr. Odette.
Bill No. 75. respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Robinson.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 43, respecting the Ottawa Electric Company- Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Increase of capital stock.
Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the purpose of this increase in the capital stock? Does it represent actual cash or otherwise?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This bill is for the
purpose of increasing the capital stock to allow it to be in keeping with the development of the company in the city of Ottawa. The money will be used for the purpose of constructing extensions which were contemplated last year and which are now being undertaken, and also for the purpose of completing the million dollar building which i,-already under construction in this city. The amount will be in cash. This bill has already been threshed out before the private bills committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 72. respecting a certain patent of Enos Henry Briggs-Mr. MoDiarmid-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Commissioner may restore patent or dismiss application.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to do this year
what I have done on previous occasions, namely, to draw attention to the increasing habit of persons coming back to parliament in order to revive patents that have expired. I do not know how carefully this bill was scrutinized, but I think all bills of this character should be very carefully scrutinized and a full explanation given to parliament. There is a great danger of some individual, without any real interest in the matter, securing control of a patent that has expired, coming tc parliament, getting it renewed by parliament and possibly doing a great injury to the public generally. I would like someone, who can speak with authority, I do not know whom-possibly the Mlinister of Trade and Commerce under whose department this comes -to give the assurance of the government that departmental officials have carefully investigated the reasons for this renewal. I have no knowledge of this individual case, but as a matter of principle I have always protested against the revival of these patents that have expired.

Private Bills


Lucien Cannon: Some bills concerning re
newals of patents have been before the private bills committee. The atttiude taken not only by the government but by the members of the committee themselves has been, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, to scrutinize every bill with great care in order that no injustice may be suffered by any party. I notice that this bill has come back from the committee without amendment Before the private bills committee officials of the Patents branch are always present to give all the information they require, and the committee also secure from the promoters any additional data or particulars which might be useful to them in reaching a decision. The remarks of my hon. friend are perfectly justified. Parliament cannot be too careful in examining these bills before passing them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. DETROIT AND WINDSOR SUBWAY COMPANY
The House in committee on Bill No. 68, to incorporate the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company-Mr. Odette-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Oni section 1-Incorporation.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Has this bill received the approval of the Minister of Railways?


Mr. DUNNING:: It has received the approval of the railway committee. As to the minister's approval, I do not think that matters so much in the case of a private bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it is very important indeed. For many years now the railway committee and parliament have carefully studied all private railway charters in view of the large investment that we have in the national railways, and it is usual to have some expression from the minister as to whether or not the proposed railway conflicts with the national system.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a railway charter, but a charter for the digging of a tunnel under the Detroit river, so that the conditions are different.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it is for railway service, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: It may be partly for
railway service, but in any event the department has carefully examined the bill and has made suggestions with regard to it to the railway committee, and as we proceed through the bill the importance of those suggestions 
will be seen. Their main intention was to make this particular project subject to the general provisions of the Railway Act. The department concerned itself with the public interest in the matter. There is no conflict here with the Canadian National Railway System in any shape or form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Capital stock.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the
minister to say that this comes under the railway commission and the Railway Act?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and as we proceed through the bill the sections relating to the relevant portions of the Railway Act will become apparent. In the section now before us provision is made for the deposit by the company of 150,000 in the Dominion treasury, which shall not be withdrawn until at least 25 per cent of the proposed tunnel is constructed, and the whole amount is to be forfeited unless the project is proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Amalgamation with other companies.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice that the last provision in the original section, "Provided that no such amalgamation shall be valid or acted on until it has been approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada," is not in the section as amended. It seems to me that in the public interest it should be retained. I mention that for the minister's consideration,


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not necessary to
use these words now, when we bring the company under' the amalgamation provisions of the Railway Act. I may say that I am not the sponsor of the bill and am merely dealing with such matters as the minister might be expected to look after in the public interest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Clause 10 has been
struck out.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not necessary.


John Frederick Johnston: Clauses 11, 12, and
13 have been struck out and a clause inserted as clause 13.

Detroit and Windsor Subway


Henry Herbert Stevens: That becomes clause 10, does it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will have to be renumbered; the numbers can be corrected.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Right of voting.
Charles Avery Dunning: This section has been
amended by changing the word "consolidated" in the first and second lines to the word "amalgamated" to bring it into conformity with the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Powers, 1919, c. 68, R.S. 1906, c. 115-subways or tunnels.
Mr. EVANS:: The powers of this company are almost unlimited. It can acquire any property which it wants and can secure any charter, license, authority, franchise, concession, and so on. I am surprised that a project of this size should pass the House without any comment or criticism. I criticised the bill in committee, and I still think we should be very careful in granting charters of this kind for public utilities which are used by the people themselves, and which should not be placed in private hands to be exploited by them. This company applies for a charter. We have no knowledge of the company and do not know whether they have money to go on with the work, or credit, or backing. I wish again to protest against the granting of charters for public utilities in this way, whether tunnels, bridges or railways. I think we are doing a wrong thing in giving away franchises in this manner, because the public may suffer. I am simply at present making my protest.


Mr. ODETTE:: I explained this section
while the bill was before the committee. It provides for the construction of a tunnel beneath the bed of the Detroit river from the city of Windsor to the city of Detroit. If the proposal to build a bridge across the river is all right, why should the promoters not be given a charter to (build a tunnel? The people of the border city are not interested in the question whether it is a tunnel or a bridge. They are interested in rapid transportation across the Detroit river, either over or under it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are the people in
that district in favour of it?


Edmond George Odette: We are so optimistic in
that part of Canada that we believe the people are unanimously in favour of it. In any event it is an impossibility to interest
32649-58i
the government of the United States in either a bridge or a tunnel. The people of the cities on the border believe this tunnel would not be of any advantage to Detroit, but would be an advantage to Windsor, Walkerville and other towns in that district. They care not whether it is a bridge or a tunnel, as long as it gives them rapid transit to Detroit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think those of
us who are not privileged to be on the Railway committee are entitled to some further explanation than that which has just been given us with respect to the principle involved in this case. With regard to roads and bridges generally, it has come to be understood that these are matters for municipal, provincial, in some cases interprovincial or interstate acts. Here we have a tunnel, a public service of a little different character from a number that have come before us. We have already in contemplation in this bill the necessity for entering into arrangements with the municipalities concerned. As the hon. member for Rosetown has stated, very wide powers are being granted, and, so far as I have been able to see. there are no corresponding safeguards. This House ought to have further information than has yet been given it with regard to the whole proposal. In the past we have had these private enterprises, even with regard to roads. Formerly we had toll gates. Now we have done away with the toll gates and the exploitation that went with them, and we are coming to the point where the public build and control these roads.
Here is another class of utility upon which we have not yet had a definite pronouncement by the House or the country. We should go slowly before granting a charter of this character.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
is entitled to an explanation of the view of the Department of Railways in connection with these matters, in so far as the safeguarding of the public interest is concerned. With regard to construction, as I pointed out before, in order to guarantee t'he bona fides of those who are undertaking this enterprise a deposit of $50,000 is required to be made in the Dominion treasury, which cannot be withdrawn until 25 per cent of the work is done. That is provided for in one of the sections which ha's already been passed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What would be the capital expenditure?


Edmond George Odette: It will be $16,000,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is that deposit regarded as sufficient safeguard?

Detroit and Windsor Subway


Charles Avery Dunning: When the promoters put up $16,000,000 of their own money all we want is a guarantee that they are bona fide tunnei builders and not charter mongers; $50,000 we consider sufficient for that purpose. As we proceed with the bill it will be noticed by hon. members that the railway committee on the suggestion of the Department of Railways and Canals, given through myself, did bring this project under the general terms of the Railway Act in so far as they could be made applicable thereto. That means supervision by the Board' of Railway Commissioners. It also means that in the public interest, as is set out in a later section, the tolls to be charged will be subject to the control of the railway commission in exactly the same manner as railway rates are now. That, I think, is as far as the Department of Railways and Canals could go in suggesting public safeguards around a project of this kind which, as my 'hon. friend states, is rather out of the usual run, being a tunnel not only between a province and a state, but between two countries. Apparently it is not possible to get such a project as this undertaken otherwise than by private capital. If that is acknowledged, then the duty of this parliament and of the Department of Railways and Canals is to see to it that the public interest is safeguarded in every possible way, and I think the railway committee in the amendments suggested bringing the whole project under the purview of the railway commission has gone as far as it is possible to go at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Approval by United States.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the United States
granted the requisite charter?


John Frederick Johnston: Section 19 has been
struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The company shall not commence actual construction of the said subway or tunnel until permitted by the congress of the United States of America or other competent authorities of the said United States of America, but the company may in the meantime acquire land, submit plans to the governor in council, and do all other things authorized by this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Consent of municipalities.
George Reginald Geary: I should think the proper
phraseology would be, "along or under" any highway.


Edmond George Odette: I think that would be quite in ordter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Should it not read,
"along, under or over"?


George Reginald Geary: That wiljj be right. You
will have approaches and ramps somewhere without doubt.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be a queer subway that went over a highway.


George Reginald Geary: No. It may be a tunnel
in one place and then come out to the surface and cross municipal highways. We have more than one of those in Ontario.


Edmond George Odette: Then I move:
That section 20 be amended by inserting after the word "along" in the second line the words "under or over".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
On section 23-Equal rights of passage to other companies.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the Minister
of Railways say if this is a standard requirement?


Charles Avery Dunning: A similar reservation is
very frequently made in connection with a structure which is regarded from the point of view of its common use by a number of utilities. It is merely compelling those who are building the tunnel to allow a joint user by those interested in other means of transit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That again is going a very long way.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend apparently does not quite get the point involved. Surely it is reasonable when a tunnel franchise is being given to say to those who are getting it that they shall accord equal rights to all transit companies, rail or otherwise, connecting with it. I thought my hon. friend would be supporting this view for equal rights.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed1 to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: At
nine o'clock on Tuesday evening I had practically concluded my remarks on this bill, but I shall take this opportunity again to make plain, my position as I am anxious not to be misunderstood in the matter. It is not my intention to prevent the bill from being referred to and considered by the committee on railways. Unfortunately, under the rules of the House, I have been obliged to extend my remarks over three different evenings; but it will be found that altogether I have spoken for less than an hour. It cannot be said therefore that I have in any way endeavoured to talk the bill out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Halsey Perley: Some hon. gentlemen over the way laugh at this but they speak sometimes for two hours. I do not inflict my remarks on this House very frequently and, I repeat, I have no desire whatever to try and talk this bill out. I thought it best to discuss ithe bill on the second reading inasmuch as it is one of great interest to the public of Ontario and Quebec although it appears nominally on the list of private bills.
As I pointed out before, I want to have hon. members as fully informed as possible of the facts regarding this bill before it goes to the committee, where I hope it will be very thoroughly considered. I am not opposed to the building of the Georgian Bay canal. Indeed, I would favour the project if it were carried out on its own merits. I do not think, however, that it should be financed from the profits of power development at the expense of the power users of Quebec and Ontario, nor do I think that the immense power possibilities of the Ottawa river should be tied up in any way to a private company.
We may as well face the facts of this situation. The Dominion and each of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have certain rights regarding the Ottawa river. My impression is that no one knows exactly what their respective rights are, but I do not intend to discuss that phase of the matter. As they each have rights, however, the only sensible thing for them to do would be to meet around a table with a view to finding some reasonable and satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. That is what individuals would do under similar conditions. Even if the Georgian Bay canal charter were renewed, that company could do nothing in the way of distributing power in either Quebec or Ontario until they made arrangements with the provinces. All this being so, I urge that the Dominion government take over the enterprise under the powers given them by section 5 of
chapter 128 of the statutes of 1906, which I read into Hansard last Tuesday evening. Such action would not hurt the shareholders of the present company as they would be recompensed1 for their expenditure, while it would place the whole problem in such a position that it could be dealt with on a common sense basis by the Dominion and the two provinces, in the best interests of all concerned.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that after all, whether we are members of provincial legislatures or of this House we represent the people of Canada and should do our best to see that these great properties are used entirely in the public interest. By retaining possession of and developing these water-powers the three governments, the Dominion government and those of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, will not only be receiving a large annual revenue but will be ensuring for all time a supply of electricity for light, heat and power at a reasonable rate for the people of these provinces.


James Allison Glen: Before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat I would like to ask him, just for information, how it is proposed to separate the development of the water-power and the construction and operation of the canal, having in view the paramount need of navigable waters?


George Halsey Perley: I do not think
there is any great difficulty about that. If the representatives of these three governments will meet together at a common table they will find a way to solve that difficulty.


Mr. MANION:: I was waiting for the hon.
member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) to speak; I will give him the floor if he wishes, because I know he is very much interested in this question.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: Go ahead.


Robert James Manion: I was going to say that the-hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) rather apologized for having kept this question open, and he also took his seat a moment ago when but six more minutes of speaking on his part would have kept the question open until Monday. He did that, I know, in that spirit of fair play which is absolutely characteristic of him, but at the same time I believe he would have been treating the House better if he had carried on until nine o'clock. That is what I intend to do, and the reason I am going to carry on until nine o'clock is this.
M'r. CANNON: You are very frank about it, anyway.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Robert James Manion: I always believe in being
frank. I am not killing time, because I have some facts to present, but the reason I am going to carry on until nine o'clock is because this is too important a question to decide in fifteen or twenty minutes, as might have been the case this evening.
I was not in the House either of the other evenings when this question came up. I come from a part of the country, like my good friend from Nipissing, which is vitally interested in the question of water routes, but while I have a great deal of sympathy for any attitude he may take I will likely disagree with him ultimately. I must look at it from my own standpoint, and I can look back well over twenty years during which the Georgian Bay canal question was being discussed in my section of the country, upon this very charter which we are discussing tonight. That charter was granted in 1894, thirty-three years ago; not before I was born, I will admit, but back in that direction. Though it was granted so long ago, I made it my business to look up the original charter, and I find that those originally named in it are almost all dead, but the charter is still alive, gasping for breath it is true, but still gapping.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Going strong.


Robert James Manion: Possibly. I am not going to argue too strongly against it to-night, but I am going to show, until nine o'clock, some of the reasons why I think the charter should have been allowed to expire with a lot of the original charter holders, and probably I will continue on Monday and give some others.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who were originally
named?


Robert James Manion: There are too many (to read, but most of them are dead. I have not had time to-night to look through the list, and there are no doubt a few of them still living, but I believe the greater majority have passed away. This charter was then carried on by Sir Robert Perks for many years; then he got tired of it and handed it over to other interests.
In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, and not particularly speaking of this charter at ah, when I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) objecting to a charter to-night, one with which I was not familiar at all, I found myself more or less in agreement with his remarks when he said that we are, or certainly in the past have been, too prone to grant charters for all kinds

of projects. I made it my business to glance through the volume of 1894, and I found many charters are not alive now, charters which had been renewed many times but which were finally allowed to expire quietly. I should say that more than half and probably two-thirds of this list of 1894 were charters which never served any useful purpose at all, and many of them were grabbed off for the purpose of holding up some legitimate progress. They were secured in order that those who got them might take some group of men by the neck and say, "You cannot do this because we secured the charter first, and you must pay us before you can go on."
Mr. LAPIERRE; They were granted under Conservative governments.


Robert James Manion: That was true in 1894,
but I can tell my friend that this has been going on since 1896 as well, and even all through the ten years that I have been here. I can frankly say that no matter whether it was a Liberal government, a Unionist government, or a Conservative government, much the same process has been carried out; and I have come to the conclusion that unless there is really some good reason for charters to be granted it is time to call a halt to a great many of these applications.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? If such is the case, why not allow it to go to committee before further discussion, to see whetner those asking for the renewal can give some good reason for their request?


Robert James Manion: I am not trying to block it from going to committee, but now is the time to discuss the principle of the whole business.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: The principle of the bill or the principle of granting charters?


Robert James Manion: The principle of granting this charter; that is the principle we are discussing to-night and that is what I am speaking of. Until we decide that the principle of granting this charter is good, it is our duty to discuss it and come to some decision in this House.
Before my good friend, the Hon. the Speaker, tells me it is nine o'clock, may I point out that the premier of Ontario has come out flatly against this renewal. Prophecies are very dangerous things for politicians to make, especially before elections, I know, but I am going to make a prophecy

Soldier Settlement Act
now. I believe that the premier of Quebec will in all probability also take a stand against this renewal, and because I think that a likely thing to happen, I feel it should go over till Monday.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: How can you tell?


Robert James Manion: I am only guessing. But now I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it nine o'clock and let us proceed on Monday, although if you do not wish to call it nine o'clock just now, I am ready to go on.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 61, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919-Hon. Mr. Forke-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Revaluation of land sold to settlers.
Robert Forke: When the committee rose,
Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the matter of appeal, and I would like to say a few words in regard to that aspect of the bill. Part of this section reads as follows:

and if any applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the board he may, within such time as is prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, appeal to the Exchequer court of Canada and the decision of that court shall be final.
There seems to be a good deal of objection to an appeal to the Exchequer court. Some seem to think that this would be expensive; that it would entail quite a long delay, and in fact that it would be altogether too cumbersome a procedure for the soldier settler. It may, however, not be so cumbersome or difficult as it appears on the surface. Section 42 of the Exchequer Court Act, chapter 140 of the Statutes of Canada reads:
The court may, for the purpose of taking account or making enquiries, or for the determination of any question or issue of fact, refer any cause, claim, matter or petition to the Registrar or any other officer of the court, or to any official or special referee for inquiry and report, and may also, if it thinks it expedient so to do, call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and try and hear such cause, matter or petition, wholly or partially, with the assistance of such assessor or assessors.
In a case of appeal I suppose the procedure would be this: An appeal would be made to the Exchequer court, which would nominate some individual, probably the county court judge in the district from which the appeal was made. He would make an investigation and report to the Exchequer court which
would then render a final decision. I am not sufficiently acquainted with all the procedure, but I know of certain cases where individual matters have been referred to the Exchequer court and where they have been settled quickly and decisively, without delay. What may take place as regards many appeals I am not in a position to say. Some of the lawyers in the House will be better acquainted with that phase of the matter than I am.
I do not believe there are going to be as many appeals as some members seem to think.
I believe there are more satisfied soldier settlers than we commonly imagine. I have been in the department only for three or four months, and I have signed quite a number of transfers of land where the people buying soldier settler lands have been paying higher prices than the soldier settlers originally paid for them when they purchased them from the Soldier Settlement Board. That shows that a number of these lots, if they were put in the market now, would be worth more money than the soldier settlers paid for them originally.


Mr. MILLAR:: Does that take into account any improvements such as the soldier settler makes on the land?


Robert Forke: I am not in a position to
say. Generally when cases come before me, the price at which the land was originally sold to the settler and the price offered for it at the present time are stated; I am advised by the Soldier Settlement Board that this is a fair value for the land, and the transfer is usually made. I do not want the impression to go abroad that this is taking place in many cases because it is only in a few cases that it occurs. I cite this only to show that land was not sold at too high a price to commence with. I am pretty well acquainted with the position in which soldier settlers find themselves having lived all these years in western Canada, and I am just as anxious as any other hon. member to help them. I know many of them find themselves in impossible positions, and something must be done if they are to be put on their feet and enabled to carry on successfully.
Many seem to think the money the Dominion government has spent in connection with soldier land settlement has all been lost. That is not the case. They have cultivated a great deal of land; they have produced a great deal of wealth, and many other things can be put to the credit of the work of the soldier settlers. I have mentioned just how I think an appeal to the Exchequer court
Soldier Settlement Act

will work out, but I will welcome any suggestions along this line in order that the legislation may be improved.
I have a suggestion to make, showing how an appeal can be made in another way. I will read the clause and then the committee can draw their own conclusions. The clause I would suggest, dealing with the value of the land, reads:
Upon the receipt of an application made in accordance with the terms of this section the board shall ascertain and determine the depreciation in value as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section; and if any applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the board he may, within such time as is prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, appeal said decision by notice in writing to the board who shall thereupon refer the appeal for final decision to district or county court judge of the judicial district or county in which the land is situate or in the province of Quebec to the judge of the Superior court having jurisdiction in the district in which the land is situate, and such judge shall fix a convenient time and place for hearing and determining such appeal.


Mr. CLARK:: Is that a proposed amendment?


Robert Forke: I am putting it before the committee as a suggestion to think over, not as an amendment. I may say that in introducing this bill I am not wedded to any particular section.	If the committee can
suggest improvements I am quite willing to listen and to take the decision of the committee on the matter. It is simply an appeal to the county court judge.


Alan Webster Neill: Alone?


Robert Forke: Alone, of course with a hearing given to the board and to the soldier settler himself or his representative.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What wi'l that cost the soldier settler, or will there be any cost to him?


Robert Forke: The bill will cover that. By regulation of the Governor in Council it could be made so that it will not cost the soldier anything, or otherwise.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What regulation has the minister in mind?


Robert Forke: It says:
Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection with the administration of this act as may be provided by regulation, shall be paid out of monies appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does that apply to the
expenses of the soldiers or the expenses of the department?


Robert Forke: I think it is intended to
cover both.


Robert Gardiner: The amendment which the minister has just read, it seems to me, would be much more preferable, so far as Alberta at least is concerned, than the section as it now stands. During the last few years, because of the conditions prevailing, largely due to deflation, our district court judges had a good deal of experience in the matter of land values. There have been many applications before the district courts for mortgage foreclosures, and by reason of that fact the district court judges know land values fairly well in their own particular district. I am satisfied that the returned men, in view of the fact that the court is right in their midst, would be better satisfied with judgments from that court than from anyone appointed by the Exchequer court for that purpose. If the minister could see his way clear to move that amendment, I think it would be in the best interests of all concerned. We should try and set up machinery that will be satisfactory to the returned men in order that we may get this situation eventually cleaned up.
The hon. member for New Westminster this afternoon brought before the committee resolutions passed by a certain organization asking for a flat reduction of twenty-five per cent, or something of that nature, on all outstanding accounts of the soldier settlers. I know something about this situation so far as Alberta is concerned, and I would emphasize very strongly that a flat rate reduction would not be acceptable in our province because of the injustices that would be created, and that would have to be met later on. In my own district, for instance, no doubt some soldier settlers bought at the right price and are to-day well satisfied with their bargain. Why should we give them a flat reduction of twenty-five per cent? They have received good value for the money they have expended on these properties. On the other hand, there are many properties that would not be satisfactory to the returned men even if you give this flat reduction of twenty-five per cent. In fact it would only keep the settler there a short time, and eventually he would leave the farm because the twenty-five per cent flat reduction would not be sufficint to meet his particular case. Under these circumstances I hope the minister will not consider any proposal for a flat rate reduction on all these properties. Let us have a proper valuation as set out in this legislation, together with the amendment put before the committee a few minutes ago by the minister, and then I think we shall settle this question in a very short time to the satisfaction both of the returned men and the people of Canada.

Soldier Settlement Act


John Wesley Edwards: I came
down this evening, Mr. Chairman, with the intention of making a suggestion in regard to this particular section and asking the minister to endorse it. I felt disposed, if the government wanted the Exchequer court of Canada to pass final judgment on any appeal, to suggest to them the advisability of the appeal being made to the county judge, who would hear the evidence and make his report to the Exchequer court, whose decision would be final. It was in my mind to make that suggestion to the minister, and I am therefore very much pleased that he is himself proposing an amendment which will enable the soldier to make his appeal direct to the county judge. I am sure that that will be much more satisfactory; it will give the soldier an opportunity which I am sure he will take advantage of if he thinks he has any grounds for appealing. But if we left this clause as it is, many soldiers who felt they had grounds for appeal would not go to the trouble of making their appeal to the Exchequer court. To begin with, many of them in the country districts-this might not appeal to the lawyers here as a very reasonable thing to say- would be terrified iby the very words "Exchequer court." That would not frighten a lawyer, of course, but it would many country people who are not versed in the law. On the other hand, they know the county judge, and am I not right in saying that as a rule throughout the country the county judges are pretty well acquainted with the land values in the various parts of the county over which they preside, and in that way are better qualified, it seems to me, to pass judgment on appeals of this kind than some gentlemen, no matter what their ability may be, sitting here in Ottawa? For that reason I strongly endorse the suggested amendment, and I hope the clause will be changed along that line, so that by a proper arrangement of the wording it will mean that where the soldier feels he is not getting justice he can appeal to the county judge.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I think the sending of
the appeals to the Exchequer court would mean considerable delay. I do not think it is possible for it to deal with appeals, if they are numerous, in an expeditious way. It is much easier to submit the appeals to the county court judges. That will be much more expeditious and much more satisfactory to all concerned. I therefore take this opportunity of expressing a preference for the change that the minister is suggesting along this line. He has asked for an expression of opinion on this matter, and the opinion I would suggest would be that his amendment would improve the act.
. Mr. CARMICHAEL:	The suggested
amendment of the minister is quite an improvement to the machinery that is proposed to be set up. But the minister stated that he did not imagine that many appeals would be made. I am rather of the opinion that there will be a great many appeals made by soldiers if the first revaluation is to be made as proposed in this bill. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there could be an improvement made in the first step to be taken, and that improvement should be very much along the lines of the suggested amendment, which would also be along the line of the shape the bill was in when it left this chamber last year; that is, instead of the revaluating being done as between the soldier on the one hand and the settlement board on the other, :t should be done by a party of three-the soldier, or his representative; the settlement board, or its representative, and the county court judge. The revaluation in the first place should be done in that way. If it is left to the discretion of the settlement board and the soldier to arrive at a valuation of these lands, scores, yes, hundreds of cases will never be satisfactorily settled. The reason I say that is because in many cases there is what you might call bad blood between the individual soldier settler and the board. I do not know whose fault it is. The board is evidently trying to do its best, and the settler thinks he is trying to do his best. But he is out on the land, a number of miles from town. He is thinking over his affairs and brooding over what he regards as an injustice, and when a soldier in that frame of mind is brought in contact with the board there is not apt to be a satisfactory settlement. We are proposing to amend the act in any case. We do not feel that it is wrong to amend the act, or that we must take it as it was turned out of the Senate last year. We seem perfectly justified in amending it, and since we have accepted the proposed change in regard to appeals, why not carry it further and make that proposed change in the first step by saying that the county court judge, a representative of the soldier, and a representative of the board, shall consider the valuation made in the first place, and that their decision shall be binding? We will then do away with the necessity for the two steps, and I am quite sure that it will be much more satisfactory to the soldier settler. Not only are there going to be cases where the soldier will not receive a fair measure of justice from the board, but there may possibly be cases where, I might say, the board will be over-lenient with the settler. After all the board has to be represented by some individual. That
Soldier Settlement Act

individual may be a gentleman who was doing business in that particular community, and may give a special favour to the soldier. Such being the case he might do what you might call over-justice in the case of a particular soldier; he might deal too favourably with him. There are those two thoughts: some soldiers will not get justice in one way and some will not get justice in another. I suggest to the minister that if he proposes to amend the bill it would be preferable to amend it in the first step.


Mr. THORSON:: I wish to throw out one
or two suggestions for the consideration of the committee. I am delighted to see that there is a desire on both sides of the House to make this bill as beneficial to the soldiers as possible. There are two principles we should keep firmly fixed in mind. First, if there is to be a right of appeal given to the solider settler, then that appeal should foe as accessible as possible to him, and the procedure set up for appeal should be made as simple as possible. The second principle that I think we should keep in mind is that the revaluation which is proposed in this bill should not entail on the soldier settler a single cent in the way of cost to himself. We are fairly generally agreed that the provisions contained in this present bill providing for an appeal to the Exchequer court of Canada will not be looked upon favourably by the soldier settlers of this country. I hope that, when an application is made by the soldier settler to the Soldier Settlement Board, the board will appreciate the spirit of this act and be generous in any attitude they adopt towards the settler. I hope that a policy of that sort will be impressed upon the various supervisors in soldier settlement districts throughout Canada. If such a policy is adopted by the various boards, the number of appeals will not be as large as we are sometimes led to believe they will be. But there will undoubtedly be appeals, and the simplest and least expensive form of appeal should be established by this act.
Various suggestions in this behalf have been made by soldier organizations and by speakers on both sides of the House. It has been suggested that instead of providing for an appeal to the Exchequer court of Canada, we [DOT]should provide for an appeal to the county or district court judge of the county or district in which the land is situate, or, in the province of Quebec, where there are no county or district court judges, that the corresponding judge should be charged with the duties of hearing appeals. With regard to that suggestion, I know something of the work of the county court judges in the province of Manitoba, and
	-
I can say that at present their energies are very severely taxed. I do not know what the situation is in other provinces but I do know it to be a fact in the case of the county court judges of Manitoba that they are overworked and if this additional burden is placed upon them I think it only fair that they should be remunerated for it.
There is another objection to entrusting appeals to the county court or district court judges. The judge in question will hear the case and will dispose of it according to the ordinary rules of law, will Observe the ordinary rules of evidence, and the soldier settler, in order to get his case fairfy before that court, will be called upon to employ counsel. There is that objection, I think, to the suggestion that the appeal should lie to county or district court judges. If that scheme of appeal is adopted I think it should be provided that any legal costs incurred by the soldier settler in placing his case before the appellate court constituted by this act should be met by the Dominion of Canada, thereby observing the second principle which I enunciated at the beginning, that the revaluation should not cost the settler one cent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did my hon. friend) not
hear the Minister of Immigration say that in clause (f) expenditures necessarily incurred should apply to the soldier's expense as well as that of the department?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If that has not been
clearly stated it should be definitely set out and provided for in the act-that there should be no cost whatever to the soldier settler in getting a fair revaluation of his land.
A further suggestion has been made that an arbitration board should be set up to hear appeals, this board to consist of three persons, one to foe the county or district court judge, or the corresponding judge in the province of Quebec, and the other two to be representatives of the Soldier Settlement Board and the soldier settler respectively. That, I think, is preferable to constituting a judge as the sole person to dispose of the appeal. But that suggestion is also open to the objection which I mentioned when speaking of the county and district court judges. If it is true that these judges are overloaded with work, as I believe them to be in Manitoba, then if they have to hear a large number of appeals it will take too long to get the revaluations completed.
Still another suggestion has been made, namely, that an arbitration board should be set up consisting of a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board in the district involved and a representative of the soldier settler himself, and that these two should

Soldier Settlement Act
agree upon the third member. In a number of cases they would probably so agree, and that would take a good deal of work off the shoulders of the judges and, in my opinion, would expedite the work of revaluation. Where no agreement could be reached between the two representatives, I would suggest that either the county court judge himself should be the third member of the board or should appoint such third member.
I offer these suggestions to the committee for its consideration, and I should like again to emphasize that whatever procedure by way of appeal is adopted, the two principles that I enunciated at the outset should be kept in mind-the process of revaluation should be made as simple as possible, and no cost whatsoever should fall on the soldier settler.


Mr. DICKIE:: Mr. Chairman, since I first
attempted to catch your eye pretty nearly all has been said that I intended to say on this subject. I never before realized I was as small as I feel when I get on my feet to speak to the House. I perhaps have some right to speak on this question, and it would be expected that I should do so because in my district there are I believe more returned soldiers in proportion to the total population than in any other part of the Dominion. Those returned men, as the member for Frontenac said, would be appalled at the cost of appealing to the Exchequer court. I know personally that the amendment suggested by the hon. Minister of Immigration will meet the case ideally, with this exception: I think the dictum of the county judge should be final. Our county court judges, as the member for Frontenac has said, are very familiar with land values. This is particularly the case in my riding. If they are not so familiar, they know people who are, and I am sure they would arrive at a correct decision as to value.
With respect to the twenty-five per cent deduction, of course anything that comes from the Canadian Legion must be considered to have great weight. But speaking for the people I represent, I say it is absolute folly to talk of any such thing. I know very many men who have tried to make a living on property that is not worth twenty-five per cent of what they paid for it. Those poor fellows came from the battle-scarred, shell-torn fields of Europe, glad of any jplace that offered quietude, and they said:	We will take this
land and raise poultry or get along some way or other. The land at that time was too highly valued anyway throughout the district with which I am familiar. I know many men who have struggled 'hard to meet their payments, depriving themselves not only of the
pleasures but the necessities of life to do so. I say to the government with respect to the people whom I represent:	No matter what
you write off those poor fellows will not be able to pay the balance; so write it all off as a loss; do not say anything about the cost, for you will never get the money anyway. Let us see that those splendid fellows who did so much for this country are dealt with fairly.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, in my constituency during the past year 1 have come in contact with a number of soldier settlers and I think the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has treated the question from a common sense viewpoint. I have a letter in my hand from one of my constituents, a soldier settler, which is very illuminating. After saying a good word for the officials of the Soldier Settlement Board, "by whom", he says, "we have invariably been shown consideration and sympathy in our problems," he gives a very interesting statement of his own affairs. He has a quarter section of land, of which one hundred acres is under cultivation, twenty is to be broken, and the balance of forty acres is rough land. This quarter section cost him 84,200, without a dwelling house or fencing of any kind. He has expended on permanent improvements 8700, on stock and equipment 81,400, and on seed and feed another 8250, or a total, including the price of the land, of 86,550. But he says: When consolidation took place my indebtedness was $7,751.49.
I do not think that a flat decrease of 25 per cent would be of much use to this man. Knowing the circumstances as I do, I would say that the price of this quarter section was 50 per cent too high in the first place. He continues:
My payments due in years 1922 to 1926
inclusive	$310 04
Commencing this October they will
be	 497 61
I know very well he cannot make a living on that land, paying nearly 1500 per annum. He points out that this will be recognized to be impossible. His total payments to date are about 8850, an average of about 8125 per year. He says:
Circumstances leading to above condition are deflation,-wheat in 1922 at $2.40 came down to 75 cents a bushel in 1923,-
Then there was a series of dry years. The years 1918, 1919 and 1920 were undoubtedly dry seasons. He goes on:
With an equitable adjustment I think circumstances will certainly be better. Since the advent of the pool we are practically assured of $1 per bushel for wheat. If I had received
Soldier Settlement Act

this amount in 1923, when I threshed 1,500 bushels, my financial statement would have been a great deal better. The figures I gave you respecting my payments in future will be a little lower as I have had a reduction of $240 on my stock, but it will not be more than $25 per year difference; otherwise you will find my figures are correct. If anything, I have understated a little my indebtedness.
He then goes on to offer a suggestion:
I have put all my capital into this farm, as I financed myself for a long time on my own money. When I started I had cash and assets, $500, and six months' gratuity to draw from. I sold my house in Perdue in the fall of 1920 and at present have nothing to fall back on. I owe no store bills but have hospital and doctor's bills for $150, taxes $250 and sundry creditors $250. Would it be possible to make some allowance for above condition? Amortization should be for a period of thirty-three or thirty-five years. The former is the term applied in Australia; the latter period, I believe, the Canadian Pacific Railway allows. Why not cut out interest altogether except on arrears? I know that the government has to pay interest on Victory bonds. But if it had not been for the soldiers there would have been no victory. We all sympathize with Britain and other European nations who are paying the United States for the privilege of fighting for them. But is this country any different? I am making this point of view to you personally; it is worthy of your consideration.
That, I think, is all that is to the point. Here is a case in which I should say fifty per cent at least would be needed to keep the returned man on the land. And there are other cases, with which I am acquainted, that are just as bad.
Regarding the assessment or revaluation of these lands, it seems to me that the amendment suggested by the minister offers the best way out. We must keep the valuation as nearly as possible within the ability of the settler to pay. Even with the most generous allowance in relation to the indebtedness of the settler, it will not be possible to keep all of them on the land. Had this assistance been given a year ago a good many of them would have availed themselves of it and would have been on the land to-day. I trust that the bill will go through without delay and that before the soldiers are ready to begin their spring work they will know exactly where they stand. Many of them are sticking to the land now, suffering a good many privations in the hope of having this bill go through. I sincerely hope that the provisions of this legislation will be sympathetically considered by the board, and that the soldier will be given every chance to stay on the land and make good.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to support the views
of the hon. member for Ivindersley. It is generally agreed, certainly amongst the soldiers, and in this House as well, I think, that the appeal to the Exchequer court is not one that is to be desired. I do not think, either, that it would meet the wishes of the soldiers to have the appeal taken to the county court judge alone. While I would certainly approve of the county court judge as one of the board of arbitration, I do not think that it would be advisable to have him act alone. I have great respect for the county court judge in my own district and, indeed, 1 might call him my personal friend.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Could not the county court judge act as a referee in conjunction with a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and a representative of the soldier himself?


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I was going to recommend. But the amendment suggested by the minister makes the county court judge the sole arbiter; and that is what I am opposing. As I say, I have the greatest respeet for the county court judge in my district, whom I consider a personal friend; but when it comes to having him deal exclusively with the determination of land values I certainly think his judgment would be better if he had the advice of a practical farmer. I recall a case years ago when before another county court judge I appealed the assessment, at I think $10,000, of certain land in which I was interested. I should have been satisfied if on appeal that assessment had been reduced by half, but when I took the matter to court, where I naturally made the best case I could, I was agreeably surprised to have the assessment cut down to $1,700. That gave me an idea of hew the legal mind will sometimes view a matter of this kind which a practical farmer would handle quite differently.


George Reginald Geary: I understand that my hon. friend wants the board composed of the county court judge acting as referee, together with representatives of the soldiers and the Soldier Settlement Board respectively. Those two representatives would act virtually as counsel for the two opposing parties. It is well known that in arbitrations eadh party selects its own arbitrator and in some way the third man is selected, either by the courts or by agreement between the other two. And as a matter of practice such a board operates in this way: the representatives of the respective parties are in effect counsel arguing the matter and awaiting the decision of the third, the only impartial man on the tribunal. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would lake into consideration the fact that it is

Soldier Settlement Act
multiplying officials and making a big thing of it to have a board of three instead of simply allowing the two representatives to argue the matter out and leave the decision to the referee.


Alan Webster Neill: There is merit in my hon.
friend's suggestion, and I admit that there is a tendency to arbitrate in the way he suggests. Still we do find arbitrations proceeding in the manner I have suggested. I think it would be well to have the board of three. If this were a matter of litigation I would allow the county court judge to decide. It is not litigation but arbitration, and there is quite a difference of spirit between the two. Arbitration means conciliation, and the settlement of a matter in a way satisfactory to both parties, which is very different from a mere legal fight as between two contending parties. Last year the House passed Bill No. 17 which contained the procedure indicated by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). In that bill the arbitration was to be carried on by a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board, a representative of the soldier and the county court judge, with the further provision that if any individual settler did not like the arbitrator selected by his group of settlers he could appoint an arbitrator of his own. We threshed that out fully, and it was unanimously decided by this House that that was best, and the personnel of the House has not materially changed since then. The present bill changes and the matter is referred to the Exchequer court, which no one seems to want, so why not go back to the action we took last year and which was ventilated throughout the country in the ensuing six months? I think the majority of soldier settlers represented by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) and myself are in favour of this provision, and I think it would be better to have the three-cornered board. I would suggest that the minister consider putting that amendment before us to test its popularity as against that of the amendment already suggested.


John Arthur Clark: Just dealing with the point
raised by my hon. friend in his closing words, I was rather interested to look up the record of last year and I find that when the resolution was introduced in the House on March 25, 1926, the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said:
I suggest that the district or county court judge be the tribunal.
I knew that was my own opinion, and I find that on April 13, when the bill' was before the House I stated:
I strongly urge upon the minister that he leave this matter to a county court judge alone.
So we were not so unanimous as one might be led to believe by the remarks of the last speaker.


Alan Webster Neill: Was a vote taken?


John Arthur Clark: I remember that the members on this side of the House were a unit in favour of this suggestion that it should be left to the county court judge, and I have read the remarks of two members from this side to indicate that fact.


Alan Webster Neill: Did you not acquiesce finally?


John Arthur Clark: No, we did not acquiesce.
The section as introduced to-day provides for an appeal to the Exchequer court, and frankly I must say that I cannot agree to that because an appeal to the Exchequer court is something which would not be readily understood by the soldier; it would be a very difficulty matter for him to undertake. Then the minister read1 a section which I understood to state that the Exchequer court could delegate its powers to a referee or other official. Even assuming that the Exchequer court could delegate its powers to the county court judge or to anyone else, it would still mean that the soldier would have to lodge his appeal first of all with the Exchequer court in Ottawa; so far as I know there are no rules laid down for that other than the Exchequer court rules, and in my opinion this would not be a satisfactory method.
The minister offers another suggestion to-night, which is contained in a proposed amendment under which the soldier may give notice in writing to the board, which shall thereupon refer the appeal for final decision to the district or county court judge. If I may I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a further fact, although I do not suppose there is really any use in doing so because the minister has not heard one word I have said. I am only making these suggestions because the minister invited us to do so, and said that the suggestions of hon. members might be of value. Therefore I took the trouble to secure the minister's copy of this amendment in order to fully understand it, because I am vitally interested in this question. I agree that the principle of referring the appeal to the county court judge is best, but I question the method outlined in this proposed amendment. In the first place, why should a notice in writing be given to the board, and why should the board be the body to submit this appeal to the county court judge? Why should not the soldier follow the same course taken by any other person, and prepare his own notice of appeal and submit it to the court? He should
Soldier Settlement Act

not have to write a letter to the board and request the board to prepare and submit his notice of appeal. I would not want a person with whom I could not agree to do that for me, and it must be remembered that first of all there is an attempt made as between the board and the soldier to get down to a basis of agreement. This amendment requires the soldier to give notice to that board with which he cannot agree, and in turn that board prepares and submits his appeal. I offer a suggestion there; I think the soldier is the man to prepare his own appeal and submit it direct. He would then be represented before the county court judge, but as this now reads it is open to the interpretation that the board itself will submit the appeal, and I do not think that is right.
Mr. McPH'ERSON: I noticed that myself, but do you not think that- would be overcome by an amendment to clause (i) of the regulations, making the regulations govern the method of appeal to the county court judge instead of the Exchequer court? It is just a matter of detail, which I think this suggestion will overcome.


John Arthur Clark: I was just coming to that.
If you leave this act as it is now, I think my friend will be the first to appreciate that no regulation can over-ride the wording of the statute. This will be in the statute itself.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: You do not get my
point. The soldier would simply give notice to the board, and the board would have to carry that notice of appeal to the judge according to the regulations which the governor in council may fix in order to protect the soldier.


John Arthur Clark: I am simply offering the
suggestion; it would be a very simple matter to have the appeal given to the district or county court judge direct rather than to have it referred to the board for submission.
Then there is another point in this amendment, which provides that "if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the board he may, within such time as prescribed by regulations made by the governor in council", and so on. I suggest that the time for appeal should be fixed in the statute. I think I am correct when I say that every act relating to the establishment of courts provides for the time within which litigation may be appealed. This would force the attention of the soldier himself to the time within which he may appeal; he may see the act but he will probably never see the regulations. The statutes are available to the public and can be secured

anywhere, but regulations by the governor in council are not available and are the most difficult things in the world to secure. I suggest that the time limit of the appeal be inserted in the statute itself. These are all the suggestions I have to offer in connection with the proposed amendment.


Mr. WARD:: Would the hon. member not
entertain the suggestion of the hon. member for Kindersley and avoid all this difficulty? I see very clearly the difficulties that will arise in appeals, but cannot they be overcome by adopting the suggestion of the hon. member for Kindersley and making the county court judge a member of the board and his decision final?


John Arthur Clark: The county court judge's
decision would be final.
Mr. WARD1:	Yes, but we shall avoid appeals entirely. An examination would be made by a representative of the soldier, a representative of the board and the county court judge sitting together. Their valuation would be final and there would be no appeal.


Alan Webster Neill: That would be an appeal
from private negotiation.


John Arthur Clark: Does my hon. friend mean,
there would be no negotiations between Soldier Settlement Board and the man, but that in all cases there would be this reference to a board of three?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is how I understood it.


John Arthur Clark: I will take them in order.
First of all I do not see how you can preclude the reasonableness of a proposal that a man should negotiate first with the board in order to see if they can arrive at a fair conclusion. That is fair and reasonable. In the second place, if they fail to come to an agreement there must be an appeal, it does not matter whether it is to a board of three or a jury of twelve or a county court judge.


Mr. RALSTON:: Not necessarily an appeal.


John Arthur Clark: It need not be an appeal.
It must be a submission of a question for the decision of somebody. The procedure would be the same whether it was before a court of one or a court of three or an arbitration board or a jury. That would not matter. The question is one that would have to be submitted for a decision. In my opinion the simplest and most satisfactory method of dealing with the matter would be to submit it to the county court judge, and I will give the committee my reasons for saying so. With

Soldier Settlement Act
a board of three you will first of all have to get that board together. The result would be that the soldier would appoint somebody upon whom he knew he could rely to get for him the last possible cent of reduction. That man would be a partisan. If the board was 'ike any ordinary arbitration board-I am not suggesting that the Soldier Settlement Board 'vould be-you would have two partisan members.


An hon. MEMBER:: Counsel.


John Arthur Clark: If counsel, then it would be
far better to have the counsel appearing before the court and not sitting on the court. You never want counsel sitting on a court; that is one of the worst curses you can have in any judicial body. If you have a court of appeal of five and one of the members of that court becomes counsel for one of the litigants, you will not get justice, nor will you get justice if you have that feature in a board settling a question of this sort.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that not a feature of all arbitration?


John Arthur Clark: Yes. I am arguing against
arbitrations at the moment. In my opinion the result would be far better if the question were brought before someone who is trained in judging the merits of facts and law as well.


Alan Webster Neill: But not of land.


John Arthur Clark: That does not matter. They are judging the merits of all questions; land, business, patents and every other conceivable thing. They are trained to adjudicate upon facts whether they relate to land or anything else.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is not what the hon. member proposes exactly what occurs when appeals are made from valuations by city assessors?
Mr. Cl,ARK: More or less. What we would have before a county court judge is perfectly clear. The soldier would have the soldiers' advocate representing him, a man trained to do his best to get justice for the soldiers. He would appear before the county court judge to argue his case. It is far better to have him there than on the court as one of the three judges. That counsel would be very sure that he would go before the judge with evidence of an expert nature as to the value of the land. After all, if the soldiers' counsel can bring before the judge evidence chat the land has depreciated in value, he is pretty nearly sure to get a judgment, because,
as I say, these men are trained to administer justice and to arrive at the fairest possible decision in a case.
As opposed to that we have three men. The soldier must find his man; the Soldier Settlement Board must find their man, and there is a judge as well. There is the additional expense of travelling and the difficulty of finding those men and keeping them together. If you have a court of three it is much harder to get them all together to adjudicate upon a case than if you have a court of only one. There is economy and convenience in the case of a judge sitting alone. I am convinced that from the soldier's point of view far more satisfactory results will be obtained from a county court judge sitting alone.


William John Ward: Does the hon. member mean that the county court judge sitting alone shall have the final decision?


John Arthur Clark: Why not? Yes, I mean that, because there must be some finality, and I have such confidence in the judiciary generally that I believe if you take a decent case before them, especially a matter such as this, with some expert evidence as to the depreciated value, you will get a fair decision. What other appeal could you have? You might if you like have an appeal in special cases on a point of law to a court of appeal; but it is dangerous to complicate the matter too much, and this will probably go a long way towards meeting the situation. Furthermore I do not think you would find that the Soldier Settlement Board would be exceedingly partisan and try to collect evidence to defeat a claim which is bona fide.


Mr. COOTE:: Would there in some cases be a danger that the district court judge would set a higher value than even the Soldier Settlement Board had asked the settler to accept when they were trying to deal between the two parties?


John Arthur Clark: There is no question that that is always possible. Hon. members must take into consideration all these possibilities. Even at that the judge may arrive at the fair value of the land and that is what we want.


George Gibson Coote: He may, but there is that danger.


John Arthur Clark: He is going to base his judgment upon the evidence, and if the evidence justifies the higher valuation, we cannot direct it from here. The matter is one of evidence and a decision on the evidence.
Soldier Settlement Act


George Gibson Coote: I asked tihe question simply in an endeavour to bring out the comparison between the different methods, having the three sit together as an arbitration board or having the two parties try to agree, and if they do not, having the matter sent to a judge who is the sole judge and final arbiter.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think that subsection
(c) makes it clear that there will be no danger of any increase in the price.


John Arthur Clark: I regret exceedingly that although the Soldier Settlement Board apparently had a representative at the convention of the Canadian Legion recently held in Winnipeg, a very important convention presided over by one of the leading citizens of Canada, Sir Percy Lake, the minister has not only not taken their recommendations into consideration, but has never even heard of them. I would have thought that it was his business to find out-


Robert Forke: I think I ought to correct
my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: I want to be perfectly clear on this point.


Robert Forke: Shortly after I got into
harness in the department, Mr. Lapp and some other man did interview me on this matter, so I was mistaken this afternoon in saying that I had never heard of it.


John Arthur Clark: Then I am certainly forced
to the conclusion that the minister did not give very serious consideration to the proposals made by the Canadian Legion; otherwise surely they would have made an impression on his mind. The recommendations of a convention such as this, representative of the returned men from all parts of Canada, and presided over by Sir Percy Lake, should carry some weight with the minister and with the government, and I should have thought this legislation would be drafted, if possible, with those recommendations in mind. I think it is a matter of great regret that they have not been considered. '
There is another thing I observe about the bill, and that is it contains no provision for cases where the land-I will not say has depreciated-but is of no value whatever, and was of no value when it was first purchased by the settler. There are many cases, but not too many for us to take care of-in the aggregate the expense would not be great- where a man went to the Soldier Settlement Board in the various districts in Canada, and was settled on land which, no matter what value you place upon it to-day, would not earn a livelihood for the settler. There

are many such cases, but not too many for us to take care of. This matter has been pressed in the House now since 1924. I have urged before, and I urge again now, that this matter be considered, and that bona fide soldier settlers who have purchased land that is of no value, and have put all their savings into it, be taken, just as we are taking the immigrant settlers under the empire settlement scheme, from this land that is worthless and put in a district and on land where they will be able to earn a decent livelihood. In the past I have instanced cases. I do not propose to do so to-night, because I know that the government is informed on this subject. I urge that they take this matter into serious consideration, and make provision in this bill for cases of that sort.


Robert Forke: I do not think the committee will accuse me of not giving them some choice in this matter. I have a third proposition to lay before the committee, on which I should like to have an expression of opinion from hon. members. It is very much along the line which has been mentioned already by some hon. members. The suggestion is to amend paragraph (e) by striking out all the words after the word "section" in line 16, and substitute therefor the following:
and unless the board and the settler agree within one month thereafter on the amount of the depreciation in value, such amount shall be finally fixed and determined by an arbitration committee appointed by the minister and selected as follows: the chairman shall be the judge of the county or district court or in the province of Quebec the Superior court having jurisdiction in the judicial district in which the land is situate; one member nominated in writing by the settler, and one member nominated in writing by the board, and the members of the arbitration committee when ap-* pointed shall have all the powers and authority of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
That is to say, the county court judge will be Chairman, and one member will be nominated by the soldier settler and one by the board.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Has that member
necessarily to be nominated by the settler or may it be the soldier himself?


Robert Forke: It should not Ibe the settler.


John Millar: I do not wish to prolong
this discussion. I am deeply in sympathy with this measure, but there is a suggestion I would make. I would ask the minister if we cannot have the assurance that until this legislation becomes available the board will withhold their hand in regard to returned men who are now on the land] and are having some difficulty in financing, and who other-

Soldier Settlement Act
wise in the meantime might be forced to give up their land. I know that to ask that in the case of alll returned soldiers would perhaps work a hardship on the board. I know of at least one returned soldier who has not very much chance of making good, but there are also many others who have spent several years on the land, have worked hard and put their money into it, and if they are forced off at this time before this measure becomes available, there will be some heart burnings among them. I would therefore ask if the minister cannot give us the assurance that the board will refrain from taking action against any returned man until he has had the opportunity of having his land revalued under this measure.
I could read letters such as have been read in the House by the hon. member for Rose-town and others. I could point to many cases where revaluation is very much needed and will afford great relief. I know that a great many returned soldiers are looking forward anxiously for this legislation to pass through the House.
In regard to the amendment which has been suggested by the minister it looks to me as if we were again multiplying the machinery unnecessarily. I rather like the suggestion of the hon. member for Kindersley, which was supported by the hon. member for Vanfcouver-Burrard, that the simplest and best way is to allow the returned man to negotiate with the board. If they can come to an agreement, that should be sufficient. I think that most cases could be settled in that way, but if they are unable to come to an agreement, and an appeal is taken to a district court judge with another member sitting with him, I suppose they would have to receive some remuneration. If that remuneration is not paid by the returned men-and I hope it will not be-it will mean the government is put to an expense which I do not think is necessary. The simplest way would be to refer the matter to a judge and let him settle any dispute that may arise between the returned soldier and the board. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out that the district court judges of that province were overburdened with work. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the district court judges, but I think in the matter of numbers the province is rather overburdened with district court judges.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Millar: One hon. member thinks not, but I am quite satisfied that my statement is correct. I believe they do their work 32649-59
well, but there are more district court judges than are necessary, and I think they could carry out this task and still not be overburdened with work.


Mr. McPHEE:: The last suggestion of the hon. minister is more in accord with what we agreed upon last year when this matter was under consideration. I agree with the sentiment expressed by hon. members that we should do everything possible to make it easy for the returned soldier settler to get his land revalued without any expense to him. Last year when this bill was under discussion we finally agreed that an arbitration board should be appointed consisting of three members, one selected by the soldier settler, another selected by the Soldier Settlement Board, and the third the district court judge of the district in which the lands were located. This arrangement met with the approval of every returned soldier settler in the district I have the honour to represent. I am opposed to the proposal that the Exchequer court should be the arbitrator. I am a lawyer myself, but I know the feeling of fear that the average layman has for such a body as the Exchequer court. Either the tribunal as agreed upon last year, or the district court judge as the sole arbitrator, would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. In our province the district court judges are continually dealing with cases in which the value of land comes in question. In the district from which I come we have the honour of having as our district court judge Brigadier General Ross, a man who is conversant with real estate values throughout the district, and whose judgment would be looked upon favourably by every returned soldier settler in the district. Whichever plan is adapted will be agreeable to me. However I think the agreement arrived at last year that the board should consist of three, one the nominee of the soldier settler, another the nominee of the Soldier Settlement Board, and the third the district court judge, would meet with universal approval so far as all sections of the country are concerned. I put myself on record as absolutely opposed to the Exchequer court having to deal with the arbitration in this matter.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I do not wish to embarrass the minister by any extended discussion. I think he knows I like him too well for that. It was but a short time ago that he was my leader on this side of the house, and I entertain the hope that our loss will be the gain of the powers that be on the other side of the chamber.

Soldier Settlement Act

Looking over the bill I must confess that I was very much astonished and disappointed. My notion was that the hon. minister would introduce the bill as it left this House and was approved by this House in the session preceding dissolution. The provisions creating machinery for revaluation of the soldier settlers land were thoroughly discussed for days and days during that session, and I think hon. members were entirely satisfied with the bill as it left this House. In view of the announcement in the speech from the throne I was anticipating that the bill would be introduced in the form in which it left this House. It seems to me that the important thing in this measure is not that a tribunal be set up for revaluing the lands, but that the tribunal shall be one with which the soldier settler will be absolutely satisfied; and I think he was satisfied with the machinery as set out in the bill as it left this House last session. We all want to do our duty to the returned men in fairly revaluing their lands, and the machinery set up in that bill I believe would have attained that end. I suggest that the hon. minister reintroduce those provisions exactly as they were in the bill as it left this House and went to the Senate. It provided for a commission of three, one to be the county or district court judge, another a member of the Soldier Settlement Board, and the third a member of the soldiers' association, if there were one in the district, and if there were mo such association, that the soldier should be represented by someone chosen by himself. That is my recollection of the provisions of the bill as it left this chamber. What became of it afterwards I do not know, but when I looked over the bill we are mow considering it appeared to me that those important features had been emasculated and something of an entirely different character had been introduced. This Exchequer court provision seems to be a very awkward one; I feel satisfied that it will never suit our returned men and that it should not be imposed upon them. The suggestion that the minister made in his last remarks is almost exactly in line with the provisions of the measure as it left this House and went to the Senate, and I think he cannot do better than reintroduce those features of the bill. I am going to plead with him to adopt my suggestion, and I know he likes me so well that he will probably do it.
There is another matter connected with this bill, and that is a confusion or an inaccuracy, as I look at it, in paragraph (c) of section 1. It will be recalled that a few days ago when we were discussing the resolution tMr. Jelliff.}
preliminary to the introduction of this bill a good deal of dissatisfaction was expressed with its wording, which is the same as in this subsection (c). I think the minister ought to clear up the ambiguity.


Robert Forke: What is the matter with it?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I would amend the clause to read:	,
The depreciation in value to be determined shall be the difference, not due to neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler, between the present value of the land and the improvements sold to the settler and the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land and improvements from the board.
In its present form the clause does not mean anything at all. I offer this amendment, which is seconded by Mr. Coote.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would not that wording
mean revision upward in some cases?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I do not think so. If
preferred, the word " diminution " can be retained. As the clause now stands, " diminution in the present value " means nothing to my mind.


John Millar: Will the minister give
some assurance that until this measure is available leniency will be extended to soldier settlers?


Robert Forke: I think as a rule that where-ever there has been any prospect of their making good at all they have always been treated with a great deal of leniency. I feel perfectly satisfied that nothing will be done to endanger any man's chances while this bill is under consideration by parliament. I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) for his very kind references to myself, but I do not thank him for reviving discussion on subsection (c). I have consulted several eminent literary authorities-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Literary?


Robert Forke: -and legal gentlemen, and they all advise me that the wording is good English and the meaning perfectly clear. I do not think there was ever any real difficulty about the interpretation of the clause,, but one hon. member got a good deal of amusement out of it.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Even the minister himself
a few days ago characterized it as silly.


Robert Forke: I do not remember having
used that expression. I think we all understand what the clause means. I had prepared an amendment, but, as I said before,
I was advised by the very best authorities-


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Well, read the amendment.

Soldier Settlement Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who are the authorities?


Robert Forke: I do not think it is necessary for me to name them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We should like to know who they are.


Robert Forke: The law officers of the crown.


George Reginald Geary: Is it diminution in the
present value that you are trying to get at?


Robert Forke: The present value will be
determined by those who arbitrate.


George Reginald Geary: Then you take the diminution in that present value?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Do not let us get into a
discussion of that again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be ratiher difficult
to persuade us all to agree with these eminent authorities unless they are named.


Robert Forke: When we go over the bill
again, if the House so decides, I will submit an amendment that I think will make the meaning plain, but I really do not deem it necessary.
I beg, Mr. Chairman, to move the following amendment to subsection (e) which we have been discussing, because I feel satisfied that when we have come to some conclusion in regard to it most of our difficulties with respect to the bill will be disposed of. This is my amendment:
To amend section 68, subsection (e) as follows :
Strike out all the words after the word "section" in line 16, and substitute the following: "and unless the board and the settler agree within one month thereafter on the amount of the depreciation in value, such amount shall be finally fixed and determined by an arbitration committee appointed by the minister and selected as follows: the chairman shall be the judge of the county or district court, or in the province of Quebec the Superior court, having jurisdiction in the judicial district in which the land is situated, one member nominated in writing by the settler, and one member nominated in writing by the board; and the members of the arbitration committee when appointed shall have all the powers and authority of commissioners under the Inquiries Act."
I beg to move this further amendment, Mr. Chairman:
Strike out subsections (h) and (i) and substitute the following:
"The governor in council may make such regulations as he deems fit for the procedure in constituting the arbitration committee and respecting the hearings before such committee, and generally to make effective the purposes of this section."
32649-59^


Mr. STIRLING:: Very likely the soldier
will want to appoint a lawyer on the board of arbitration. Wlho will pay that lawyer?


Robert Forke: That will have to be
arranged by regulation. That was discussed some time ago. Let me quote subsection (f):
Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection with the administration of this act as may be provided by regulation, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.
If the minister appoints the lawyer he will have to pay him. I think it is generally understood that the committee will not cost the soldier anything.


John Arthur Clark: Will the soldier be allowed
counsel to represent him before the board of arbitration?


Robert Forke: I imagine that if he appoints a solicitor he will have to pay that solicitor himself.


John Arthur Clark: If it had been the county
court judge alone, who was to pay for the soldier's representative to present his case?


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, this bill
was discussed last year-


John Arthur Clark: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
if I could have that question answered1?


Lucien Cannon: I will answer it. My hon. friend took a very lively part in the discussion last year, and it was the desire on both sides of the House to try to evolve some sort of system under which the expenditure would be as low as possible, and to keep the lawyers out of this-if we could.


John Arthur Clark: If I may interject the remark, by the surest method in the world you have just brought them in.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is a lawyer and he knows that a party before court can plead his own cause if he wishes to do so. He can plead for himself in any court, including the Supreme Court of Canada.


John Arthur Clark: If he is foolish enough.


Lucien Cannon: Well, I do not know that he would necessarily be foolish. I might be inclined to say he was only cautious. Now the minister has introduced an amendment which establishes in cases of appeal a tribunal of three.


William Garland McQuarrie: Instead of one.
Soldier Settlement Act


Lucien Cannon: Instead of having only one, a judge, there will be two other persons on the board, one representing the soldier and the other the Soldier Settlement Board.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: All to be paid.


Lucien Cannon: They will have to be paid, acting as judges or advisers. Is it reasonable for anyone to ask the government to introduce, besides these three competent men, lawyers who will charge a fee in order to say what those three men sitting on the board already know? That would be absolutely unreasonable; and if a soldier wishes to have a lawyer, let him pay for that lawyer. I am quite sure that after some of the lawyers had appeared before the board, and the board had exercised its jurisdiction for a while, everyone would realize that there was no need for lawyers.


John Arthur Clark: I should have thought that the Solicitor General would be the one man in this House who would appreciate the fact that in ninety-nine out of every hundred arbitrations that take place, if not, indeed, in one hundred per cent of them, parties appearing before such tribunals are represented by counsel.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not.


John Arthur Clark: They certainly are, and the Solicitor General knows it only too well. Other lawyers in the House know that this is so, and when the Solicitor General speaks as he has just done it brings home to us how ridiculous his observations have been to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: That is offensive.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Just like him.


John Arthur Clark: The Solicitor General says
that if the soldier wants counsel to appear before the board he must pay for such representation. "If he wants a lawyer to represent him let him pay for the lawyer:" that is a nice tone to adopt in regard to the soldier, the man whom we are trying to help in this bill.


Lucien Cannon: You are working for yourself now, not the soldier.


John Arthur Clark: We are trying to help the
returned man, and if he has to pay his own counsel to represent him there will not be very many soldiers who will submit cases for arbitration, for the simple reason that they will not have the money to employ counsel. If we are to deny the returned soldier the right of representation by counsel-and that is what is being done here-he will certainly not get full justice. The Minister of Justice knows only too well-he knows it probably better 
than any other man in this House-that it is the height of folly for any man to be his own advocate in any case that is submitted to a tribunal for adjudication. It is written in history, as clearly as it can be written, that the man who attempts to be his own advocate, be he lawyer or layman, is unwise and knows not how to go about securing justice. The Solicitor General declares that we want to save money. I agree with him in that regard and that is why I endorsed the suggestion put forward by the minister to-night, that there should be one county judge, a trained man well versed in the administration of the law, to adjudicate upon the facts in any case requiring his judgment. If you are really thinking of the interests of the soldier, it is far better to have his counsel appear independently before the court than to have him sit on the court itself; for a man cannot be a member of a tribunal and act as advocate for one of the parties at the same time. That is contrary to all the principles of justice. The Solicitor General, I am sure, knows that perfectly well. If you have a court of appeal of five, you cannot have one of those judges, while sitting on the court, act as advocate in behalf of one of the litigants or one of the parties who have submitted the matter which is being adjudicated upon. And just as surely as we have these boards of appeal composed of three members you will find that every soldier will want to have counsel, whether he can afford it or not, in order that he may have his case properly presented to the court. If therefore we deny him that representation we shall ertainly not do him full justice. I repeat, if we are going to pay the members of the arbitration board it will be far better to let one man, the county court judge, render the decision and pay counsel to represent the soldier interested.


John Frederick Johnston: Before there is any
further discussion it might be as well to get the amendments properly before the committee and have them disposed of in order. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) has moved an amendment which is now before the committee.


Robert Gardiner: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we take these amendments ad seriatim.


John Frederick Johnston: That is precisely what I am doing now. The amendment at present before the Chair is that first submitted, the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that we adjourn
so that we may have the printed amendments before us.

Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: My sympathy is entirely with the returned man. In my own constituency many cases of hardship have occurred, and while it has been said to-night that there has been friction between the soldier and the board, my experience has been that the friction was due not so much to any misunderstanding between the soldier and the board as to the fact that the board had not sufficient latitude under the regulations to deal with particular cases. In my opinion it would eliminate ninety to ninety-five per cent of the difficulties that have existed heretofore if we provided that the soldier settler and the board should have the power to settle their differences between themselves. Beyond that I should not be very much concerned whether the dispute went before the county court judge or a board of arbitration. I hope we have not been kept up here for a good many hours to determine whether or not we will provide legal fees for some legal gentlemen. I am not concerned about that at all and I am not in sympathy with what the last speaker has said in that regard.


John Arthur Clark: I don't want your sympathy.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: And you certainly are not going to get it.


John Arthur Clark: I hope I never will.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I do not believe for one moment that the soldier is going to be helped very much by a discussion of that character. I thought everyone was sincerely interested in getting justice for the returned soldiers, but I do not believe they will get any more justice by our stating that legal counsel is to be employed in every case.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose if they were
medical fees it would 'be different.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That gives me a good chance to say something which I did not want to bring up; the medical profession throughout Canada has not forgotten its obligation to the returned soldiers in any case, and I believe that to be generally true of the legal profession as well.


William Garland McQuarrie: You never find them
working for nothing.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: They do so in
a very large number of cases; perhaps I might say they do more work for nothing than any other class on top of the earth.


John Arthur Clark: Blow your own horn hard.


William Garland McQuarrie: Some of them are not
worth anything.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If we leave i\
to the soldiers and to the members of the board to remove their difficulties ninety-five per cent of the trouble will disappear, and the small proportion remaining will not give much trouble if left to the board suggested by the minister.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment
carry?
Amendment (Mr. Jelliff) negatived.


John Millar: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I have been at sea regarding some of the rulings, and I think this is a splendid opportunity to find out just where I am. When we considered the resplution before this committee I moved a similar amendment which was ruled out of order because I am a private member. At a later date, either yesterday or the day before, we discussed the point of order, and the point seemed to be that if the amendment dealt with the expenditure of money it was out of order and if it did not do so it was in order. In order to understand the rules better I raise this point of order, not because of any objection to the amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: This amendment may
have been out of order in strict accordance with the rules, but it is now out of court because it has been defeated, so I think we will not have any trouble with that.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I would suggest that as the hour is getting late we now adjourn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let us get through.


Robert Forke: This bill was discussed pro
and con last year, and everyone is familiar with it. . A few changes have been made in regard to the board of arbitration but otherwise the bill is the same and I do not see why we cannot carry it through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Layton Ralston: I would like to say a
word in regard to the amendment moved by the minister. I agree with one of the hon. members who spoke previously that the provision in the amendment that the board and the settler may negotiate and come to an agreement is a very important feature of the legislation, as it seems to me to establish at the start a relationship which will make for good and which will make it possible that there will be no appeal at all. I think I may be taken as speaking with at least some sympathy for the ex-service men. I have considered the relative merits of the two tribunals and it seemed to me at the outset
Soldier Settlement Act

that the establishment of the Exchequer court as an appeal tribunal was undesirable because of the fact, in the first place, that the court appears to be so far removed from the soldier and he is always faced with the delay and inconvenience which would attend an application to that court. An appeal by submission to the county court judge, while very much better than the Exchequer court, would at the same time bring up in the mind of the soldier the idea of formality, with the usual procedure known very well by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) of having to call expert w.itneses to the stand and all the rest of it. I suppose the Soldier Settlement Board would bring expert valuators and the soldier would do the same; there would be a battle of wits, with the result that at best the soldier would not feel very well satisfied with the decision. The parties would be at arms' length and there is a formality about it which, it seems to me, is wholly undesirable.
This legislation is to endeavour to correct the situation which has arisen to some extent by reason of the conditions which have come into effect since the former legislation was passed and to some extent through mistakes in valuation which may have been made and contributed to not only by the Soldier Settlement Board but perhaps by the soldier as well. We are trying to -meet that situation now, and it seems to me that the most friendly relations possible should be established and maintained. I do not think an appeal to a judge of the county court is the best way to do that, and as the minister was reading the amendment it seemed to me that an arbitration provision something the same as that incorporated in every insurance policy and something the same as we have in every charter party is desirable. With all due respect to the hon. member for Burrard, legal gentleman very seldom take part in these arbitrations; assessments are made under insurance policies all over this country by arbitrators appointed under the terms of those policies and I only know of two cases in my experience in such matters in which lawyers were engaged. As we all know charter parties contain arbitration clauses and legal talent is very seldom engaged. What happens is just what I hope will happen here, that the county court judge, the representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and the representative of the soldier will sit around a table and discuss the matter informally, instead of having a judge get up on the bench and don a wig and gown; they will probably hear statements from people of the vicinity as to the amount paid by the soldier for the land in the first place and as to the conditions which
TMr. Ralston.]
have existed since and which have resulted in the depreciation, and they will in all probability come to some decent, moderate and reasonable conclusion without the necessity or formality of legal proceedings or the intervention of legal gentlemen. Possibly, of course, some ex-service men will desire counsel. Perhaps this will find some approval in the minds of hon. gentlemen who have suggested that members of the legal profession are not always what they should be, but it may be that sometimes a member of that profession will be found going about the country endeavouring to urge ex-service men to appeal. At the same time, however, it seems to me that that will be very -much more likely if the appeal is before a county court judge alone and if the lawyer has an opportunity of exercising all the arts and wiles of the legal profession before a county court j udge rather than before a tribunal composed as suggested in the amendment, and if, as my hon, friend the Minister of Railways suggests, he is not paid by the government.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the department
then undertake not to have counsel representing the board?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot speak for the
department, but I would think there would not be very much danger of the Soldier Settlement Board having counsel if the soldier does not have counsel. I think the Minister of Immigration would be willing to give that undertaking.


William Garland McQuarrie: Can he give it?


Robert Forke: Yes, I can.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the suggestion helps very much in this discussion. We are trying to find some reasonable way out; we are trying to constitute a tribunal which will be close to the soldier and in which he will have confidence, and it does seem to me that the proposal embodied in this amendment will produce that result. That is why I think the amendment might find approval at the hands of the committee. The soldier can feel pretty well satisfied that he has not to come to Ottawa nor even to go to his county town. Perhaps he will be able, somewhere near the corner grocery store or in the hall in his particular village, to meet the tribunal which will decide his case. They may go and look over the farm. I do not know what is done in the west, but I know they look over the farms down east and try to come to some conclusion as to what the diminution or depreciation in value is. Therefore I support the amendment.

Soldier Settlement Act


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment moved by Mr. Forke is as follows:
To amend section 68, subsection (e) as follows :
Strike out all the words after the word "section" in line sixteen, and substitute the following: "and unless the board and the settler agree within one month thereafter on the amount of the depreciation in value, such amount shall be finally fixed and determined by an arbitration committee appointed by the minister and selected as follows: the chairman shall be the judge of the county or district court, or in the province of Quebec the Superior court, having jurisdiction in the judicial district in which the land is situated, one member nominated in writing by the settler, and one member nominated in writing by the board; and the members of the arbitration committee when appointed shall have all the powers and^ authority of commissioners under the Inquiries Act."
Mr. MicQUARRIE:	How are they to be
appointed by the minister and why are they to be appointed by the minister if they are appointed in the other way?


James Layton Ralston: If I may answer, because
I know there is an amendment following with regard to the regulations, someone has to see that the board is actually constituted and working, and the minister must follow the provisions in the statute, which are that one is to be a man nominated by the soldier, another to be nominated by the board and the county court judge is persona designata.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Forke moves to
strike out subsections (h) and (i) of section 68 and substitute the following:
The governor in council may make such regulations as he deems fit for the procedure in constituting the arbitration committee^ and respecting the hearings before such committee, and generally to make effective the purposes of this section.


Alan Webster Neill: Before we go on with that,
I would point out that we have left paragraph (d) uncompleted and there should be an amendment made to paragraph (g).


Robert Forke: All right. I intended to
move that as soon as this one was passed, but I will move it now. I move this amendment to paragraph (d):
That the word "October" be added after the words "day of' in the blank in line eleven.
The paragraph will then read:
All applications for revaluation must be submitted to the board prior to the first day of October.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I would like
a little information if I may have it from you. We have not yet adopted anything in connection with this bill except one amendment. As a rule we take up different clauses of a bill and pass them one by one. I should like to know, before we go any further, whether we can amend a clause or a subclause preceding one which we have already amended.


John Frederick Johnston: In answer to the last
question I will say no, but I think the custom in committee in handling a bill is to deal with clauses. There happens to be only one clause in this bill.


George Gibson Coote: This will not preclude us
from moving amendments to former subclauses of this bill, I take it. I would like to be sure of that.


John Frederick Johnston: According to the rules
that is not permissible.


George Gibson Coote: Is that not what the minr
ister is doing at the present moment? If we are going to do it for one clause of the bill, we Should be allowed to do it for others.


Lucien Cannon: At the very outset of the discussion on this bill it was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Allbemi that we should discuss the one clause, taking it one paragraph at a time. I think that at this stage if the chairman would read each paragraph we might make some progress.


Robert Forke: All right, we will go back.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the
committee that we start at paragraph (a)?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c)-How depreciation shall be computed.


George Gibson Coote: This paragraph should not
carry as it is. After the time that was taken up in committee on the resolution covering this bill, over the word "diminution" as it occurs in the second line of this paragraph, the minister, if he is bound to get this bill through to-night-and it is not usual to compel the House to sit so late on a Friday- will surely be good! enough to move the amendment which I know he has in his desk and which must be something more sensible than this. The words "the diminution in the present value" to my mind mean nothing. If any legal gentleman in the House can explain to those of us who are not members of the legal fraternity just how there can be any diminution in the present value of land, we would like to hear the explanation.
Soldier Settlement Act


Robert Forke: I have a long brief on
this word from a very eminent authority. I am not going to give the authority, but his conclusion is that it is a perfectly correct clause. I did not mean any disrespect to the committee in not considering an amendment. I am only repeating what I have said, namely, that I have been assured by eminent authorities that this is quite all right. I am sure every hon. member knows exactly what the clause means.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: It will
probably be all right if we can keep the lawyers out of it.


George Gibson Coote: This may carry, but I think if it does this committee will not be using as good judgment as it generally does. It was the considered opinion of the committee when the resolution was before it that this wording was not correct. There is no doubt that the committee would have accepted an amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), had not a point of order been raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). The minister himself was quite convinced on that occasion that the wording as given in the bill was not right. Surely if we are going to spend all day on this bill, we might make this clause read so that it will be intelligible, let us say, to the soldier settlers. I am sure that many of them will read this and say: There is no diminution in the present value of my land; it is worth just what it is worth; I cannot find any diminution. Would it not be better to use plain English that will be understood?


Robert Forke: It says that it shall be the
diminution in the present value as compared with the price at which the land was bought.


George Gibson Coote: It reads:
The 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 value of the land and the improvements sold to the settler, as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land and improvements from the board.


Robert Forke: I do not see much difficulty about that.


George Gibson Coote: But the diminution is not in the present value. It is the diminution from the price at which he bought the land. We are taking it for granted that there is a depreciation, and that depreciation or diminution is in the value of the land when he bought it, not in the present value.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: If we said "shown in the present value," I think that would remove the difficulty.
[ Mr. Coote.]


Mr. McINTOSH:: It says, "diminution in
the present value of the land and improvements sold to the settler." There is no comma after the word "land." Why stop there? The comma is after the noun "settler." If you substitute for the words "as compared with" in line 34, paragraph c, the word "and" making it read "and the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land and improvements from the board,''" the meaning is still more clearly expressed. But there is no ambiguity in the clause as it stands. The discussion from time to time in the House would lead to the conclusion that some hon. members think the paragraph in question about as plain as mud.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The difficulty seems to be over this word diminution, which some of us do not know how to pronounce. The meaning of the word is, I think, a lessening or a decreasing. We can avoid all the ambiguity of this section by changing one word of two letters in the thirty-second line, the word "in" to "to". Then it would read "diminution to the present value."


George Gibson Coote: The minister has a perfectly good amendment on his desk, and I think he should at least suggest it to the committee for consideration.


Robert Forke: I am not going to move it,
but I will give it to the committee for consideration, because I am no longer sure of the English language.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give us Scotch. We will understand it better.


Robert Forke: I could use Scotch all right. It reads:
The depreciation in value to be determined shall be the amount by which through no neglect or mismanagement on the part of the settler the price at which the board agreed to sell the land and improvements to the settler exceeds the amount representing the present value of the said land and improvements.
If that is satisfactory to the committee, I will move it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is all right.


Robert Forke: I move the amendment
accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (e) as amended agreed to.
Paragraph (f) agreed to.
On paragraph (g).
Robert Forke: I move that in the thirtysecond line the figures "1925" be substituted for "1926."

Soldier Settlement Act


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Paragraphs (h) and (i) have been struck out. There is a new paragraph (h).
Paragraph (h) agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: Paragraph I (j) now
becomes (i).
Paragraph (i) agreed to.
On the preamble.


Mr. PANSHER (Last Mountain) :: I have
listened to the discussion very attentively, but there is one point that has not been emphasized, although it was referred to by the member for Comox-Alberni. Is there any provision in this act whereby a soldier settler can be taken from land that is of no value and put on a farm where he will have some chance of making good?


Robert Forke: The board has actually been doing that in the past, and the passing of this act will make it much easier.


Robert Gardiner: Is it the intention of
the government to supply the board with sufficient funds to allow them to do that kind of thing? It is a question simply of money; the legislation is there.


Robert Forke: There has been no provision that I know of in that regard.


Robert Gardiner: Will the government
make such provision?


Robert Forke: That is a matter for the
government to consider.


Mr. BIRD:: Is there a provision in the act which allows the board to transfer a man from land that is of no value to another farm?


Robert Forke: I could not answer that with any degree of assurance, but they have been doing that.


Thomas William Bird: This is a matter of interest to the soldier settlers. I had a letter the other day inquiring about this very thing, and I just wanted to know from the minister if it is legal for the board to make such a transfer, or does the 'board do it just out of the goodness of its heart? What is the procedure?


Robert Forke: I know that the Dominion government has been in negotiation with the provincial governments in some cases to move not only soldier settlers but other settlers away from lands on which they were not able to make a living owing to their poor quality. But a difficulty arises. The province is quite willing to move a settler from one section
to another within the province, but none of the provinces is very anxious to make any move to assist the Dominion government in moving a settler from one province to another. Hon. members will understand that between the Great lakes and Manitoba there is some very poor land and there are some very bad conditions, and the Soldier Settlement Board has assisted settlers to move to other lands in Saskatchewan to which they could be moved, but there is no regulation under which the expenses of that removal could be paid by the Dominion government.
I do not think the Soldier Settlement Board have gone into that business, though they have been moving settlers from one place to another as a matter of accommodation where they had land available.


John Millar: Did the government pay
the expenses of moving.


Robert Forke: I do not think so.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think the minister has answered the question put by the hon. member for Nelson. The Soldier Settlement Board does not move ordinary settlers from one district to another. That has come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the provinces and the railways. We have soldier settlers on lands that have no agricultural value. I am quite aware that the board may have in its possession lands to which these men could be transferred. I understand the legislation in force at the present time gives the board power, if they have the land and the money, to transfer these soldier settlers from one place to another. The question I desire to ask is this: will the government place in the estimates a sufficient sum to permit the settlers to be moved from places where the land is of no agricultural value to other districts where they can make a living?
Mr. "FORKE: I am afraid that is a matter of government policy. I could not make a promise of that kind.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister lay it before the cabinet?


Robert Forke: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Ewen Alexander McPherson: I made a suggestion which was not opposed by anybody, and I think it is in the interests of a large number of soldiers, namely, that paragraph (j) should be amended to read, "who is desirous of repurchasing the land," instead of "who is desirous of returning to the land," so that it

Vegetable Growers-Orientals
would cover the cases where the agreements had been cancelled and the men were still on the land. That would let them all in. If there is no objection I move that that amendment be made.


Robert Forke: That is all right, I accept that amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is to strike out the words "returning to" and substitute the words "desirous of repurchasing."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Gardiner: Better postpone the
third reading for the next sitting of the House, because we want to look into the amendments. .


Ernest Lapointe: The Senate sits o,n Tuesday and we would like to have some work fo,r them to do.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid it would break their hearts if they ever found some work to do.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Monday, March 7, 1927