1927-02-11

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a special committee consisting of His Honour, the Speaker, Hon. J. C. Elliott, Hon. W. D. Euler, Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Hon. Charles Marcil, Mr. J. Fred Johnston, Mr. D. F. Kellner, Mr. T. W. Bird, Mr. R. B. Hanson, Mr. W. A. Boys, Sir George Perley, Mr. George Black (Yukon) and Mr. Finlay Macdonald (Cape Breton South) be appointed to consider with His Honour the Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the House, and to report to the House at the present session.
208	COMMONS
27ie late Mr. Flemming, M.P.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: In order that the committee
may not overlook the point, I think it would be well if they would take into consideration, in addition to the matters that were considered by the former committee, the method in which divisions are recorded in this chamber. As a rule it takes from twenty-five to thirty-five minutes to record the vote of a House of two hundred and forty-five members, whereas in the parliament of Great Britain that operation is performed, on the average, in eight minutes although the membership of that body is something over six hundred. Now, the conditions here are especially favourable to the adoption of the English system; we have lobbies adjacent which can be utilized, and I trust that the committee which meets this session will consider the suggestion. Motion agreed to.
CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	I desire to lay on the
table copies of orders in council relative to power development on the Ottawa river at Carillon falls, which were requested by the hon. leader of the opposition.



HEALTH AND PROPRIETARY MEDICINES ACTS

Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay):: I beg to report that no regulations have been made under the Health Act or under the Proprietary Patent Medicines Act since the last session of parliament.
THE LATE MR. J. K. FLEMMING Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Before the orders of the
day are called may I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to make mention of a loss this House has sustained, and which at the moment is much in the minds of all present. For the third time, in the brief interval which has elapsed since this parliament assembled, we have been called upon to pause in the proceedings of this House and refer to the death of one of our number. The speech from the throne had just been read when we learned of the death of an hon. member from the province of Nova Scotia. At the beginning of the present week we had occasion to refer, as we reassembled after our brief recess, to the death of another honourable member, this time from Ontario. And to-day, ere the week is over, we are called upon to record the death of yet another of our number, an hon. member from the province of New Brunswick. All three were present with us and took their seats at the opening of the present session, the proceedings of which have

only thus far little more than commenced. I do not believe that in the history of our parliament the House of Commons has been called upon to mourn in so brief a space of time the loss of so many of its members; certainly never before were like losses in its membership sustained upon the very threshold of a new parliament.
The Hon. J. K. Flemming, whose death occurred yesterday, was the member for Carleton-Victoria. He entered this parliament at the general elections of 1925 and was present through the greater part of last session, which, as is well known, was also the last parliament. He was returned again at the general elections of 1926. Though in parliament but a short time he was a conspicuous figure, having some years ago occupied the position of premier of his native province. Though faithful in his attendance in this House, his voice was not heard on more than one or two occasions, partly no doubt because it was his first session in the federal parliament and partly due no doubt also to the ill-health from which he suffered. In the short time he was here, his kindly and pleasing personality won for him many friends among men of all parties.
The Hon. Mr. Flemming was born in Carleton county on April 27, 1868. His life was, for the most part, identified with the county of his birth and the affairs of his native province, of which, in the year 1911, he became the premier. After receiving an education at the common schools, he graduated from the provincial Normal school and followed for a time the profession of teaching. Later he engaged in commercial and industrial pursuits. For a time he was a travelling salesman and merchant; subsequently he became actively interested in lumbering operations and the development of the lumbering industry.
Mr. Flemming was a leader of the Conservative party -in the province of New Brunswick. Practically all his life he took an active interest in public affairs. He encountered at the outset two defeats in his candidature for the legislature of his province. That was in 1895 and 1899, but in a by-election in 1900 he was returned to the legislature; and from that time on his rise to prominence in the affairs of his province w.as unbroken and rapid. He was re-elected to the legislature in 1903 and 1908. In the latter year he became Provincial Secretary and Receiver General in the cabinet of Sir Douglas-then Mr.-Hazen, and on the resignation of Sir Douglas Hazen in 1911, when Mr. Hazen entered the cabinet of Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Flemming succeeded to the premiership

Selkirk Pulpwood, Concessions
of the province; this position he held until the close of 1913, at *which time, suffering from ill-health, he resigned both the premiership and his seat in the legislature.
From 1914 until 1925, when he was nominated to contest Victoria-Carleton in the interests of the Conservative party and was returned as member to this parliament, Mr. Flemming had practically retired from active politics. Whilst to some extent he regained his health and strength, he nevertheless suffered one or two serious illnesses during this period of retirement and hon. members who were with him in this parliament at the last session will recall that he suffered considerably at times through the impairment of his health. When, therefore, it was learned a few days ago that he had again to undergo an operation there were many who greatly feared the outcome.
May I, speaking for hon. members on this side of the House, say that we join with hon. gentlemen opposite in greatly regretting the less which the House has sustained, and which will be particularly felt by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and those who support him; and that we share with them the sympathy which we hope you, Mr. Speaker, will kindly convey, in the name of the Commons as a whole, to the widow and sons and daughters of our late colleague, who have been so greatly bereaved.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those
who sit on your left in this chamber, may I thank my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the befitting and generous tribute which he has just paid to the memory of one whom we held in great respect, whom we held very dearly in this quarter of the chamber. I did not know the late Mr. Flemming personally until he came here for the first time about two years ago; but one was at once struck with his ability, with his kindheartedness, with his wonderful fund of information in regard to public affairs in this country. What struck me most was that even as far back as a year or two ago he seemed to have himself a realization that he was afflicted with some malady which would in the near or distant future result fatally. He told me last session that his health was rapidly failing and he did not know how long he would be able to continue. But he always exhibited patience, cheerfulness and courage, although he was well aware that the vital forces were daily growing weaker and weaker.
He was a man of outstanding ability, a very able speaker, an excellent debater, a man who had risen to the highest position in his native province, and who, had he been spared in this
chamber, would have proved to be one of the ablest and most useful of our membership. But during all the time that he sat in this chamber I am satisfied that he had a hard fight against the ill health which constantly pursued him. I am sure that the whole chamber will deeply regret his death. We on this side realize that we have suffered a tremendous loss. We have lost a political friend, a personal friend, and a great ally in the Conservative party.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members who sit in this comer of the chamber, may I say that we desire to be associated with the message of sympathy and condolence to be expressed to the widow and other relatives of the late Mr. Flemming. We particularly in this corner did not know Mr. Flemming very well, but he always seemed to us to be very cheerful and we thought he was in fairly good health. Circumstances have decreed otherwise, and we in this comer of the chamber, as we all must, very much regret his loss. We desire, therefore, to be associated with this message of sympathy.



SELKIRK PULPWOOD CONCESSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I would like to ask the government the following question : Has an application been received by the Department of the Interior for a pulpwood concession sufficient to warrant the building of a pulp and paper mill at Selkirk, Manitoba? If so, what progress has been made in *the negotiations and will the government give an assurance that this application will receive the same consideration as was, or may be, given to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company, who recently established a mill at Pine Falls?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: The department are not in receipt of-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Such questions are out of order; they ought to be put on the order paper. But if the minister can make a brief answer, I will allow it.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite prepared to answer. No application has been received for the construction of a mill at Selkirk. We have had an application from the Backus interests for territory in Manitoba for the construction of a mill in the vicinity of Winnipeg; but as that application was based on stumpage dues for all territory north of township 46 in Manitoba and only an offer of twenty cents of a bonus south of the boundary, we did not give it favourable consideration.

Immigration



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODS WORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is the Minist.iv of Immigration aware that agents for the Canadian National Railways are offering guaranteed employment to immigrants to this country and that some of those who have been guaranteed employment are now in absolute destitution in the cities of western Canada? I should like further to ask what can be done in such a matter as this.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have no information of any destitution anywhere in the Dominion at the present time.


Charles Stephen Booth: May I not secure
from the Minister of Immigration an answer to my question? If I may repeat it, I said the Canadian National railway agents were guaranteeing employment to immigrants to this country, that some of these immigrants are now destitute, and I ask what can be done by the Minister of Immigration under these circumstances. I am prepared to offer proof of my statement. I think it is only fair that I should have an answer as to what can be done by the Immigration department when a serious state of affairs such as this exists, when men are coming to this country under an agreement that they are to be provided with work-I have a printed copy here to that effect-and then when they get here become a burden upon our cities.


Robert Forke: If the hon. gentleman had
given me a little notice that he was going to ask this question I would have been able to reply to him much more fully. I am a new minister just starting out, and I was taken a little by surprise. The Canadian National Railway Company do undertake to find employment for immigrants they are bringing out to this country. I have heard that there has been unemployment in some of the towns in Canada. For instance, we had complaints from Calgary that a certain number of immigrants landed there by the Canadian National Railway were destitute. We made inquiries and found out that employment had been found for all these immigrants from whom we had complaints. I had a communication from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan)-and I can assure my hon. friend that the Minister of Labour is always on his job, and that he keeps very close tab on me to see that I do not bring in any more immigrants than I should-to the effect that there was some unemployment, but I have

heard nothing very serious yet, and I am perfectly confident, Mr. Speaker, that there has been less unemployment this year than we have had for a number of years past.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Instead of putting it in the form of a question, might I advise the minister that the latest information I have is that there are over one thousand men in Vancouver to-day, or were recently, getting one dollar per day on relief work?



BARNARDO HOMES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre:	I would ask the Minister of Immigration whether he has considered the wisdom of rescinding that regulation of his department which prevents the Barnardo Homes Association from bringing out children.
Robert Forke: That is a matter of policy that I am not inclined to discuss in the House at the present time, but when the Immigration estimates come up or at some other convenient time I shall be prepared to go fully into any matters of that kind.



INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) interrogated the Prime Minister yesterday in respect to the agitation going on in British Columbia in connection with Indian title and I did not happen to be in the House on the occasion of the interrogation. This matter 'has been before the government, I think, during the whole life of the recent administration and for some considerable time prior to that.


Mr. STEVENS:: Twelve years or more.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. During all that period we have endeavoured by negotiation and conference to see if a settlement could not be reached. We had not been so fortunate up to recently as to be able to say that a settlement was even in sight. But we have been making a special study of the whole question, because the provincial government, the federal government and the Indians are all interested in the matter. The adjustment of the reserve's, which was a burning question, is with some few exceptions almost completely settled. The representatives of the Indian tribes are pressing for a judicial investigation of the whole question of Indian title and asking that the matter be carried to the Privy Council.

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.
That request has not been granted, although it is receiving consideration. We have a committee of the government acting in cooperation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, working on the situation and endeavouring to reach a decision as to whether or not it would be wise to submit the matter for judicial investigation, with the privilege of carrying the whole question to the Privy Council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I ask the minister if he has given consideration to my suggestion that a small select committee of parliament be appointed to consider the matter? The minister may not be prepared to answer now, but I again make the suggestion, and only in the interest of bringing about some solution of the problem.


Charles A. Stewart: I have given that matter some consideration, but we have already spent a great deal of money in bringing witnesses from British Columbia, and I really do not believe that any new evidence can be submitted; there are volumes of evidence already. If a committee of parliament would be helpful, without going to the expense of bringing two or three hundred witnesses from British Columblia, I would be inclined to ask for that assistance, but there has been so much investigation already, so much evidence taken and so much money spent on this controversial question, that I am inclined to think we had better have a try at a solution of the problem by the present committee and see if we cannot get together. We have managed to settle some of the more difficult problems that were engaging our attention. I do not say that we shall settle this one, but we at least want to make a little further attempt to settle it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I earnestly hope the minister will be able to settle it.



ALBERTA COAL-TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: The hon, member for Bow
River (Mr. Garland), I believe, is still awaiting an answer to a question he asked some days ago with respect to a governor general's warrant for $17,000 odd, which is to be found in the estimates, for the movement of coal from Alberta to Ontario. A governor general's warrant for this purpose was passed for the sum of $17,943.64 by the Conservative government just prior to their resignation in September. All of this amount was paid to the Canadian National Railways, and the Ontario government refunded to the Dominion government the value of the coal,
which amounted to $13,647.56. The actual cost, therefore, to the Dominion government for the movement of the test shipment of 2.000 tons was $4,296.08.



SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 58, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927, was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
I	.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading o,f Bill No:. 57, respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and respecting the Canadian National Railways.
Robert Gardiner: I
desire to point out that this bill has just been distributed and we have had no opportunity of going into the provisions contained in the bill. When the matter was before the House yesterday afternoon very important questions were asked the minister upon which he did not care to express an opinion in a public way. Would it be agreeable to the minister to permit this legislation to go before the special railway committee in order that they might be able to go into the matter more fully and report to the House? There are many important matters of Which we have no knowledge. A very large sum of money is involved in the bill and furthermore there is a principle which we should recognise and we should see to it that we know what we are doing before we go any further.


Mr. DUNNING:: The government is
desirous of permitting the fullest possible explanation, of the bill and its terms. The method proposed by my hon. friend will, I am afraid, take a very great deal of time, and we should bear in mind that this arrangement has been before the public of this country and of the old country, in detail, for a period of months, and that the principle, indeed a large measure of the detailed arrangement, was embodied in the resolution discussed yesterday. Will it meet my hon. friend's wishes if we proceed to-day to take the second reading and consider the bill in committee, with the understanding that we leave the bill in committee until Monday, in the meantime permitting any inquiries to
212	COMMONS
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.
be made of myself or of the officers of the department by any member who may be interested in further explanation which cannot be given here?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On Section 2-Scheme of arrangement with holders of four per cent debenture stock with Grand Trunk Pacific Company confirmed.
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: It would be
impossible for hon. members to read the whole section While the chairman reads a short synopsis. None of us happens to be acquainted with the contents of the bill, and I fail to see how we can carry it intelligently until we know what the sections contains. If we are to proceed with the bill to-day and pass it clause by clause, should we not have the clauses read?


Mr. COOTE:: It would be very helpful to the committee and might save time if the minister, who I am sure is very familiar with this bill, would have the clauses read, and if there is anything vital in the clauses he might make a very brief statement to the House.


The CHAIRMAN:: Clause 2 reads:
2. Notwithstanding anything in any of the acts relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company (hereinafter called "the Pacific Company") or to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the National Company") and except where inconsistent with this act the scheme of arrangement set out in schedule "A" to this Act, and hereinafter called "the scheme of arrangement", to be made with the holders of the four per cent debenture stock of the Pacific company (hereinafter called "Pacific stock") issued pursuant to chapter one hundred of the statutes of Canada for the year 1906 and chapter one hundred and twenty-three of the statutes of Canada for the year 1913, is hereby duly confirmed and declared to be valid and binding upon all persons and companies affected thereby, or interested or mentioned therein, in every respect as if the Scheme of Arrangement had been enacted hereby; and the said persons and companies are hereby authorized and required, subject to the provisions of this Act, to observe and carry out all the terms and provisions of such scheme of arrangement according to the true intent and meaning thereof.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the explanatory
note opposite the section in the copy of the bill which is in the hands of every member of the committee is about all that is required by way of explanation. This makes effective the scheme of arrangement later set out.
IMr. Dunning.]


George Gibson Coote: A question was raised
yesterday with reference to line 19 where it says:
Declared to be valid and binding upon all persons and companies affected thereby or interested or mentioned therein.
Does not the question naturally arise here as to how this agreement is to be made binding on every individual holder of the debenture stock? Or will that point be covered later?


Charles Avery Dunning: The particular point to
which my hon. friend refers arises directly on the next section.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does not the passing
of this section involve the passing of schedule A? I should like to hear an explanation of the meaning of that schedule before this section is finally passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Mr. ADSHEAD:: Am I right in my understanding that the bondholders are satisfied to take a certain two per cent rather than rely on an uncertain four per cent whenever the Grand Trunk may be able to pay it; and that the bonds will be retired in thirty years with the two per cent paid into the sinking fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Will the debentures be
retired at par, or how is the price to be fixed?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is an important
question. The arrangement for the retirement of the debentures is that the proceeds of the sinking fund shall be applied each year in the purchase of debentures, the purchase to be made by tender. That is to say, any debenture holder will be at liberty to offer his debentures each year to the sinking fund trustees, to be paid for out of the sinking fund. But there is a further provision that at the end of ten years the debentures shall be retired from time to time at par.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, in what rank will these new bond obligations stand in relation to the other obligations of the company?


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the company
is concerned, the question of priority does not arise because the new obligation will be guaranteed by the government of Canada.


Mr. MILLAR:: Has any serious objection
been taken to this scheme on the part of the stockholders who have not accepted it? Is there any organized objection to it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not only is there no
organized objection to the scheme, but I can recollect receiving only one individual protest. I may say that ninety-two per cent of the total holders of bonds have assented,
and if we allow for those who more or less disappear in one way or another and cannot be reached, I think we can pretty well take it for granted that all those interested have accepted the scheme of arrangement.


Edward Joseph Garland: In answer
to a question asked by an hon. gentleman to my right a moment ago, the minister intimated to the House that for ten years the government would retire the bonds on tender to the amount of the sinking fund accumulated irrespective of the value of the bonds. Any stockholder could send in an offer to sell his bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is to prevent a large number of the stockholders or all of them getting together and agreeing on a fixed amount per share, in other words, holding up the government?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no compulsion under the scheme of arrangement for the sinking fund trustees to buy the bonds offered, and the danger that my hon. friend refers to in any case is remote when we bear in mind that there sure about seven thousand individual bondholders. I do not think there is likely to be any danger along that line. I do not know how we could guard ourselves against it even if there were such danger.


Robert Gardiner: 
Charles Avery Dunning: 
Mr. McGIBBON:: W hat was the price of
the bonds when the Grand Trunk Pacific went into receivership?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I have not
that information.


Peter McGibbon: Could the minister tell the committee the total percentage of interest that has been paid upon those bonds since 'that date?
214	COMMONS
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Charles Avery Dunning: About that; and we would be paying two per cent interest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Scheme to be operative upon passing of this Act.
Charles Stephen Booth: For the benefit of
those of us who have had no legal training I hope the minister will explain bow this arrangement can be forced upon individual bondholders. It looks to me like the confiscation of their existing bonds and the substitution of something else whether the individual bondholder may be agreeable or not. I understood the minister to say yesterday that this was not a matter of charity or of a compassionate allowance; he stated that these individuals had a legal claim. Well, if they have a legal claim, how can that claim be superseded in the way here proposed? If one individual bondholder undertakes to stand out, how can he be forced to come into the scheme? And if he can be forced into the scheme, then it is worth considering whether or not we are right in proceeding with the arrangement. If there is nothing legally binding on us in this regard it seems to me that the other question which was discussed yesterday must come up again. These people gave bonds for a concern that proved bankrupt and the Dominion came to the resuce and stood behind the railway. Now it appears that we are to honour all the claims that exist in regard to this unsuccessful railway. Why should we do so if we are under no legal obligation? These are questions that should be clearly explained before we adopt this legislation. We were told yesterday of one instance in which one party signed the contract while the other declined to do so. It seems to me that in this case the Dominion is signing. How shall we force the other people to sign if they do not want to do so?


Charles Avery Dunning: My bon. friend's premise regarding the situation of the company in relation to the government is scarcely cor-

rect. I said yesterday, and I repeat it to-day, that these people hold in their hand an absolute security having behind it terms enforceable in the courts of the country against first, the Grand Trunk Pacific which, as my hon. friend says, is a bankrupt concern in receivership. I have the unpleasant privilege of being the receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk Railway, however, cannot be placed in the same class at all, and in the bonds held by these people there is a provision of guarantee by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. Now the Grand Trunk Railway has other legal obligations ranking prior to this one, and if in any year the Grand Trunk Railway earns more than sufficient to pay those prior obligations and has any money over, then these people have a legal claim against the former Grand Trunk Railway for their four per cent interest.
As to the other point dealing with minorities who do not assent, I remarked a little while ago that we had had the assent of ninety-two per cent of the bondholders. I am told that it is unique that there should be such a large proportion of assent in connection with an arrangement of this kind.


Mr. BROWN:: Is that a binding assent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely binding; it is
a signed assent. Now there must always be some machinery for clearing up matters of this kind, otherwise business could not be conducted. That is recognized in our Exchequer Court Act and in the Railway Act, whereby provisions are made generally to deal with the liquidation of bonds of railway companies. The Railway Act provides that the Exchequer Court may give permission to bind what my hon. friend refers to as a minority in case seventy-five per cent of the whole consent. And in view of the fact that in this case we had already in hand a ninety-two per cent approval we thought it unnecessary to involve the legal machinery of the Exchequer court which, as I have said, is authorized under our existing laws to bind the others in the event of seventy-five per cent consenting. That is the best answer I can give my hon. friend. If there were not some means of cleaning up the tag ends no bond issue could ever be dealt with because there is always a proportion of bonds which simply cannot be located. Bonds vanish, they go out of existence, they are burnt up in fires or they go down with ships. As a matter of fact I am of opinion that with such a large percentage agreeing we may say that practically all the existing bondholders have given their consent.

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.


Charles Stephen Booth: Under this procedure no legal action can be taken by the eight per cent against the government. Is that right?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not perfectly
clear in regard to the interpretation of the percentages. Section 3 provides:
The scheme of arrangement having already been assented to in writing by the holders of three-fourths in value of the Pacific stock-
That is altogether different from saying, "three-fourths of the holders of the stock". The minister says that ninety-two per cent of approximately seven thousand bondholders have given assent. Does he mean the holders of ninety-two per cent of the stock or ninety-two per cent of the holders of the stock?


Charles Avery Dunning: Ninety-two per cent "in
value".


Archibald M. Carmichael: That is a different
thing from ninety-two per cent of the individual bondholders. I can well conceive that ten or twelve bondholders may hold seventy-five per cent of the stock and that a large majority of the bondholders may be coerced into doing what the minority wish them to do, simply because that minority hold a majority of the stock. Is that the situation?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is suggesting a purely hypothetical possibility; it is remotely possible. I am sure however that had there been any such coercion we should have heard about it, for the reason that this matter has been discussed in the press, particularly in investors' journals in the old land, for years past; and the scheme of arrangement itself was widely advertised months ago, each bondholder having been personally apprised of the fact that the scheme contains a provision that it shall bcome operative when assented to by three-fourths of the bondholders. That is what the bondholders were asked to consent to as part of the scheme of arrangement.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Has the minister the information as to what percentage of actual bondholders have subscribed to the agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I have not that information.


Mr. HANSON:: Was this original bond issue secured by a trust deed?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or a statutory mortgage?


Charles Avery Dunning: Statutory stock, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And does this arrangement depart from the conditions of the statute in any other respect?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well then, I do not think the point raised by our laymen friends was very well taken. If ninety-two per cent in value of the bondholders have agreed, that is a very large proportion of any body of bondholders. Usually the proportion is very much less.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very much.


Mr. BENNETT:: Sometimes it is only sixty per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and less than that.


George Gibson Coote: I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong in the supposition that by this legislation we are deliberately depriving the holders of this debenture stock, who may not have signed the agreement, of any rights which they may have, except what we now give them in this way?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct.


George Gibson Coote: Would it not be much better to follow the usual procedure and ask the Exchequer court to make this ruling? Because I understand that one reason why we are putting this agreement through is to help the condition of Canadian credit in London. There is a feeling there that we have not treated these bondholders properly. Is it not possible that some of these bondholders would not approve of this scheme, and will have the right to say that the parliament of Canada has deliberately by legislation taken their debenture stock which calls for four per cent interest and give them two per cent? It does seem as though they might consider we are doing something very drastic to interfere with the security which they hold, and in that case they certainly could say much against Canada because this parliament is deliberately putting through this legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point my hon. friend raises was a point of difficulty with myself in considering the scheme, that is as between myself and officers of the company. The element of time is of very great importance in connection with this matter, because of the very near arrival of another interest date on these bonds, and the arrangement which is accepted, as I say, by ninety-two per cent of the bondholders, provides in clause 9 (b) that the scheme shall become operative when the same has been confirmed by the Exchequer court of Canada if such confirmation
216	COMMONS
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.
shall be required by the company. That is to say the bondholders themselves agreed to waive confirmation by the Exchequer court, provided the company did not require it for some purpose of its own. Well, when the matter came to me I said:	Unless the percentage of consenting bondholders is much higher than seventy-five per cent I do not think it wise to introduce into the Canadian parliament a measure which would have the effect of coercing a considerable number of minority bondholders, and I simply told the company that if they desired to avoid Exchequer court proceedings they would have to get a practically universal assent. I was anxious to avoid the very thing my hon. friend points out, that is, a feeling of soreness, a feeling that people had not been treated properly; and it was not until we were assured of ninety-two per cent of assents that the arrangement now proposed was inserted in the bill. As I said before we would surely have heard of objections to it had there been any, because no matter of a financial character that I can recall has had wider public discussion in the press than this has had. The details we are now discussing have been discussed in the homes of many small investors in the old country, because this issue is very largely held by small investors, as the number of the debenture holders indicates, and it is very well understood, I am quite sure, that we would have heard before this of any substantial ground for complaint, if such had existed.


George Gibson Coote: I do not wish to labour the point, but it does seem to me very doubtful if many of these small investors know that in this scheme it is proposed that the parliament of Canada should deliberately take away from these people any right they may have; that is to say, we are going to compel them to accept this arrangement whether they want it or not. If these people were united in any way in a company with a majority of ninety-two per cent of them enforcing their will on the rest, that would be a different matter. But it does seem to me that parliament is doing here something that is not right in principle, and something which it is just possible we may be sorry for some day.
Will the minister be kind enough to give us a little information as to just how the Grand Trunk was taken over by the government? As far as I remember that has not been mentioned in the debate.


Charles Avery Dunning: The old Grand Trunk?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, as to whether it went into a receivership or what the procedure was.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is imposing upon me a rather difficult job.


George Gibson Coote: The minister need only give it very briefly''. I want a point cleared up for my own satisfaction.


Charles Avery Dunning: It occurred, of course,
long before I had anything to do with the matter. If I should err in giving an historical review I am subject to correction by gentlemen who were members of the House at the time. The former Grand Trunk was taken over by the government of Canada as the result of arbitration proceedings. Those proceedings decided the amount, if any, that should be paid for the junior stocks, and the road-the former Grand Trunk-is now the absolute property of the government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of the Canadian National Railways, which in turn are owned by the government of Canada, subject to public charges. What I mean by public charges are such bonds .issued as are outstanding and which embody obligations to the public secured by the property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the rental charges.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the rental charges.
What was arbitrated was the value of the preferred and common stock in the old Grand Trunk, the stock being acquired by the Canadian government.


Mr. BOYS:: I should like to know if thi3
clause is in harmony with the provisions of the trust mortgage which secured the bonds in question.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no trust mortgage.


William Alves Boys: I think there was.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


William Alves Boys: If there was not, then it seems to me this provision is more far-reaching. I refer to the words which appear at the top of page 2 of the bill:
All the terms and provisions of the scheme of arrangement shall be binding on all holders of Pacific stock, whether assenting to or not assenting to the scheme of arrangement-
If there was some document which gave certain rights which could be exercised notwithstanding the wishes of the minority, that would be all right; but if there is no such

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.
right it seems to me there is very grave doubt about it, and it may be an interference with property and civil rights as well. I thought the minister made some reference to a statutory mortgage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, statutory stock.


William Alves Boys: Then I misunderstood the
minister. Is it the fact that this arrangement will absolutely deprive these people of rights which they undoubtedly have? I am not seeking to object to the legislation, but the thought comes to me which was first raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The thought was in my own mind at the time but I imagined it was overcome by virtue of some arrangement with the Pacific bondholders themselves when they purchased the bonds.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is.


William Alves Boys: If there is such an arrangement that would satisfy me absolutely on the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: Look at clause 9, subsection (a) of the scheme of arrangement on page 7 of the bill.


William Alves Boys: Then, as I understand it, that scheme of arrangement is one that was made without the assent of the eight per cent. My point is this: Where do you get the right to interfere at all with the acquired rights of the eight per cent? We know quite well that there are clauses in mortgages securing bonds which give rights where there are certain majorities, but it seems to me that feature is absent here. If it is, what I should like to be enlightened upon .is whether it is proper to deprive these eight per cent, or whatever the percentage is, of their rights, and is it not an interference with property and civil rights?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Railway Act and the Exchequer court together provide that in connection with matters of this kind, whenever seventy-five per cent of the bondholders have assented, the Exchequer court may determine to bind the other twenty-five per cent. What parliament is asked to decide on this occasion is whether ninety-two per cent of assents received is sufficient to justify this parliament in saying there is no necessity to go through the extra machinery and to incur the extra expense and delay, which is even more serious, of an Exchequer court action. If I could see that an injury was being done to anyone, I would not suggest such a course; but in view of the very large proportion of assents and the fact also that we are not taking much away from these people, because after all they are getting a guaranteed security-


William Alves Boys: I am not criticising the terms at all; I am referring to the authority.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a gilt-edged security. The other is perpetual and a perpetual source of uncertainty in regard to the receipt of interest. There is no doubt they will receive two per cent interest; the bonds will achieve c definite market value, and a larger proportion of assents has been received, than has ever been known in financial history.


George Gibson Coote: The question of injury is after all a question to be decided by each person; it is their personal opinion and that is the great danger that confronts us in this case. By right of might, because of course that is the only way in which we can handle the matter in this parliament, this parliament can say that those people's right is taken away and they are given something else in its place. That is wrong in principle and personally I would like to register my objection to it.
I would like to ask the minister another question in regard to the prior claims which the Grand Trunk must pay before they will have to pay these debenture stocks, that is, whether the interest on the money advanced by the government to the Grand Trunk once it was taken over, would be a prior claim.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can perhaps best answer that question by reading the exact wording of the conditional guarantee given by the Grand Trunk Railway Company to the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. It reads:
Provided always that the liability of the Grand Trunk in the premises shall from time to time be conditional and wholly depend upon the amount of its gross earnings during any half year ending on some 30th day of June or 31st day of December showing a surplus after the following deductions therefrom (that is to say):
1.	All working expenses as defined by the Canadian acts of parliament relating to the Grand Trunk railway.
2.	All interest and other moneys payable by the Grand Trunk in respect of
(a)	The Grand Trunk loan capital as defined by the said acts.
(b)	Any bonds or liabilities of any other company pursuant to any guarantee or undertaking heretofore given by the Grand Trunk.
That is given prior to this one.
And such surplus as aforesaid being shown the liability of the Grand Trunk in the premises shall be limited to the amount of such surplus and shall wholly determine when a payment or payments to such amount shall have been made to any holder or holders of stock under the covenant in that behalf hereinbefore contained.
It ranks next after the charges created prior to the giving of it.
218	COMMONS
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.


Mr. SMOKE:: Am I right in understanding that the bonds outstanding are perpetual debentures and the principal never matures?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Franklin Smoke: Then I am wholly in sympathy with this bill. If eight per cent of the bondholders say: "We do not agree to this proposition ", let them hang on to their bonds and the government continue to pay them the four per cent or whatever interest is payable. The government will never have to pay the principal. Is that not the worst position the Dominion of Canada can be placed in?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is why we have that section.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What was the market
value of the old bonds and what is the market value of the present stock they are getting?


Charles Avery Dunning: The new bonds have not yet been issued, but the old ones sold last year at amounts varying from just over sixty to pretty close to seventy at times.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I should like to congratulate all who have been concerned in completing this arrangement because it is eminently in the interests of this country that it should be done. I say so for two or three reasons. In the first place we are getting quit, within a reasonable time, of these bonds and at the expense of one-half of the interest due those bondholders. In the second place there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction in the old country, whether warranted or not I am not prepared to say, although I have my opinion in regard to the matter. It is eminently in the interests of this country that that source of dissatisfaction be removed and it is being removed by this bill.
We have been very large borrowers in London in years past. In recent years since the war we have been borrowing largely from the United States; but the time may and very likely will arrive and perhaps before long when we shall again have to have recourse to the British financial market. In view of those and other considerations I think it is highly desirable that this question be settled on a fair basis, and the proposal before the House does settle it on an eminently fair basis so far as this country is concerned.
The other point brought up is in regard to the outstanding or possible outstanding eight per cent in value of the bonds concerned. If I am in a company and if ninety-two per cent of my friends have made up their minds that an arrangement proposed to be carried out by the company is fair, right and desirable, I do not think I shall receive very much sympathy, either within the company or on the [Mr. Dunning.!
street, for shouting in regard to my rights having been disregarded. I do not think, as regards arrangements of this kind carried on over a period of years in this country generally, you will find any other such arrangement has been so successfully carried out that ninety^two per cent have acquiesced voluntarily without any coercion of any kind whatsoever. In view of these considerations I am strongly in favour of the passage of this bill.


John Millar: If this bill goes through, as it will, and the eight per cent should wish to take action against the government for the payment of what would naturally fall due to them, what stands in their way? I know in some cases permission must be had from the government before action can be taken against it. Is that the situation in this case?


Charles Avery Dunning: By law we say here: If
this bill passes, they shall be deemed to have transferred to the company. That is, we are here doing what the Exchequer court would do under our ordinary laws if the matter were placed before it. We are doing it here only because there is such a large proportion of consent in the first place, and because by doing so we can avoid the expense and, what is more important, the delay involved in allowing time for proceedings to be taken before the Exchequer court by any possible dissenter.
I might say something which I have not said before in connection with this bill, namely, that I regard it as the first step towards straightening out the very serious complications of the Canadian national financial structure. I do not know if I shall live to see it completely straightened out, or if I shall be able to handle the job, but there is no question about it that one of the most serious expenses of the Canadian National system, one of the barriers to its success, is its present complicated financial structure, and here we are taking the first essential step in the direction of simplifying that structure. It will enable, as I said before, the Grand Trunk Pacific receivership to be terminated, with all the separate bookkeeping and legal procedure which that has involved. It will enable the Grand Trunk Pacific and its subsidiaries to be merged with the Canadian National system, and until this is done, until this bill is passed and this matter is settled, that amalgamation is impossible. I hope to come later with other proposals to reduce the extent of the confusion that now exists in the Canadian National financing. But it will be a much slower process than some of our editorial friends would have us believe. It is a most complex problem. When I come forward with this one proposal, immediately it bristles with difficul-

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.
ties, and members of the committee have no trouble at all in pointing out possible difficulties, possible injustices, possible complications. Each one of the financial motions necessary to deal with the situation-and eighty-nine separate corporations now comprise the Canadian National system-will involve, I am afraid discussions of this kind whenever it is necessary to bring them to parliament. This is merely the first step.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is not referring to the question of reduction of capitalization, is he?


Mr. ROBB:: Do not try to draw him out
too far.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why refer to it at all?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understood the minister to say in reply to a question that the worst that could happen with respect to the eight per cent, if they were dissatisfied, would be that they would hold on to their stock.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that would not do
them any good.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They must turn in their stock and accept the new stock issued?


Charles Avery Dunning: If they do not submit the old stock in exchange for the new, they will be deemed to have done so, and the records of the company in relation to them will be kept as if they had done so, and they will be entitled to all the benefits of the new stock.


George Gibson Coote: The only advantage then, I take it, in not referring this matter to the Exchequer court and getting an order from them is that it can be done here much more quickly.


Charles Avery Dunning: And save expense. My hon. friend understands that the Exchequer court would have to give a period of time in their own discretion within which to permit any of these eight per cent to come forward. How long that period would be I do not know, but I do know it would surely conflict with the dates that are set out in the scheme of arrangement, and by reason of that would upset the whole financial arrangement.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I wonder if the minister would answer this question. Now that we are facing the possibility of paying interest on this stock, does he not think we are due for a reduction of freight rates in Canada?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Delivery of certificates of Pacific stock, in exchange for new stock.
Henry Herbert Stevens: In the last line but one it says " sinking fund and call ". What is the necessity for the word " call "?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is provision for call after ten years. We will come to that section later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Order in council to terminate statutory charge securing Pacific stock.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister explain what this clause is for?


Charles Avery Dunning: We provided in section 5 for cremating the securities. Here we are providing for eliminating the charge which the cremated securities carried before they were cremated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Certificates for £3,000,000 .of Pacific stock held as security to be surrendered and cremated.
Archibald M. Carmichael: The language of this section is similar to the language of section 5. It says in section 5 that the certificates " may be " cancelled and cremated, and in section 8 that the certificates " may be " surrendered. Should it not be "shall be "? The sections leave it optional; should it not be compulsory?


Charles Avery Dunning: The intention is, unless
some vital or unforeseen reason arises between now and the time when the securities are collected, that they shall be cremated, but unless permission were given it would not be possible for us, in the event of such an unforeseen reason arising, to keep the securities for a time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the meaning of the words in lines 31, 32 and 33:
But such cancellation and cremation shall not affect the obligations of the Pacific company to the National company nor of the National company (as successor by amalgamation with the Grand Trunk Railway Company) to His Majesty in respect of the said advances.


Charles Avery Dunning: The explanation on the
other page of the bill deals with it completely.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We have been referred to the explanation and we would like to look at it.
Winding-up Act


George Gibson Coote: We would like to expedite
business, but. we should be given a chance to read the explanation.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If I understand the
matter correctly, this means that the charge for interest would foe against the Grand Trunk Pacific, notwithstanding the arrangement that is being made with the bondholders on behalf of the Grand Trunk. I think I am safe in saying that the troubles of the Grand Trunk Pacific are due very largely to the management of the Grand Trunk in the location of that railway. It is a fine illustration of bad business management in that regard when we know that the survey was , originally made to the Peace river country, where they neglected about seven hundred miles of good farming territory to build seven hundred miles through bush, ia territory which cannot be revenue-producing. We have here another illustration of the absolute unfairness in our dealings with large companies. Western Canada will again be charged up with the mismanagement of the big company in the east, and it will show in our railway deficits to the debit of the Grand Trunk Pacific for all time .to come.


George Gibson Coote: What is the use of carrying
this item on the books? Would it not be just as well to wipe it out?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend wants to see the Canadian National financing gradually and properly cleared up, but it is necessary in doing it to proceed one step at a time. It is necessary to maintain as of record the indebtedness between the parties until we proceed a step or two further in the financial reorganization. It will be a book entry merely for 'the time being, and it will maintain the relative standing of the indebtedness between the parties as it now exists. We should not, until we are prepared to look at the whole structure and deal with it, proceed to wipe out individual assets and liabilities and simply forget them.


George Gibson Coote: I asked the question in the hope of getting some reason why this liability should be carried on. If the item were wiped out altogether that would simplify the bookkeeping. I take it from the minister's statement that there is some reason for carrying this item on the books, though he is not very definite in his statement in regard to it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What progress has been made with regard to the straightening of the capitalization of the various Canadian National railways? I understand they have 
been ait it for about two years. I was wondering how soon we would get to a .point where the capitalization would be written down or where it might be brought down,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the title carry?


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that
before we carry the title the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that we may have an opportunity further to consider the bill.
Progress reported.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 49 to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has this bill been distributed?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 50, to amend the Insurance Act, 1917.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 51, to amend the Winding-up Act.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all want to expedite the business of the House, but speaking for myself I have not yet had time to look at any of these bills. I am not going to object to the second reading, but I think it should be stated that in giving second reading to these bills the House is not necessarily committed to their principle; we take it for granted that we will have an opportunity to discuss the principle of these bills if we deem it necessary to do so.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the position taken by my hon. friend. We are passing the bills along so as to advance them a stage. We are referring them

Special War Revenue Act
to the select standing committee on banking and commerce, where there will be every opportunity for the members of the committee to debate them fully and to get all the information they may require.


George Gibson Coote: I have heard it stated many
times in this chamber that when we agree to the second reading of a bill we are committing ourselves to its principle. That is the reason why I rose to make a statement.
I think it certainly should not be taken for granted that the House is committed to the principle of these bills until members have had ample time to consider them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 52, to amend the Trust Companies Act, 1914.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if
this bill is printed?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: It does not appear to be
on our files. These bills are being dealt with so rapidly that I have not time to look for them in my file.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in the measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as passed by both houses of parliament at the last session but not assented to, providing
(a)	for the removal of the one cent additional postage on letters for transmission by post for any distance within Canada; excepting "drop" letters and post cards;
(b)	for the remission of the stamp tax on receipts;
(c)	for a straight tax on playing cards, on every fifty-four cards or fraction thereof in each package-ten cents per pack;
(d)	for a provision to remove doubts as to whether goods are liable to sales tax when sold under process of law, or under a lien, etc.;
(e)	for the exemption of certain specified articles from consumption or sales tax;
(f)	for adding certain specified articles to the list subject to 50 per cent of the sales tax;
(g)	for removing the tax on carbonic acid
gas;	_
(h)	for a refund of tax paid on ships' stores;
(i)	for the removal of excise taxes on automobiles valued at not more than $1,200, when the conditions prescribed in the said legislation are fulfilled as to importation for any British country under the British preferential tariff, or from countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment, or as to automobiles produced or manufactured in Canada, and authorizing a refund of excise tax on such automobiles new, unused and unsold in the possession of the dealer or agent on 8th June, 1926; and
(j)	for the repeal of certain orders in council relating to the operation of these provisions
He said:	Mr. Speaker, before you leave
the chair I may say that this resolution covers legislation arising from the budget of 1926. The measure to be submitted is identically the same as that which passed both houses of parliament, but which failed to receive royal assent. The principal parts of the legislation were made effective by order in council dated July 14, 1926. There is no change whatever in the general principle of the legislation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor in the details?


James Alexander Robb: They are the same except
as to dates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was one clause
that could not be made effective by order in council.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I do not remember what reason was given when this resolution was before the House last session with regard to section (a) dealing with the removal of the one cent additional postage on letters transmitted within Canada, excepting "drop letters and postcards." If I understand rightly, the additional cent on drop letters and postcards was put on as a war revenue tax, the same as the additional cent on other letters. I fail to understand why the war tax should have been removed from letters generally and not from drop letters and postcards. Has the minister any satisfactory explanation?


James Alexander Robb: It is purely a matter of policy. We were returning to the penny postage and it was contended that it cost as much to distribute drop letters in the city as to send them to outside points in Canada. It is said that it costs as much to deliver letters in Ottawa, say, posted in the city, as to send them to Winnipeg. The same practice obtains in the United States.
Special War Revenue Act


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister assured
himself that the manufacturers of automobiles valued at $1,200 and under who have been relieved of the excise tax have passed the advantage on to the public, as promised last year?


James Alexander Robb: I have heard no complaints.


George Gibson Coote: Has the reduced tariff on
sugar from the West Indies gone into effect? It is not mentioned here and I do not know whether it should be or not.


James Alexander Robb: It has nothing to do with
this. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with my hon. friend later on.


George Gibson Coote: I just wondered whether it
should be mentioned here or not.


James Alexander Robb: No.


George Gibson Coote: I suppose the minister will
take it for granted, until he hears something to the contrary, that the automobile manufacturers are passing that advantage on to the public.


James Alexander Robb: If anyone has any complaints to make I shall be glad to listen to them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will this matter be
brought up again in the form of a bill?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I trust that we shall
have that bill before us at least an hour in advance. Personally I have not had an opportunity of studying the matter.


James Alexander Robb: As a new member of parliament my hon. friend is entitled to have that information, but had he been with those of us who spent two or three hard weeks in debate upon this resolution I think he would be pretty well posted on it. However, the request is not unreasonable and if anyone wishes to delay the measure I shall not press it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: We cannot vote on it
without information.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59, to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ROBB moved the second reading of the bill.


Robert Gardiner: I must protest against this method of doing business. Most of the members who were here last session will agree to put the resolution through, but there are many new members and I think it is only 
fair that they should have an opportunity of studying the bill before being asked to consider it in committee. So far as we over here are concerned, we desire to expedite the business of the House to the best of our ability, but at the same time we do not wish to lose any of our privileges. I suggest to the government therefore that before going further we should have the bill distributed in order that new members may know what they are doing.


James Alexander Robb: If hon. gentlemen will allow
us to go into committee on the bill I shall move that we rise and report progress.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon..P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in the measure to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal in an amount not exceeding $12,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval of the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan, which legislation was passed by both houses at the last session, but which failed to receive the royal assent owing to the dissolution of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
George Gibson Coote: Last year when these
resolutions, and I think the bill accompanying them, were before the House, it was brought to the attention of the minister that the operations of the different harbour commissions in Canada should be subject to audit by the Auditor General. I do not just remember what provision, if any, was in the bill which came down on that occasion, but I urge the 'minister to carry the suggestion out. I think the operations of some of the harbour commissions in Canada prove the necessity of placing some check upon them, and I would be very glad if the minister would give us his opinion now as to whether he is willing to have the financial operations of these commissions placed under audit by the Auditor General of Canada,


Mr. CARDIN:: These commissions are
already subject to the Audit Act, and auditors '

Montreal Harbour Commission
from the office of ithe auditor general can be sent to inspect their accounts-in fact auditors were sent from Montreal and Vancouver during the course of last year and the results of their investigations embodied in reports.


George Gibson Coote: Who orders the officials to
conduct an audit, and where is it made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Minister of Finance
has authority under the Audit Act to send auditors to audit the accounts of harbour commissions.


George Gibson Coote: Is this audit permissive, or
is it compulsory? Is it done annually?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Minister of Finance
has the power under the Audit Act to send auditors to make an audit at any time he chooses.


George Gibson Coote: He may or may not send
them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the case, he may
or may not send them.
Mr. MaicLAREN (St. John):	What has
been the practice in the matter of conducting audits?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The practice has been to
have audits made, and audits were made in both Montreal and Vancouver last year.


Mr. MacLAREN (St. John):: Are the
audits made yearly?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They started in 1924.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest to the minister
that the practice should be made compulsory, and that a system of yearly audit should be instituted. If these commissions know that their operations are going to be audited by the Auditor General-or by the audit board if that is better, although I cannot see why it should be-I think their operations would be carried on in a much more satisfactory manner.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot see any objection to the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Will the minister
give us some information in regard to the amount of loans made to the harbour commission in Montreal and the total interest payable by that body; also whether any of these loans have been repaid or not. I can recall during the past few years different loans that have been made to harbour commissioners, and I was wondering whether any repayment is ever made.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Speaking offhand I may
say that the loans made to the Montreal harbour commission up to the present time total about $40,000,000. So far the interest on these loans has been paid by the harbour commission. Also speaking offhand I ithink I can say that none of the bonds which have been issued by the harbour commissions for these loans have matured.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Is it certain that
the harbour commission will be able to -take care of all the loans made to it? Also, before the minister answers that question, I would ask him if he has considered the possible effect of the deepening of the St. Lawrence, which -is a live question at the present time, and which may take away from Montreal some of the revenue which it has been receiving in the past, particularly in the grain handling business?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am free to say -that I
have no fear even the deepening of the St. Lawrence will prevent the port of Montreal from growing and developing in the future as it has done in the past. Even if the St. Lawrence is deepened, the port of Montreal will continue to expand just the same, because the business of the country will, as a result of the development, grow more rapidly than heretofore. Furthermore, the information we have from the commissioners is that the revenue is quite considerable and will be quite ample to take -care of -the interest upon these loans in the future as it has done in the past.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Has any provision
been made for taking care of the original loan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a sinking fund in connection with all these loans.


Robert Gardiner: Has that sinking fund
been kept up to the proper standard?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What is the rate of interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One per cent.


Robert Gardiner: Is any portion of this
twelve millions to be used in connection with the new bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not a cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the $12,000,000
intended for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is to cover:
dredging, $800,000; wharves, piers and basins, $5,400,000; plant and equipment, $155,000; shops and buildings, $322,000; rails and

Montreal Harbour Commission
electrification, $1,342,000; permanent Sheds, $300,000; grain elevators, $3,155,000. There is a sum of $142,000 made up of small amounts for small works in the harbour. It is admitted by almost everyone conversant with the shipping business that the port of Montreal lacks certain necessary facilities to meet modem requirements. The shipping interest has been representing to the department the absolute necessity of doing something in this direction, more particularly in regard to increasing the storage capacity of the elevators there.


Robert Gardiner: Will these different items total $12,000,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I have had the pleasure of
visiting the harbour in Montreal on several occasions and from very superficial observation I think as a rule they have made very fair use of the money parliament has voted, and so far as we hear in a general way Montreal harbour is well conducted. But what I should like to make sure of in conection with this bill is that an audit shall be instituted-as I said before, a yearly audit, because we are putting so much money into these harbour commissions that their expenditures should be audited just as well as the other government expenditures which we vote here.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question as to an
audit was raised by myself at the last session in connection with the Montreal harbour 'commission, and the minister after investigation pointed out that the Audit Act was available to the Minister of Finance to enable an audit to be made. The point that we endeavoured to make on that occasion was that this parliament should have some control, through the Auditor General's report, to investigate those accounts. For instance, it was clearly established that at least in one of the ports, that no man could find employment on the harbour board unless he had a card from a particular source signed by a particular individual. For example, in one of the interior elevators in this country a man may not find employment unless he has a card signed by a particular person. All that is bringing about a condition that makes men apprehensive as to where we are going in this respect. I shall have something to say in regard to the matter during the discussion as to bringing the port of Halifax under the act.
First of all the audit that is mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Goote) is an audit beyond the Audit Act. It is an

audit such as 'the Auditor General himself imposes upon the accounts of this country, so that in the Auditor General's report we may have an opportunity to understand what has been done with the money, and the public accounts committee of this parliament, if it so desires, may have an opportunity of investigating those accounts. That was the point that was made at last session with respect to the matter. The minister took it under advisement, the sense of the House being that there Should be an audit, and as I say, he returned with the view and made the statement that the matter could be dealt with through the audit board. The audit board is nothing more nor less than machinery that may be used by the Minister of Finance if he so desires. If he does not desire to use it, he will not, and if it is not at the moment particularly desirable to use it, it will not be used. If as the minister now says he is content to add to the bill a provision that the accounts shall be audited annually under the provisions of the Audit Act, that is some protection and, in my judgment, one that will go a long way towards meeting the objections that were urged to this measure last year. Perhaps the minister will recall the evening when the discussion took place and we drafted an amendment to the act. Subsequently, having regard to the provisions of the Audit Act and the explanation given by the minister and the Minister of Finance, the sense of the House was that that amendment should not be adopted. That is the fair way to put the matter, because no vote was taken upon it.
It seems to me that the old machinery under which these harbour commissions were established provided- a safeguard that is now gone. There was a provision that harbour commissioners should be elected by the community in which they lived and the harbour board consisted of a larger number than it now does. For instance, in the harbour of Quebec we have a very large investment which is returning no -money at all, yet we have increased that amount notwithstanding the fact that, with two or three exceptions, no interest has been paid in recent years. If there was some way in which the liability of the community could be linked with that of the nation and the community could exercise some say as to the appointment or election of commissioners, the system would be vastly improved.
As we are about to embark, according to the order paper, upon the passage of legislation that will bring at least one other part under the provisions of the statute in addition to the port of Vancouver, in which the west is so

Montreal Harbour Commission
vitally interested, it is highly desirable that we should thresh the matter out, because on the strength of this legislation the port of Montreal has made certain financial arrangements and gone ahead with part of the work in view of the fact that the legislation was passed by both houses at the last session and, not having received the royal assent, did not became effective. Under those circumstances I had not proposed to make any observations, believing that, as the -harbour commissioners of Montreal, relying upon this bill as it had passed both houses at the last session, had made certain expenditures last fall out of moneys they received from! other sources, it was highly desirable that the legislation should be enacted. But I should like the minister to consider the question whether in all these ports the local community should not have a voice in the election of commissioners so as to prevent the political character of the -commissioners -entirely dominating the situation, ensuring as such a condition does, employment to limited numbers of persons, and the development of a sort of Tammany Hall with respect to all the work of the harbour commissioners. That perhaps does not apply to the harbour of Montreal to the same extent that it does to some others, because, as everybody knows, the Montreal harbour board is a singularly effective body. When the bill is under discussion I will give some instances of what is happening at Vancouver, Victoria and the terminal elevator at Edmonton. The way to deal with the matter is to provide that one commissioner shall be elected by the people in order that they may have a direct and vital interest in the operation of the facilities of the -community in which they reside.


James Alexander Robb: I will leave it to my colleague to discuss the method of electing or appointing the harbour commissioners, but I fear from the observations of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) that there may be some misunderstanding in regard to the audit of the harbour commissions. It was that audit board which my hon. friend had in mind that made the audit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said.


James Alexander Robb: As regards the Auditor General going in and auditing the books of the Montreal harbour commission, there is no more sense in putting a staff in there than there would be in putting such a staff into all the railways of Canada. The Montreal harbour commission has been taking care of itself, providing its own interest and meeting its obligations all the time. But when the 32649-15
audit board was created a few years ago by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, he took the stand, and properly so, that the Minister of Finance should have the right to send that board to audit any organization of any kind to which the government were making a contribution. That was done purposely. We make -contributions in various ways to many harbours throughout the country. The port of Quebec is not the only port in Canada that does not meet its interest obligations. As a matter of fact the harbour board of Montreal is about the only harbour board in Canada that meets its obligations regularly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Vancouver always does.


James Alexander Robb: The Vancouver harbour board have been doing so, but they have been a little slow lately.


Mr. CLARK:: Is that recently, or was it not at the time the Dominion government had in their possession money belonging to the harbour board, and by mutual arrangement the interest payment was n-ot made because that money was not advanced? Have there been any recent instances of default?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the details; I do not carry them around with me. But I know we had to bring some pressure to bear on the Vancouver harbour board to have them meet their interest accounts.


John Arthur Clark: Is that since -this government came into office-I mean since September, 1926?


James Alexander Robb: I will not go into details as to dates because I do not carry those around with me. We have made large contributions to the harbours of St. John, Halifax and Toronto; we have spent large sums of money at -the head of the lakes at Fort William, and it was for that purpose that the audit board was put in. To insert in the act a provision that the Auditor General should audit all the harbour commissions would be only running up a large staff and unnecessarily adding expense to the country. I think the hon. gentleman should be satisfied to have the condition such that when the Minister of Finance, whoever he may be, determines that the audit board should go in and make an audit of those 'books, he shall have the power to do so. In that way the rights of the country and of the treasury will be properly safeguarded. We have had audits made of the Montreal harbour commission, and they have been tabled and are available to any member of the House.



Montreal Harbour Commission


Henry Herbert Stevens: This question of an adequate audit- has been discussed on several occasions. I appreciate what the minister says, that it is unwise to build up a staff that will simply be a duplication of some other staff, but perhaps this difficulty could be overcome if the Auditor General were appointed the auditor for the board, not necessarily having other auditors duplicating the work. The House ought to bear in mind- and this applies generally-that it is the people who advance these large sums. Montreal is admitted by all to be a well administered port; still, $40,000,000 odd is spent there. In my own city of Vancouver I presume, speaking offhand, about $15,000,000 is spent. Now that is money advanced by the people of Canada. These two harbour commissions pay the interest on these advances and provide for sinking fund. That is very good; it is highly commendable. On the other hand is it not reasonable that those who advance the money should have an opportunity in some manner of determining whether or not it is properly expended? When harbour commissioners appoint their own auditors, it is just the same as the management of a company appointing the auditors and the shareholders having nothing to do with their appointment. I pointed out last year-it as a principle not always followed, but it is a sound and a vital principle-that in the administration of all corporate bodies the shareholders appoint, or are supposed to appoint, the auditor, and the auditor is supposed to be the safeguarder of the shareholders' interest as between them and the management. So I suggest, as I have suggested before-and I say now in support of the suggestion of the hon. member for West Calgary-that the shareholders, represented by this parliament, should really be the appointees of the auditor, namely, the Auditor General of Canada. The great respect in which the institution of Auditor General is generally held throughout Canada is based upon the fulness of the report which he from year to year presents to parliament, and upon the freedom which parliament is allowed to scrutinize that report. We contend, and I am wholly in accord with the suggestion, that it would be better if the Auditor General were constituted the auditor of the harbour boards.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the port of Vancouver. I do not wish to inject here a discussion of that port, but I would like to call this to the attention of the committee as an argument in support of the very point we are advancing: The commissioners in the port of Vancouver have been appointed
rjVlr. Robb.]	,
by the government. As a result, these appointments are necessarily more or less political in their character. There is no question about it that when the harbour board was constituted in 1913, the commissioners were appointed as friends of the then government. In 1921 the incoming government removed the old commissioners and appointed three new ones. I may say-because the House ought to be made aware of it, although I think it is generally pretty well within its knowledge-that during the past two years there has been considerable criticism of the administration of that important port-criticism on the part of the board of trade, the shipping federation and other prominent organizations of business men. Arising out of that criticism, and supporting what was suggested by the hon. member for West Calgary a moment ago, I have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to have on these commissions an appointee identified with the local interests affected, such as in my own city, for instance, a representative of the board of trade, or of the shipping federation, or of the interests that are more or less directly identified with the business carried on through and by the harbour board. I have a very strong conviction that it would be desirable to do that.
Without wishing to be critical at the moment, I may say that the three new commissioners recently appointed in. Vancouver are all gentlemen of very excellent standing: they are personally men of integrity, respected by all those who know them and wherever they move. Nevertheless in spite of that fact there is a good deal of criticism because of the requests and suggestions of those using the harbour not being considered. I simply mention that as an illustration of what we have already said. We can do very much to remove the criticism of these commissions if, in the first place, a proper independent audit is made which would carry with it the full confidence of the people. Secondly, and here I am supporting what the hon. member for West Calgary said a moment ago, these commissions should have within their membership individuals who are identified with the interests using the port. For a long time it has been felt that the great province of Alberta, with its large interests in the shipping of wheat through the port of Vancouver, should have been represented on the Vancouver harbour board, and I offer to the government now this suggestion that they take into their very earnest consideration the enlargement of that board and the appointment thereon of a representative person from Alberta who would understand the

Montreal Harbour Commission
needs and the interests of that province. I think that would tend to bring about greater harmony between the different sections of the country using that great port. The situation may not be quite the same at Montreal, and perhaps the local interests can very well take care of it, but there is a rather peculiar and delicate situation in the case of Vancouver.
When the Minister of Finance intimated a moment ago that there had been some default in the payment of interest by the Vancouver harbour board, I was very much surprised.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say default; I said
delay.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot distinguish between the two. If there is delay in payment of interest, it must be delay beyond the time when the interest is due; therefore t(he interest must be in default. It might be in default for only one day or for a year. I made inquiries early last session-or it might have been the previous session; I will go back two years anyway-and was advised by officials of the government, that the interest and sinking fund had been well maintained in regard to the port of Vancouver. I certainly am very, very much surprised, chagrined, indeed, to think that the port of Vancouver should in any way default either in the sinking fund or in the payment of interest. There is no need for it, and I say to the government: Not only put on pressure, but see to it that there is no such dereliction on the part of the commissioners in the payment of their proper obligations, because goodness knows they are collecting high enough fees. I am almost tempted now to go into another subject and to say that these fees ought not to be as high as they are, but there is no reason in the world why out of the large earnings of that port the interest should not be promptly paid and all provisions in regard to the sinking fund properly maintained.
I conclude by supporting my hon. friend from West Calgary, and in urging upon the government these two points: That the Auditor General be constituted the auditing power of the harbour commissioners-I am referring to commissioners who receive money from the exchequer direct in the way of loans or grants-and that these boards, or at least some of them where different interests are affected, should include representatives of the local interests using the .ports.


Charles Stephen Booth: I should like to endorse the position that has just been taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre
with regard to the question of auditing. I recall several years ago, when some of us were urging bank inspection, that the then Minister of Finance took the position that the ground was covered when the government were able under the existing arrangements to send in an inspector whenever they deemed it advisable. That is precisely the ground that has been taken this afternoon by the Minister of Finance with regard to the audit question. Many hon. members will recall that after that position had been taken regarding bank inspection there occurred the failure of the Home Bank, which brought home to the public at large the necessity for a more adequate system of inspection. It was then provided that the government should assume responsibility for inspection. It had been stated that if there were a government inspector, a very large staff would have to be employed. I think it was later recognized that this was not essential, and legislation was passed providing for the appointment of am inspector-general who would have charge in a general way of all inspection. It seems a very reasonable thing that something of this kind should be done with regard to these important commissions. I do not know why there should even need to be a duplication of auditors. If the auditing is to be done by the government it would be quite unnecessary that the harbour board should have its own auditors. I gladly support the position already taken.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me the proposal advanced that the Auditor General should do the work of the harbour commission is so logical and reasonable that it should not be necessary to say anything more in favour of it, except to commend it to the good judgment of the members of the government. Rather than involve extra expense it would probably save a good deal of money, because if the Auditor General were the official auditor for the harbour commission the Finance minister would certainly never 'be called upon to send out auditors under the audit board. So that there would be distinct saving, and as I know the Finance minister is always looking for a place to save something in the way of expenditure, I gladly commend the scheme to him and hope it will receive the approval of the government.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 60, to provide for a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
22S

Soldier Settlement Act



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that is is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, and to provide-
1.	That a settler whose land agreement with the board has not been terminated may make application for the revaluation of the said land, and that the depreciation to be determined shall be the diminution 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.
2.	That where it is shown that there has been depreciation in the value of the land and improvements, credit shall be given the settler as on the standard date in 1926, with the amount of the depreciation as finally determined, and the balance owing by the settler shall be consolidated and the total cost of the property may be amortized over the remaining period of the loan.
3.	That the expenditures necessarily incurred thereby shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Arthur Clark: Would the minister explain?


Robert Forke: I do not think it is
necessary to take up any time at ithe present moment in discussing this resolution, Hon. members who were in the House during the last parliament will remember that the bill was introduced and was discussed and passed in the House, but afterwards, when it was sent to the Senate, it was amended in some respects. In fact the amendments restored the bill almost to the position it was in when it first came into the House of Coimmions. I intend to introduce a bill based on the resolution along the lines of the bill of last session as it came from the Senate, with the amendments that were added to it after it left the House of Commons. Owing to the dissolution there was no opportunity 'last session for ithe bill to come back to1 the House. I think most of ithe members who were in the House during the last parliament are familiar with the whole subject and familiar with the bill. However, if this resolution is allowed to pass there will be ample opportunity to discuss it when the ball is before the House.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister explain
to the committee just what clause 1 means?
IMr. Coote.]


Robert Forke: I think it means just exactly what it says. I do not know what other explanation the hon. member wants, unless he wants a little amusement out of the matter.


John Arthur Clark: That answer does not amuse me very much. The section requires some interpretation, and I should like to have it interpreted.


Robert Forke: I will read it.


John Arthur Clark: I have read it and I want It interpreted. I would like to know, in simple language, what it means.


Robert Forke: Will the hon. gentleman tell me his difficulty?


John Arthur Clark: I want to know what it
means.


Robert Forke: It means what it says.


John Arthur Clark: If that is the best the
minister can do I will have to accept it.


Robert Forke: If the hon. member cannot
understand it, it is not my fault.


John Arthur Clark: This is one of the most
extraordinary exhibitions I have ever seen given by a minister in this House. Here is a resolution ithe language of whidh certainly is not simple. To me, though I am a lawyer, it is open to two or three different interpretations. I should like to know in simple language just what that clause means. With all due deference to the minister, I think I am entitled to an explanation, because depending upon the meaning given that clause by him, I have some Very vital questions to ask and perhaps some remarks to make.


Robert Forke: I should lake the hon. member to put his question. I would ask the committee to allow the resolution to pass, and when the bill is introduced there will be ample time for discussion. It seems to me that the hon. member is trying to create a difficulty that does not really exist. However, if he will ask me a plain question I will try to give him a plain answer.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is very
plain:	A brief explanation of the clause is
all that is asked. The House is entitled to that, and certainly every minister always grants it. I think my hon. friend is making a mistake in declining to give an answer.

Soldier Settlement Act


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I will read
the clause and try to elucidate some of the difficulties that seem to be bothering hon. gentlemen on the other side.
1. That a settler whose land agreement with the board has not been terminated may make application for the revaluation of the said land,

	.
I suppose that is all right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that apply to crown land as well?


Robert Forke: It applies to land on which
soldier settlers have been settled; that is all it means.
*-and that the depreciation to be determined shall be the diminution 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.
I think that is not very difficult to understand. We know that when those lands were sold to the settlers they were sold at a very high valuation. Land values have depreciated since that time, and it is generally felt that something should be done to remove the disabilities under which the soldier settlers are suffering through having bought their land at inflated prices. It seems to me that that is as clear as it could be expressed.


John Arthur Clark: What is "diminution in the
present value?"


Robert Forke: A board of arbitration will
be appointed to work out the present value. That is not as easy to arrive at as my hon. friend seems to imagine.


John Arthur Clark: I want to know what we are submitting to this board of arbitration.


Robert Forke: That will appear in the
bill.


John Arthur Clark: Then after you pass the
legislation will the board of arbitration interpret what the statute means, or is the House to find out now?


Robert Forke: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is labouring under so many difficulties that it will be impossible for me to enlighten him this afternoon.


John Arthur Clark: If I could get an interpretation of this clause I might have no difficulties.


Robert Forke: If the hon. member reads
it often enough he may get some light as to its meaning.


John Arthur Clark: I do not propose to encumber Hansard. I want an explanation.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I think the
objection the hon. member is offering is not for the purpose of getting information, and I think he had better let it go for the present.


John Arthur Clark: No, I do not propose to
let it go.


Robert Forke: Then proceed.


John Arthur Clark: I want an explanation, but
if the minister admits to the committee that he can give no explanation, I suppose I must be satisfied.


Robert Forke: Will the hon. gentleman
kindly tell me what he wants?


John Arthur Clark: I want to know what "diminution in the present value" means.


Robert Forke: The difference between the
valuation wo put on that land to-dlay and the valuation put on it at the time the settler bought the land. Anything further?


John Arthur Clark: What will be the date of tha "present value"?


Robert Forke: After the bill has been passed by parliament and a board has been appointed and has made a valuation; that will be devaluation.


John Arthur Clark: I am afraid that does not answer my question at all. I want to know what is the " present value


Robert Forke: The present value will be
the value appraised by the board of valuation to be appointed for that purpose.


John Arthur Clark: The House will not decide?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose diminution in
the present value is not what is really meant. The clause is badly drawn. Really it is the difference between the former value and the present value; but the resolution says " diminution in the present value ".


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: The difference between the present value and the former value is what is meant.


Robert Forke: The resolution was drawn by the law officers. The meaning may not be stated in the best language possible, but I am not responsible. We will try to make it plain in the bill so that hon. members will have no difficulty in understanding what is meant. Really I do not think any good purpose is being served by the hon. member at the present time, with all due deference to him.
Soldier Settlement Act


Hugh Guthrie: We have a right to expect civil answers to our questions. The minister will find as he proceeds that a soft answer is very effective.


Robert Forke: I do not wish anyone to be under the impression that I am not trying to answer questions civilly. I trust that I shall always be ready to give a civil answer to any question asked me across the floor of the House. If I thought there was any real difficulty in understanding the first clause of this resolution, I certainly would have taken a little more care in trying to explain it. But I want to bear tribute to the intelligence of the hon. member for Burrard; I think he can understand that clause just as readily as anyone in this committee-if he wants to.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, really I am
astonished at the minister's stand. I asked him a question on a phrase which gave me trouble, and apparently it also gave trouble to my hon. leader (Mr. Guthrie) and to my hon. friend from West Calgary-two very able lawyers. I can attribute no meaning whatever to clause 1 in this resolution. I saw it only a few minutes ago, and after a cursory reading I am unable to understand what " diminution in the present value " means. It seems to me that the present value could not diminish. How could it? But if the government intends to present a resolution to revalue soldier lands on the basis of their value to-day and the value when their purchase was recommended, and give the soldier settlers credit for the difference, there may be some meaning to it; but this resolution does not say that at all.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Yes, it does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The present value has not diminished.


John Warwick King: The present value .-as compared with the price at which the [DOT]settler agreed to purchase.


John Millar: I think if members would read the clause there would be no difficulty, [DOT]starting with:
-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.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The diminution must be in the former value.


John Millar: That is plain enough for any ten year old child to understand.


John Arthur Clark: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister amend his resolution right now so that it will have some meaning. We want to pass effective legislation for this purpose.


James Alexander Robb: What does my hon. friend suggest?


John Arthur Clark: Offhand, I would say, " reduction in the former value " rather than in the " present value


Robert Forke: Would the word "difference" suit my hon. friend instead of "diminution"?


John Arthur Clark: I think if you struck out the word " present " the clause would mean something.


Robert Forke: All right.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring up what I think is a very serious matter on Vancouver island with respect to an area where soldiers' lands were purchased at the value then set by the board. Those lands to-day appear to have no market value at all and no value for agricultural purposes. I wanted some explanation from the minister for the reason that I have a letter to-day from one of these settlers. He and his brother, two returned soldiers, purchased the land, which was passed by the Soldier Settlement Board, for $13,000. I am quite certain his brother did not see it; I can tell that from the letter, but whether he personally Saw it or not I do not know. There is a possibility that he did not see it, for he accepted the valuation of the board as giving the true value of the land. He went on the land and since 'that time has been practically in a state of starvation. He paid one-tenth down, and subsequent valuations indioate that the land is of mo value whatsoever for agricultural purposes.
At six o'dock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill 'No. 41, to incorporate Columbia Life Assurance Company-Mr. Stevens.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on a proposed resolution to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919-Mr. Forke-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to ask the minister a few questions in regard to this resolution with the object of getting an explanation, and

Soldier Settlement Act
I shall preface that request with some very brief observations. During the last week the House has witnessed a spirit of courtesy and co-operation which I think has been unparalleled in my seventeen sessions in parliament. We have expedited, or tried to expedite, the passage of the various measures. This afternoon we advanced several important bills for the Minister of Finance with scarcely any comment, and I must say that the ministry have been very prompt in making brief statements and explanations of the various measures introduced. This fact we welcome and appreciate. Now, speaking for myself alone I am exceedingly anxious that we should expedite the business of this session. We hlave had a couple of years of pretty hard parliamentary duty, and I think both the country and parliament will be the better for a little surcease from bitterness and controversy. I can say on behalf of my colleagues on this side that we have tendered our hearty co-operation and, as far as we could extend it, courtesy in these matters, and I should be very sorry to see this spirit dissipated in any way. It takes two to make a bargain as well as two to make a quarrel, and if we have a response from the ministry such as we have had during tire past few days I think we can assure them of reasonable co-operation. Of course we reserve always our right to question and criticise measures-and I may 'add that the ministry will find a keen and critical opposition very often a very valuable factor.
I would remind the committee that last year this particular measure was perhaps one of the-I was going to say the most poorly drafted measures introduced. I am not placing the blame upon the minister who had the bill in charge, because there are officers of the House who are supposed to assist in the drafting of these measures; but last year I recall that the whole House was engaged, sitting after sitting, in correcting the drafting of the bill that was presented to it. It was very faulty drafting, and the minister withdrew it two or three times and had certain sections redrafted. That is what occasioned the query regarding the drafting of the present resolution, and while the point has been referred to already I should like to allude to it again. It is quite clear to me that the wording of the resolution, and of this particular clause as it now reads-it has not yet been formally changed-namely, "the diminution in the present value" is a meaningless term, or a term that certainly does not fit in with the intent of the proposed legislation. The intent is to provide for the
diminution of the difference between the original price and what the price may be at a given time fixed by parliament, which is an altogether different thing. Had it specified a diminution in the purchase price, which would be the exact reverse of the present reading there might be some sense in it, but as the provision now reads it has no sense. What I want to ask the minister is this: In the light of his assertion that this is the same measure that was introduced last session-and I think he described it as the same resolution and the same bill which had passed both houses of parliament-how does he explain the resolution of last year as compared with this one? There is very little resemblance between them. This resolution consists of .three very short clauses; the resolution last year occupied a whole page and contained seven different specified clauses. Furthermore, certain matters which were referred to in the resolution last year are not referred to in the present resolution. Now, Mr. Chairman, had we accepted the minister's statement and passed this resolution we would have been more or less precluded from offering criticism later with respect to the difference between the two resolutions. The minister should explain to the committee what changes there are in this resolution from the preceding one and the reasons for the changes.
I have no doubt they are sound and probably an improvement, because the original resolution of last year, with the bill based thereon, was certainly far from a perfect measure. After the minister has stated the changes we shall be able to judge whether they are matters of principle or merely matters of detail. As I received the journals of the House only a few minutes ago I have not yet bad time to analyse the long resolution of last year as compared with the resolution of this year, but certainly there is a marked difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
minister replies I might say a word to my hon. friend about the resolutions as they appear on the order paper this year as compared with previous years. Last year there was a good deal of comment in the House about the length of resolutions. In many cases the resolutions were, I will not say longer than the bills that were introduced, but they were practically as long; they comprised nearly the whole of the bills. The purpose of a resolution is not to go into the details of a bill, but rather to acquaint the House with its main purpose and any major considerations of which account should be taken.
Soldier Settlement Act

Last year the government drew the attention of the law officers of the crown to this feature and it was again drawn to their attention this year. They were asked whether there was any necessity of making the resolutions unduly long and whether the purpose of parliament could not be as well, if not better, served by an abbreviated rather than by a lengthy resolution. The resolution as drafted now is one case where the law officers of the crown themselves have cut down the original resolution to a length they regard as quite sufficient for the purpose it is intended to serve.


Charles A. Stewart: With regard to what my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has said in connection with the bill of last year, I think his memory does not serve him well. The reason that the bill was withdrawn on three different occasions was that an endeavour was made to meet widened powers suggested by members of the committee-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: -and not because the drafting of the bill was faulty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was some faulty
drafting.


Charles A. Stewart: In some
slight respects there was, but the reason the bill was withdrawn and amended from time to time was in order to meet, as the government has always endeavoured to do, the divergent views of members of the committee of the House with respect to soldier legislation. When the bill went to the Senate practically every amendment suggested in committee of this House was repealed and the bill came back in its original form. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) was then on this side of the House and he suggested that we pass the bill as amended by the Senate. That is the bill which is being reintroduced on this occasion. While it may not meet the views of many hon. members, nevertheless as it ran the gauntlet last year in both houses, it was felt that the bill would be acceptable in the form in which it came back to this House for ratification.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unfortunately the Minister of the Interior was not in the House just before dinner. What I was trying to do was to protest mildly against the treatment that we were receiving from the minister who had the bill in charge. I desired to suggest to the minister that if he would attempt to meet us frankly in our request for an explanation, the passage of the bill 
would be facilitated. I wanted also to emphasize this, as was borne out by the statement of the Minister of the Interior, that this was a very difficult measure. It engaged the attention of this chamber on both sides for many sittings and a genuine effort was made to make the bill as serviceable and effective as possible. The Minister of the Interior then in charge of the bill re-^ sponded to several suggestions which were offered from this side of the House by way of amendment. If the minister will be good enough to explain briefly the resolution in its amended and abbreviated form, which may be and, I hope, is an improvement on the resolution that was introduced last year, but which is certainly not the same resolution, matters will be facilitated.


Robert Forke: I have not before me the
resolution as it came before the House last j'ear. Perhaps the explanation that the Prime Minister has given may explain why there are some differences in the resolution of this year. I think the committee will sympathize with me when I explain that when I read the resolution I found that exactly the same phraseology was used1 as was used in the bill of last year after it passed the House of Commons and passed1 the Senate. It ran the gauntlet of the House of Commons with exactly the same phraseology; it ran the gauntlet of the Senate and passed the Senate in the same way. Now it comes back to the House in exactly the same wording, and yet the hon. member (Mr. Clark) who questioned me could not understand what it meant. To me it seemed plain enough. Perhaps I may have been lacking in giving credit to the hon. member for seeking information, but I will read the phrase as it occurred in the bill:
The depreciation in value to be determined shall be the diminution-
Exactly the same words.
-in the present value of the land and improvements sold to the settler as compared with the price-
And so on. The same wording is used as that in which the bill pased the Senate and the House of Commons. That, my hon. friends say to-niight, has no meaning. I cannot understand it; I am quite willing to use any other words.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are those words to which
my hon. friend refers in the bill?


Robert Forke: They are in the bill that
passed the Senate last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then they are meaningless.

Soldier Settlement Act


Robert Forke: My hon. friends allowed
them to pass last year.


John Arthur Clark: A different bill came back
from the Senate.


Robert Forke: I am not in a position to
say whether the same phrase was used in the original bill. I am reading from the bill that came back from the Senate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me offer to the minister a practical suggestion, one that, I think, must be adopted. This wording must be changed if the bill is to be of any value. I would suggest that it read:
And that the depreciation to be determined shall be the diminution in the original purchase price.
That is what the minister is trying to get at, not the diminution in the present value. There can be no diminution in the present value. There may be diminution in the original purchase price. The wording might be:
The difference between the purchase price and the present ascertained value.
I want the minister to appreciate the fact that the bon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was offering this suggestion to him this afternoon. If the minister will respond to our suggestions this matter can be corrected in a few moments and we can have the legislation put through in something like decent order.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Might I say that the
observation of the hon. gentleman would not be sensible at all if he reads the bill all through?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will. If my hon.
friend wants to argue the point we can do so; but I have already pointed out that we are anxious to facilitate the passing of the bill, and if the minister will accept our suggestions the passage of the bill will be facilitated. There can obviously be no diminution in the present value.


Thomas McMillan: I understand that. Let
the hon. member read the whole clause as he would have it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not drafting it. I
offer the suggestion to the minister that it should read:
The depreciation to be determined shall be the diminution in the original purchase price.
I offer the minister another suggestion; that it should read "shall be the difference in the value" from the original purchase, and so on. If the minister would accept that suggestion, or would strike out the word "present" we could get along with the business.


John Arthur Clark: I understood both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works this afternoon to agree that the clause should lead, "diminution in the value," and so on. Do I understand that the Minister of Immigration does not approve of that suggestion?


Robert Forke: I have not had time yet to consider it, Mr. Chairman.


John Arthur Clark: That was this afternoon.


Robert Forke: I am quite prepared to meet
hon. members reasonably. I think we are all anxious to have the bill in the very best possible shape for all concerned, and if it is thought that striking out the word "present" will make the clause any better, I am quite agreeable. Will that satisfy hon. members?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That seems to be all
right.


Robert Forke: I am willing to strike out the word "present" then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the minister's prerogative to move that the word "present" be struck out.


Robert Forke: I move, Mr. Chairman, that
the word "present" in the third line of clause 1 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Peter McGibbon: What is included under
the term "improvements"?


Robert Forke: Ordinary farm improvements, I suppose, such as fencing and a great many other things. It is pretty hard to state definitely just what would come under the head of improvements. You would have to see the actual farm and see what had been done.


Peter McGibbon: We are not discussing
what the hon. gentleman supposes might be included. We are entitled to know what he means. He surely knows what he means.


John Millar: It seems to me that striking out the word "present" makes it worse than it is now. The diminution in value when? Does it mean a month after the land was originally purchased, two months after, five years after, or when?


Peter McGibbon: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I have certain rights in this House, and I do not intend that you or anybody else should deprive me of them. When I ask a question I am entitled to an answer.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman has asked a question of the minister. Of course, I cannot force the minister to answer it.
Soldier Settlement Act


Alan Webster Neill: I was in favour of the change in language suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre until the word "present" was struck out. I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that striking out the word "present" is going to make it a great deal worse, because the first question the layman will ask will be, "The value when?" Surely it is desirable to state the period when you are going to make the comparison. I do not like the word "diminution" very well, but this is only the resolution, and the word may not be in the bill, so it is not important just now. It would read better, I think, if it read "shall be the difference 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" but as it reads now, "shall be the diminution in the value of the land and the improvements sold to the settler," it might almost be taken to mean the value at which it was sold. It leaves it open to discuss the question, at what date? I cannot see any object to be gained by striking out the word "present" unless you go further and insert the whole suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Peter McGibbon: I wish to protest against the contempt with which the minister is treating this committee. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard before six o'clock asked for certain information and he was sneered at, and the minister is now treating the committee with contempt. He might as well understand now as hereafter that if he is going to get his bills and estimates through this House he will have to give a little consideration to members on this side. If he does not, we will make him.


John Frederick Johnston: I was following the remarks of the minister very carefully, and I cannot see how he can be charged with treating any hon. member with contempt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who made the chairman the judge?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Forke: I am entirely at a loss to understand my hon. friend's suggestion that I have treated him with contempt.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another great
omission in this resolution. Last session the question as to who was to make the valuation, what was to be the machinery, was one of the chief bones of contention. There is nothing in this resolution to give us the slightest inkling. That was one of the cardinal principles of the act of last session, but we know noth-[The Chairman.]
ing about that from the resolution before us. I admit that a great many details should be left out of a resolution, but this is a very important point. What board are you forming? Who is to determine this question?


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my
hon. friend will agree that it expedites business to shorten the resolution, and give the full details in the bill?


Hugh Guthrie: The rules of the House provide that the resolution shall acquaint the House generally with the contents of the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: In the most meagre form possible.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not say anything about meagre.
M(r. STEWART (Edmonton):	My hon.
friend will admit that if progress is to be made with the business of the House we cannot discuss the whole details of a bill both on the resolution and when the bill itself is brought down.


Hugh Guthrie: I have heard the details
discussed many a time on a resolution in this House.


Charles A. Stewart: I have too, but it is certainly a means of provoking a great deal of unnecessary discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: If the information was
given it would expedite business very much. Is there any object in withholding the information? What machinery do you propose? There is nothing in the resolution to show. The easiest way to overcome the difficulty would be to tell us.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister said that the bill he intended to introduce was in the terms of the bill as it passed the Senate and came back to this House.


Hugh Guthrie: This is not the same parliament as last year.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the terms of that bill are pretty well understood.


Peter McGibbon: You could give us the information in half the time.


John Livingstone Brown: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to have a committee to revise the rules of the House, one point they might very well consider is this question of the introduction of bills preceded by a resolution. A resolution is undoubtedly desirable in some cases, but in a case of this kind it is absolutely unnecessary to give the details. The bill is one on which there is no difference of opinion in the House. This legis-

Soldier Settlement Act
lation has been before parliament for the last five years, and we all know its purport. It would certainly facilitate business to allow the resolution to pass, so that we could have the bill read and go into commititee on it, when all these details could be discussed. Undoubtedly it is wise that some bills should be introduced by way of a resolution, and at times it may be desirable to give all the details or at least some details. But in view of the history of this particular legislation it seems to me that we should be only wasting time to discuss the details on the resolution, for when the bill comes down we shall see exactly what is in it and will have full opportunity to discuss all the details.


John Arthur Clark: I suggest that it would be & very simple matter, if the minister has the bill before him, to tell us what the provision in the bill was as it came back from the Senate. It would take only a moment to do that, and would eliminate these long speeches. I for one took a very great deal of interest in this legislation last year. The bill was amended in many particulars in this House and re-amended in the Senate, and I cannot recall just in what form it came back to us. Moreover, I am sure many of the new members know nothing about it.


Air. LAPOINTE:: The bill will be printed, distributed and passed in its final form before hon. members will be asked to discuss the various provisions of it.


John Arthur Clark: We are not discussing it
now. We want the minister to tell us what the principle is.


Ernest Lapointe: This practice of having
all bills which provide for the expenditure of public money preceded by a resolution is an old custom which has existed a very long time, and there is that difference between such legislation and ordinary legislation. It has never been claimed that the resolution should be framed as the bill would be, and I do not see why my hon. friend should be anxious to ask, for instance, to have a certain word inserted in the resolution, because that resolution will not be the law. It is merely advice given to the House that a bill will be introduced which will be discussed, and it will be changed; the language of the bill will be modified according to the wish of the House. But surely we are wasting our time trying to find a better word for some word which appears in that resolution.


John Arthur Clark: I do not see how the
House would be giving authority to introduce a bill if we passed a meaningless resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: It is merely for the expenditure of money.
Mr, CLARK:	I am not going to debate
this at length, because I think it is quite useless, I was anxious to find out what it meant. It meant nothing, as has been admitted by members on .the other side, but I think the difficulty has been cleared up to my satisfaction. I wanted to draw to the attention of the minister and the government the situation that follows upon the interpretation of this resolution as it has now been explained. I commenced before six o'clock to draw the attention of the minister to a particular class of case and I wanted to know whether any provision was going to be made to meet that particular case. A man, for instance, purchased a piece of property on Vancouver island; the price was $13,000. The Soldier Settlement Board recommended a loan on that basis. The soldier has resided there since the purchase, but has never at any time been able to make enough to pay interest. He had, however, placed in that purchase probably all of his savings. It has since been ascertained that the property is valueless as an agricultural property. There is a large number of these cases, where men who came back after serving their country, and who were unfamiliar with prices in the first place and perhaps unfamiliar with agriculture, or at least unfamiliar with and not judges of the fertility of land, relied upon the judgment of the experts provided by the Soldier Settlement Board. The case to which I refer was in the constituency, I think, of my hon. friend from Nanaimo. In that case the man served his country, returned to Canada, accepted the advice of the Soldier Settlement Board and invested all his savings in the property, and has not been able to make a living, much less pay interest.


Alan Webster Neill: How much did he borrow?


John Arthur Clark: I have not the amount before me, but my hon. friend can judge from the amount of the valuation.


Alan Webster Neill: He probably borrowed the
full amount that he could obtain.


John Arthur Clark: He probably did, but it
does not matter whether he borrowed one thousand or ten thousand, the land is valueless, and it was passed upon by a government official. As a matter of fact I think his contract has been cancelled because he did not pay. He has lost his right to come under this legislation and have the land revalued, or have it established that the land was commercially valueless. That class of case is entitled to better treatment, and that case should be provided for in this resolution.
Soldier Settlement Act

There are not so many cases of this kind that this country cannot afford to take care of an occasional mistake, or of many mistakes, made by the government officials in valuing the land. We can afford to take that man to another piece of land, give him credit for the amount he paid on the valueless land, and enable him to get another start in life. To-day immigrants who are strangers are assisted to come in and take up land. Men from the mother country are coming in and receiving assistance, and great care is being taken in the choice of the land upon which they are placed. They are being given privileges that our own Canadians who served this country over a period of years are denied, I make, therefore, this request-and I think it is a very reasonable one-that that class of case be taken care of now. That is what I had in mind before the adjournment when I asked the Minister of Immigration a question about the meaning of the resolution.


John Livingstone Brown: If anything is necessary
to illustrate the absurdity of the situation in which the House now finds itself, it is the speech of the hon. member. Here we are dealing with a resolution providing for the introduction of a bill. In that bill when introduced there will be undoubtedly a clause defining those who are to benefit by the bill. For anything the hon. member knows his particular case may be provided for.


John Arthur Clark: I know that it is not, because it is not provided for in the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not necessary that it. should be.


John Arthur Clark: I am drawing attention to it in the hope that it will be provided for.


John Livingstone Brown: The resolution does not indicate anybody who will be benefited by the bill, and I suggest that it will be the part of wisdom to wait for the appearance of the bill and then let the hon. gentleman make his speech.


Hugh Guthrie: Unfortunately the rules
and practice of the House provide that the bill must originate in this committee; we must know what the bill is. The origin of the whole measure is here in the committee, and the origin of the whole measure must be submitted to His Excellency. That is why we are entitled to the information. Many times a discussion is left over until the hill is drafted. The matter is as broad as it is long. When the Minister of Railways introduced his resolution to the House, with his well-
known courtesy (he explained it to the House a.nd when the bill came it required very little discussion. All we ask is a reasonable explanation of the bill. Is there any reason for withholding the bill? We have rights and are bound to maintain them. The expeditious way is to answer the questions as we ask them, and I ask what machinery does the government propose to adopt for the valuation of the soldiers' land-a question the minister can answer in a moment. Why does he not do so?


Robert Forke: I have not had an opportunity. I have been willing to answer it for ten minutes. It is machinery that was provided in the bill as it left tlhe Senate last year.


Hugh Guthrie: That gives me no information.


Robert Forke: The machinery that is proposed will be the Soldier Settlement Board and the representatives of the settlers. If they are unable to agree it will be referred to the Exchequer court. That is the machinery that is proposed in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Referred to the Exchequer court?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That was
the amendment proposed by the Senate.


John Arthur Clark: That was never before the
House of Commons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might point out to the minister that we asked in the interests of the settler that any dispute should be referred to the local county court judge. I recall a very long discussion on the point, and I think my hon. friend-now the Minister of Immigration and Colonization-when he sat over here spoke along those lines himself. The point, really the most important in the whole bill, is whether or not we are going to give to the soldier settlers in these various localities a fair chance to get their revaluations made. Now the minister tells us there is to be a reference to the Exchequer court. I ask any member of this House, what chance has a poor settler in British Columbia or the prairie provinces to get a revaluation if he has to take his appeal to the Exchequer court here in Ottawa? For all the good it will do him you might just as wrell toss this resolution out of the House at once. There is not the remotest ghost of a chance of his getting any remedial treatment. I submit that that would be worse than the original suggestion in the resolution last year, from which this resolu-

Soldier Settlement Act
tion, I repeat, is wholly different, because the former resolution included not only provision for the adjustment of these things and that the expenditure incurred should come out of the consolidated revenue fund, but it also recited and indicated the method by which this was to be accomplished. Through my hon. leader we have elicited that this is an entirely new measure, and yet the minister told us a few minutes ago that it was along the same lines as that of last year.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, when I introduced the resolution this afternoon I explained that the bill which would follow it would be along the lines of the bill passed by the Senate-I hope my hon. friend gets that-and that that bill provided for a reference to the Exchequer court.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	My hon. friend never
told us about the Exchequer court until a few minutes ago.


Robert Forke: I stated that the bill to be introduced would be along the lines of the bill amended by the Senate, which provided that where the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler could not agree the case would be referred to the Exchequer court. So all my hon. friend's criticism relates to the bill that the Senate passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are not here judging
the Senate.


Robert Forke: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. gentleman a minute ago said that I gave no information as to what the bill would be. If he will refer to Hansard tomorrow he will find that I am correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend spoke of
a bill that 'had passed the Senate and the House of Commons, but I am not going to quibble about that at all. What I am pointing out is that the resolution before us does not give a fair indication of the contents of the proposed bill which is 'about to be introduced; we are only now learning piece by piece what its provisions will be. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) read us a lecture just now about losing time; I think he would have been 'better employed if he had not wasted the time of the House with those observations. The fadt of the matter is, Mr. Chairman', that this resolution purports to contain the main principles of the bill, and the bill to follow is not supposed to depart from the resolution. Whether we like it or not, that is the rule of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
remember the resolution which preceded the introduction of a bill in this House to acquire
the whole of the Canadian Northern railway system, involving an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars? That was a resolution of only two lines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no doubt that that resolution was very comprehensively drawn.


Ernest Lapointe: Like Mr. Meighen, you are supposed to know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think this resolution is
an improvement on the resolution of last year, but it does leave out this vital point-the nature or character of the arbitrating body that ^hall determine the revaluation.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as I went through a five or six day grilling last year on a similar bill, may I direct the attention of hon. members to exactly what happened on that occasion? When that bill was introduced my hon. friend from Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) argued strongly that the matter he has referred to to-night would be embodied in the bill; that is, that individuals who were not then resident on the land would be given consideration. I remember his spending several hours on that point.


John Arthur Clark: I never spent several hours.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
finding any fault with the attitude of my hon. friend, but I think it was pointed out last year how hard it was to take cognizance of those Who were not then resident on the land. I merely mention that in order that my hon. friend's memory may be refreshed as to his plea on that occasion.


John Arthur Clark: To-night I was speaking for the men who are at present on the land, but who have been practically foreclosed and ordered off.


Charles A. Stewart: I misunderstood my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: I realize the impossibility of following men who disappeared perhaps three or four years ago.


Charles A. Stewart: The individual he is speaking of to-night is still on the land?


John Arthur Clark: I think he is still there, but he is ordered off.


Charles A. Stewart: He comes
within the bill.


John Arthur Clark: I think not.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, those
resident on the land come within the four comers of the bill.
Soldier Settlement Act


John Arthur Clark: If his land is found to be commercially valueless, how is he covered under this bill; and what will be done?


Charles A. Stewart: Nothing will be done unless there is some value in the iand.


John Arthur Clark: I think the minister appreciates that there are many cases where men have gone on land that may have a nominal value; but the minister himself would not go on that land, and could not make a living off it if he did-in fact no human being could sustain himself there. That land might have a value of, say, $5 an acre. The result of the bill of last year, as I saw it, would be to give that man credit for the price he paid, less its then present nominal value, which might be $200. He would be required to pay only $200, but he would be left on that barren rock. He could not be dealt with under this resolution.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend cites what is -an almost impossible case.


John Arthur Clark: No, there are many of them.


Charles A. Stewart: I take my hon. friend's word for it. In the bill there is no provision to hand money back to the settler; that was clearly explained last year. If my hon. friend introduced a principle of that sort it would be so far-reaching and involve so many difficulties that the whole scheme would be impossible. Now my hon. friend has relieved my mind to the extent that the individual is still on the land and can be dealt with as generously as circumstances will allow. If the land is valueless, of course the case is to some extent hopeless.


John Arthur Clark: That is what I want provided for. I say that man has been misled. There are enough of these cases to warrant making provision for them in this bill by authorizing the Soldier Settlement Board to take men so circumstanced and transfer them to another area where the land would be fit to cultivate. There is plenty of land in this country available for that purpose. Of course, I am assuming that the men come up to a certain standard of fitness as agriculturists and are worth encouraging. In the majority of cases I think those men would qualify.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is arguing now for what was provided m the former bill before it went to the Senate. I do not know in what shape it was returned to this House. But the present bill which my colleague is introducing is a copy of the bill which was amended by the Senate. The 
hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) rose in this seat and asked me, when I occupied the seat across the floor, whether I had any -objection to offer to the amendments of the Senate. I glanced hastily at the bill and was informed that it had been amended practically to its original form. I am bound to say that I doubt very much whether provision for decision by the Exchequer court was ever embodied in the original bill and I frankly -confess that I did not notice tha-t feature in the amendments. What we provided was intended to meet the suggestions of hon. gentlemen opposite and we included the feature with reference -to the decision by the district courts. It was believed that the bill was acceptable to the members of the House. It was provided in the first place 

and I agreed entirely with this-that only the settlers on the land should be given consideration, that is to say, those who have not left, who are still in possession. They are the only ones to be considered. In the next place, if the board and the settler fail to agree as to the valuation to be placed on the land the final decision shall be rendered by the Exchequer court.


John Arthur Clark: Was there not a provision
that those who had been foreclosed for a period of six months prior to the passing of the bill should be given some consideration? Surely that consideration should still be extended to this class, as well as to those Who may have been foreclosed in the last twelve months. Of course it is not mentioned in this resolution.


Charles A. Stewart: I frankly
confess that if that provision was in the bill I have no recollection of it.


John Arthur Clark: I am sure of it.


Charles A. Stewart: We spent
a day at least discussing the point and it was decided that only those in occupancy could be dealt with and not those who were off the land.	i


John Arthur Clark: Those lately foreclosed as
well.


Alan Webster Neill: That point was in the bill
before it left the House.


Mr. WARD:: Would it be possible to have this whole matter submitted to one of the standing committees of the House? It seems to me that this debate threatens to be interminable; we do not appear to be approaching any decision at all. I do think that the bill should be submitted to a committee of the House. I agree with the hon. member

Soldier Settlement Act
(Mr. Clark) that the suggestion to submit the valuation finally to the Exchequer court is positively ridiculous. In fact, in my opinion it is equally ridiculous to expect the county court judges to deal with the matter.
I understand that there will be fourteen or fifteen hundred 'oases in Manitoba alone, and it will be physically impossible for even the county court judges to sit on these examinations. If the bill were submitted to a committee, who could consider the whole matter in all its details and bring down a report to the House, we might make some progress.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: According to the
Minister of the Interior the bill will apply only to settlers actually on the land. I do not believe, from the wording of the resolution, that it will go even so far. The first lime or so of the resolution reads:
That a settler whose land agreement with the board lias not been terminated may make application for the revaluation of the said land.
Suppose a man who is still on the land had paid $10,000 for the property and by great personal sacrifice raised the money to pay off the government's claim. The valuation today is $5,000; the land is found to be worth not more than that sum. Is that man to receive no relief, and is the government to keep from him that $5,000?


Charles A. Stewart: That was
the provision of the old bill.


George Black: But surely that
man is entitled to some relief. As the matter stands, the only men Who will get the benefit of this legislation are those who are still in debt, while those who have been industrious enough to raise the money to pay the government will be left unprovided for. Is it not reasonable that the industry, the ability and the success of the man Who has paid off the purchase price should receive some reward, if we are going to help those who are still in debt?


Charles A. Stewart: We did not provide for such relief.


George Black: Suppose a man had $5,000 to pay, and having paid two thousand he was unable to meet the balance of the indebtedness when it fell due. He was foreclosed and finally put off the land. Is he not going to get back that $2,000 or any part of it? If that is the situation, then it seems to me this is class legislation; it is not broad enough to cover the situation and is unfair to these classes of ex-soldiers I have mentioned. The government should not declare it impossible to
deal with these classes; that is not the word to use. The government should admit that they do not intend to deal with these classes, preferring to penalize them, withholding from them the equitable treatment which this legislation will extend to others. I submit that the classes I refer to Should be given consideration, as they easily could be.


Charles A. Stewart: That point was exhaustively discussed last year, over and over again. Both classes mentioned, those who had completed their payments and those who possibly had suffered to some extent by reason of over-valuation, were considered, and it was decided not to include them in the bill.


George Black: Why?


Charles A. Stewart: For the
simple reason that the treasury would have to pay back the money.


George Black: Well, why not?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
arguing the point; I am merely reminding my hon. friend that it was discussed thoroughly and it was decided that these men would not be taken care of. That was the conclusion of last year's parliament. This parliament may take another view; I do not know. But to suggest that the government is noit sympathetic is hardly fair in view of last year's discussion and the decision arrived at. With respect to the other case to which reference has been made, the bill last year applied only to those who had payments to make and who were still in possession of the land. As regards the proposal mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Clark), that those who had been off the land for six months should be given consideration, I do not remember such a provision.


Alan Webster Neill: They were to be allowed to come in again.


Charles A. Stewart: And secure their land if it had not been sold?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister give
a definite answer to ithe question asked him by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard? There are in my district a number of exsoldiers who were put on poor lands at the instigation of the government inspectors and I hold that the government is responsible for the acts of its officials. These lands have proved, unfortunately, almost worthless from the standpoint of agriculture. What will be the attitude of the government towards these

Soldier Settlement Act
men? I do not think we should be guided by what was done either by the Senate or by the last House of Commons. We should be guided by a spirit of equity; this House should try to solve the problem in a spirit of fairness. There are in my district, as I say, soldiers who have incurred indebtedness to the government, and this on the advice of the officials of this government, although their land is almost worthless for agriculture. Will the suggestion of the hon. member for Burrard be carried out and will these men be given lands in a suitable agricultural area?


James Alexander Robb: I want to say just a word or two, not particularly with reference to the resolution, but in answer to the statements of the last speaker (Mr. McGibbon). I notice that all the speakers have attempted, in arguments that will go out to the country, to indicate that this government was responsible for the purchase of inferior lands at high prices.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I rise to a question of
privilege. I deny-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Alexander Robb: I will listen to the hon. gentleman when I get through.


John Arthur Clark: I am frank enough-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: -to admit that the land
was purchased-


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Arthur Clark: -long before this government came into office.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister has the floor.


John Arthur Clark: I am answering an insinuation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend (Mr. Clark) rose, and you may not have heard him state, Mr. Chairman, that he rose to a question of privilege. He is entitled to do that at any time and to state his question of privilege.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely that is not a
[DOT]question of privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one can judge whether it is a question of privilege or not until he has stated it.


Ernest Lapointe: We know what he wanted to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under the rules of the
House, Mr. Chairman, we have a right to claim your protection and your ruling in these matters.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely nobody has a
right to evade the rules of the House and to take the floor without authority to do so just because he has a question of privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he has at any time.


John Arthur Clark: If I may speak to the
matter, I would claim that I have the right, when an hon. gentleman suggests that I have said something I did not say, to rise and make a denial. I deny having stated or insinuated or suggested that these lands were purchased under- the present government in a political way. I did not inject any political thought into this discussion. I thought the Minister of Finance was above suggesting such a thing as that.


James Alexander Robb: I was proceeding to sayand may I remind the committee that I never, directly or indirectly, mentioned the name of the hon. member f.or Burrard-I was dealing with the statement that these lands had been bought with the approval of the authorities of this government, a statement made by the last speaker.


Peter McGibbon: If, by inadvertence I
used the expression "this government" I retract it. I did not mean to blame this government but rather this parliament. It was owing to the parliament of Canada, through the government of the Dominion, that these soldiers incurred these liabilities, and the government is responsible for the acts of its officials.


James Alexander Robb: I accept my hon. friend's
retraction. Now let us go back and see when these lands were bought. They were bought in the years 1919 and 1920, and some of them a little later. It was said by some that they were valued by officials of the government. They were not valued by officials of the government, but iby a representative board that was appointed. No doubt the members of that board were recommended to the govertrmeint of the day by friends of the latter. They put a valuation upon these lands and they valued them too high. This govern-

Soldier Settlement Act
ment was not responsible. This government, ever since 1922, has endeavoured to respond to the reasonable requests of the committee that looked carefully into the matter. This is the third attempt we have made to bring in legislation to correct the high (prices paid for land at that time. If the legislation has been delayed it has not been delayed by the government of the day. The legislation may be improved, it may not be ideal, but it is an honest attempt on the part of the government to meet the wishes of the joint committee that made certain recommendations.
It is all wrong to have the impression go out ito the country that the land was bought by the government of the day at exorbitant prices. That as not the case. A great deal of the land was purchased at fair prices, at reasonable prices; indeed some of it was sold for more than the soldier settler paid for it. But there are a few districts-and I think I know something of the matter because I was in that department-throughout Canada where the land was bought at high prices. The price of the land was beyond its value, as it was not suitable for agriculture; it was unloaded on the poor settler to the advantage of some friends who were able, 'at the time, to get the ear of the government. I am not blaming the government. In a large country like this the government in Ottawa cannot be watching everything. Generally speaking; I repeat, the land was bought at a fair price, and I may say that as Minister of Finance I will watch pretty closely to see whether any attempt is made to reimburse some chaps who have made fairly good on the- land. It seems to me that we would do well ito let the resolution go through as it is. When the bill is presented, and we sit down in committee to consider it, if the measure should contain any errors we can correct them.


Mr. ERNST:: If clause 1 stands with the word "present" deleted, is that the only change made in it?


Robert Forke: That suggestion was made
but the word has not been deleted yet.


William Gordon Ernst: Regarding what has been
said here as to the resolution paving the way for the bill to be introduced, the bill will have to be framed in corkscrew fashion if it is to follow the wording of the resolution. If the minister takes the trouble to read clause 1, with the word "present" deleted he will find it is more meaningless than it was before, if that is possible. Clause 1, as the minister has noted, would read:
That a settler whose land agreement with the board lias not been terminated may make application for the revaluation of the said land, and that the depreciation to be determined shall
32649-16	REVISED
be the diminution in the value of the land and the improvements sold to the settler, as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase-
And so on. I admit that on the government side there are many able lawyers, but I do not think a Philadelphia lawyer could draft a bill to follow that resolution. I suggest to the minister that he redraft clauses 1 and 2. By means of a pencil I could make a far better draft than clause 1 is in its present form. I think it would be better if it were redrafted so as to read something like this:
That a settler whose land agreement with the board has not been terminated may make application for revaluation of the said land. The said land and improvements shall be revalued and assessed, and the revaluation so arrived at shall date hack to the date of the purchase or agreement and shall be deemed to be the original purchase price.
In that way you will get something explicit, but no satisfactory bill can be introduced upon the resolution in its present form.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my hon.
friend that this House has pretty able officers, lawyers who have been appointed to look after that sort of thing. The bill passed the Senate last year, and would have been the law of the land to-day if there had not been such a speedy dissolution of parliament. Because when the bill came back to this House from the Senate, the then acting minister in charge of the measure asked the House to adopt it in the form in which it had carried in the Senate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was the acting
minister?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for
Fort William (Mr. Manion). So that the bill would have, been the law to-day if the doors of parliament had not been closed on a certain afternoon in the month of July. The bill as it passed parliament last year has been taken charge of by the present Minister of Immigration. What he did was to send that very bill, which would have been a statute to-day if the occurrence referred to had not happened, to the officers of the House, who are men of experience. My hon. friend speaks of Philadelphia lawyers. Well, they are not American lawyers, they are not Boston nor Philadelphia lawyers, but they are good Canadian lawyers, as far as I can judge and they have prepared the present resolution on the bill sent to them by the Minister of Immigration. Surely we must have some confidence in our own officers; I do not think they have blundered in the way my hon. friend has suggested.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement Act
Archibald M. Carmichael: I do not know whether I have absolute confidence in the officers or not, but most of us have been through at least part of the public schools and this language as it originally stood is certainly not good English.


Ernest Lapointe: That may be.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The resolution as
presented reads:
The diminution in the present value	
as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase.
That is not good English, and if it is amended as the minister has proposed by leaving out the word " present ", to read:
The diminution in the value.... as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase.
That is much worse, for this reason. The settler may have purchased the land in 1919 at a high price. In 192)3 there was a great slump in prices in western Canada. The diminution would then be greatest; what time are we to take for the diminution? It seems to me that we could get around all this difficulty without redrafting the clause, if we changed one little word " in " to " to ". Then it would read:
*-shall be the diminution to the present value of the land and the improvements sold to the settlers, as compared with the price at which the settler agreed to purchase.


William Gordon Ernst: In reply to the Minister of
Justice I want to make only one thing clear, and that is that I was not criticising the bill as sent back by the Senate. I have not had an opportunity of seeing that. I was not in the House last year, although the fault was none of mine. , I was criticising only the drafting of a resolution which, I understand, is a prelude to a bill. The resolution as it stands, or as amended by the minister, means nothing, can be a prelude to nothing. I am not criticising the legal talent of the government-


Ernest Lapointe: Not the governmentof the House.


William Gordon Ernst: I aoceipt the correction. I am not criticising the legal talent of the House, but I am suggesting that not much of it was expended on drafting the resolution.


Robert Forke: The hon. member says that he did not see the bill as it came back from the Senate. I said some little time ago that the wording of the resolution is identical with the wording of the bill as it came back from the Senate.
The depreciation in value to he determined shall be the diminution in the present value of the land.

That is the language of the bill as it came back from the Senate. Hon. members may realize that I have been taken by surprise in having so much difficulty with this resolution. The resolution was drafted in the terms of the bill as it passed the Senate and as it would have become law, as the Minister of Justice said. Now when it comes to this House it seems that it is a tremendous blunder. That may be correct, but I never anticipated any such difficulty. It seemed to me that the meaning was quite plain on the face of the resolution and I am sorry there should have been any trouble. I want to be as courteous as I can in replying to questions, and I hope hon. members will allow the resolution to pass. We shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss the bill in all its details.
In reference to what has been said about the .Exchequer court, I admit that when I heard of that provision as coming from the Senate I thought the Exchequer court was rather a curious place to settle a difference that had arisen between the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler. But I was informed that the Exchequer court would simply appoint some other body, probably the county court judge or some outstanding man in the district who was familiar with the ground, to be the final arbitrator in the case. When it was put in that light it did not seem as ridiculous as it did .at first sight. In any case that is the bill as it passed the Senate.
One idea I had in mind in introducing the bill in the form as proposed was this. I may be all wrong but I did it with the best intentions. Last year we threshed out all these questions that have been discussed tonight. We are all familiar with these arguments; we went over them last year, and we finally passed the bill.	It went to the
Senate; it passed the Senate in an amended form; it came back to this House and it would have passed here. I thought if we reintroduced the bill as it passed the Senate last year and as we were ready to accept it last year, it would be the Senate's own bill; -the Senate would not reject it; it would go through the Senate; it would become law, and the soldier settlers would get some remedy in the near future. If we pass a bill again after amending it and making it entirely different, and if it goes to the Senate and they amend it again I am afraid of what will happen to the bill before it becomes law. With these explanations I hope that hon. members will understand! the situation in regard to the bill. I am just as anxious as anyone that justice should be done to the soldier settler; but I am certain, no matter what bill we pass in this House, we khall

Soldier Settlement Act
never be able to pass a bill that will meet all the cases and1 hardships that have occurred.
There is too common an impression in the House and perhaps in the country that all the soldier settlers have been working under disadvantages and have paid too much for their land. While I have been only a few months in this department, I 'have found quite a number of cases where, after the soldier settler has left the land, it has been sold at a much higher price than he originally paid for it. Therefore in those cases they could not have paid too high a price. I shall be able to show at a later date, if I have an opportunity, as I probably will, that the big majority of our soldier settlers, instead of being failures, have done exceedingly well. Large numbers of them have done well and perhaps as big a percentage of our soldier settlers have done well as other classes of the population who took farming at the same time. We take too gloomy a view of the soldier settler cases as a whole, although the Minister of the Interior or someone else who spoke to-night said that in certain cases in some districts soldier settlers were taken advantage of and something ought to be done for them. I hope the committee will allow this resolution to pass. We shall have ample opportunity to discuss the matter when the bill comes before t'he House, and any improvements to be made can be made at that time. I will withdraw the amendment to leave out the word "present".


Hugh Guthrie: It was carried.


John Frederick Johnston: I must inform: the
minister I understood the motion was carried.


Robert Forke: No.


John Millar: I have an amendment that I would like to offer. This is the Whole clause as I would propose to amend it:
That a settler whose land agreement with the board has not been terminated may make application for the revaluation of the said land, and that the depreciation to be determined shall be the difference between the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land and improvements from the board and the present value.	*


Robert Forke: I discussed this matter tonight with a high official in the Soldier Settlement Board and I was told that when the original draft was made the law officers of the crown changed the word from "difference" to "diminution."


Charles Avery Dunning: We have too many
lawyers about it.


Ernest Lapointe: They claim in the Senate that they have the best legal talent, and this is their own drafting.
32649-16i


William Gordon Ernst: The minister rather insinuated that the purpose of my remarks was delay. I can assure him that I have every sympathy with the merits of the measure he is proposing, and my only purpose in saying anything about it is to ensure that the measure when finally passed will not prove a burden rather than a help. It would be bad enough for the soldier to have to go to the Exchequer court to have his land valued, without having to have the Exchequer court and perhaps the Supreme court interpret the statute. There is one rather peculiar thing about the minister that has struck me, and that is his peculiar veneration for the Senate since the beginning of the present session.


Charles Avery Dunning: There have been remarks, Mr. Chairman, about the past history of this measure, and I thought it worth while to get the facts. We are all relying on our memories in connection with a rather hectic period last, summer. I find that the then acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in the person of the present member for Fort William,, introduced this measure on its being returned amended from the Senate, and Hansard of last session very clearly sets out what was the attitude of 'hon. gentlemen opposite, who then composed what has since been described as the "shadow government", towards this principle of permitting the Exchequer court to be the deciding factor, and also towards the general principles of this legislation. It is interesting to note that the concluding exercises in connection with this particular measure last session consisted of a further effort on the part of the Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to get the House to pass the bill as it came from the Senate, and he was met with the objection by my right hon. leader that we on our side of the House had not yet had time to consider fully the changes proposed by the Senate, and we asked for time, at least until after the six o'clock recess, to look into the proposed changes. It is interesting to note that this matter never came up again. Other very important matters came up. Now, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have had time to consider the effect of the changes proposed last year by my hon. friends opposite, and we now come here and say we agree. Coming here in a spirit of agreement, we now find our hon. friends opposite have changed their minds again, and they want something different.
So far as the Exchequer court is concerned, if it were to be used as a court in the city of Ottawa to adjudicate on the value of soldier settler lands, of course that would be an
Soldier Settlement Act

expensive and impossible procedure for the soldier to take. But my understanding is, and this was the explanation made a year ago with regard to it, that it is possible for the Exchequer court to name individual officers of the court in various parts of the country to act for them in adjudicating matters of this kind, and it was on that assurance from my hon. friends opposite that I was willing last year to accept 'the Exchequer court.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister read that clause? That is what we have been trying to get information about, but all we get is, as somebody says, a scolding from the Minister of Railways and the Minister ,of Finance. All we want is information. Perhaps the minister will read that clause. It may be an admirable one that we would be willing to accept, but at the present time we do not know what it as.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the particular clause before me. I simply have the information that last year one of my hon. friend's leaders, with whom he was perfectly satisfied, a colleague at that time of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the then leader of the Conservative party, a member of the government so-called at that time, considered this matter with bis colleagues, and they reached the conclusion that the legislation which we now put before the House was the proper thing. We came here expecting to meet hon. members opposite in a spirit of goodwill on this matter, because we were offering to the House precisely what they themselves offered after the bill had been returned from the Senate.


John Arthur Clark: Why not give us the
information if you are meeting us in a spirit of goodwill? We want to assist the passing of this legislation. We are the ones, I believe, who want this legislation, and I begin to question whether my hon. friend the minister wants it at all. Otherwise he would be courteous and frank enough to give this side of the House the information when it is courteously requested.


Peter McGibbon: This seems to be a
remarkable exhibition on the part of the government. They come here with a resolution for which they are certainly responsible, no matter what its origin may be. We ask for information, and there is nobody on the government side that can give it. The Minister of Justice gets up and says that the law officers of the crown drafted it, and therefore it must be right.


Ernest Lapointe: You accepted it last
year.


Peter McGibbon: The Minister of Railways gets up and says that the hon. member for Fort William, who was at one time Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, accepted it, and therefore it must be right. Some other member gets up and says that this is a product of the Senate, -and therefore it must be right. But not a single member on the government benches can get up and argue the resolution on its merits, and they ask this House to accept a resolution that they d>o not know 'the meaning of themselves. It ds a ridiculous exhibition.


Ernest Lapointe: You are repudiating your own Child.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not rise to offer any
suggestion to the law officers of the crown as to how to draft this resolution, nor am I particularly impressed with the argument of the Minister of Railways that because he has proved that another government introduced a measure equally innocuous, we ought to let this one go through as it as. I wish to pass on to the minister in charge of this resolution suggestions which were made to me by the soldiers who are on land under the Soldier Settlement Board in my own riding. I understand that the purpose of the resolution is to give an opportunity to discuss the principles which will be at a later date embodied in the bill to be presented to parliament, and therefore I presume that what I have to say will be in order, 'as it deals (with the principle of the bill.
I assume that it is the intention of the government in bringing in this legislation to give immediate and effective relief to the soldier settlers. The soldier settlers at the present time are rather afraid that the process of arriving at a revaluation is going to be so cumbersome and so difficult to attain, and perhaps so expensive, as to nullify the beneficial effects of the legislation, and accordingly many soldier settlers are of the opinion that it would be better not to attempt revaluation as it is suggested in this resolution and as was provided for in the bill of last year, but rather to make to all soldier settlers now on the land, a flat percentage reduction in the purchase price. It is not my intention to argue that now, I merely pass the suggestion on to the minister in the hope that he will give it consideration before he finally drafts the bill. I think it is clear that no legislation can possibly meet every case. It will be absolutely impossible under any proposal to give relief to everybody, but if we

Soldier Settlement Act
have a 'bill which provides for a very difficult process of revaluation, it may be that many who could get relief under the simple proposal of the soldiers to have a flat percentage reduction wild not get any relief at all. I offer this suggestion to the minister, and I hope that he will give it his serious consideration when he prepares the legislation which is to be based on the resolution before the committee.


George Gibson Coote: I take it for granted-and
if I am taking too much for granted I hope the Minister of Immigration and Colonization will say so-that the bill will be brought down and introduced in the same spirit as it was presented a year ago; that is, thait the minister is willing to consider any changes which members of the House may suggest when they have the bill before them. At the present time I am very much concerned with reference to the proposal to accept the amendment which the Senate proposed last year, of having the valuation in some cases referred to the Exchequer court. Many soldier settlers feel that their cases are practically hopeless if they have to go to such a body as the Exchequer court of Canada, situated, as they are, two thousand miles from Ottawa. The hon. member from Dauphin made a splendid suggestion-and I hope the minister will accept it-thiat when the bill comes down it be sent to a special committee, or one of the select committees of the House which is capable of dealing with the bill in a satisfactory manner.


Charles A. Stewart: It would
be regrettable if in the matter of legislation regarding soldiers the government should take the position that they would not consider any suggested changes. That was not our attitude last year, nor the attitude of any party in this House; but rather that the House should endeavour to reconcile the differences as nearly as they could with respect to this particular measure and enact legislation that would be mutually beneficial, or beneficial to the soldiers themselves. I want to assure hon. members opposite that the same consideration will be given to suggestions as has been given heretofore. I can quite understand the difficulty that my hon. friend experiences. This revaluation is long overdue, and many men have been forced to leave their land who, if the revaluation had taken place two years ago, would now be farming on it. We want at this session of parliament to pass a bill that will provide for a revaluation of the land and play fair with the men still on the land. I think we can surely approach this question in that spirit. I can foresee that a lot of argument made last year is going to be introduced again this year, but there is no harm in that. That is what this body is for. I hope the outcome will be that the suggestions made will be beneficial to the soldiers and that we will enact a measure that will be of real value to the men who are fighting their way along on land that was valued too high, or sold to them at a high price. Do not forget that many of these men were fortunate in their selections and that their land is now worth more than when they purchased it. I say that to show how impossible the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wetaski-win would be. We havg gone over all that, and when hon. members know the circumstances surrounding these cases they will realize that some of these suggestions would not be beneficial. As one member of the government I hope the discussion will continue in the way it has hitherto been conducted in connection with soldier settlement matters and that we will arrive at a proper conclusion.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: A few minutes
ago the Minister of Railways told the House that according to Hansard of last year the hon. member from Fort William had asked the House to adopt the bill as it came back from the Senate with the proviso that appeal should be made to the Exchequer court. I do not think the minister stated in what portion of Hansard that reference is to be found. Would he give us the reference to the date and the page of Hansard, which I happen to have before me? If he is correct, the advantage is all with him, and if he is incorrect I should like to know it, and I Should like the House to know it.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the last volume of
Hansard it is shown that on two occasions the present member for Fort William presented the bill as it came from the Senate. I wanted it to be quite clear that it came from the Senate with the Exchequer court provision in it, and the hon. member for Fort William, then Acting Minister of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment, presented it to the House in that form. If my hon. friend has Hansard before him he will see that on the first occasion the hon. member from Fort William indicated that he had not had sufficient time clearly to grasp the matter himself, or something to that effect.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Will the minister be good enough to give me the reference?


Charles Avery Dunning: I sent it back; it is
not before me now. But I can find it if my hon. friend will lend me the Hansard.
Soldier Settlement Act


Leslie Gordon Bell: I will not only
lend it to the hon. member, but I will give it.


Robert Forke: I have the exact wording
as it came from the Senate.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What page of
Hansard?


Robert Forke: This is the bill as it came
from the Senate.


Leslie Gordon Bell: But where does
it appear in Hansard?


Robert Forke: The section reads:
*-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.
Further on the bill states:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he deems fit for the procedure in appeals to the Exchequer court under this section, and may by such regulations modify or dispense with any provisions as to procedure in the Exchequer Court Act or in the rules of practice of that court.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister read the
clause which permits the Exchequer court to delegate its powers to any other court?


Robert Forke: I will tell the House again
what I stated before with reference to referring the matter to the Exchequer court. As a layman I thought it was ridiculous, but it was explained to me that it was not necessary that the applicant should come to Ottawa, or that	the	judges	of	Exchequercourt should try	the	case; that	they coulddelegate the case to someone in the locality Where the difficulty	arose.	It	:is not soabsurd, therefore,	as appears	on	the face of
it.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot see the provision
in the clause the minister read which empowers the Exchequer court to delegate its powers to anyone else.


Robert Forke: I was informed by a lawyer to that effect-that that was what the court had power to do. Maybe I am wrong, I am not a lawyer at all.


John Frederick Johnston: There seems to be
some misunderstanding in the committee as to whether or not the motion made by the hon. minister was carried. It was my understanding that it was carried and I so marked it, but with unanimous consent it can be rescinded. I would point out that the motion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle cannot be entertained unless the previous motion is
IMr. Dunning.]
rescinded, because the motion made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle goes back beyond the word "present," as it appears in the resolution, and paragraph 336 of rule 36 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended.
'Consequently it is necessary, in order to consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that the (motion to strike out the word "present" be rescinded. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that the motion be rescinded?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: Then the motion moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appele would be in order. It is to this effect:
That in the third line after the words "shall be the" the words "diminution in" be deleted, and the following words inserted, "difference between the price at which the settler agreed to purchase the said land and improvements from the board and"-
The remainder of the clause following the words "present value" will 'be deleted.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, may I
rise to a point of order? This resolution has been submitted in its printed form to His Excellency the Governor General and has received his approval. Gam. a private member by a motion change the language of such a resolution without its being re-submitted to His Excellency?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. leader of the opposition is perfectly right dn his contention. I would suggest that inasmuch as dozens of amendments to this bill will be submitted when it is in committee, the committee accept the resolution, much as they seem to question its wording. This is a contentious bill, and I defy any member to introduce a bill of this character that will be entirely satisfactory and that will not be the subject of many amendments. That has been my experience in the four years that I have been trying to put through similar legislation. The adoption of my suggestion would create no precedent; such a course has been taken heretofore.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, in order to show our entire goodwill to the new Minister of Immigration and Colonization, and to help the government out of an apparent dilemma, we agree to the suggestion made by my hon. friend.

Long Term Farm Loans
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Forke thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LONG TERM FARM LOANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved,-1. That there shall be a board known as the Canadian Farm Loan Board which shall be a body politic and corporate consisting of four members, one of whom shall be the Minister of Finance and the other three shall be appointed by the governor in council and of the latter one shall be designated by the Canadian Farm Loan commissioners.
2.	That the board shall issue farm loan bonds to make long term loans to farmers, and the government of Canada shall provide initial capital for the board to an amount not exceeding five million dollars and subscribe an amount of 5 per cent of the capital stock as loans are made by the board.
3.	That the government of each province in which loans are made shall be required to subscribe to the capital stock of the board as loans are made in such province an amount equal to 5 per cent of the said loans and each borrower an amount of 5 per cent of his loan payable at the time the loan is made. The loans shall be made on the security of first mortgage on farm lands; the interest rate shall be such a rate in excess of the interest payable on the farm loan bonds as is sufficient to provide for the expenses of operation; the farm loan bonds shall be legal investments and may be purchased by the Minister of Finance provided that the amount of such bonds held by him shall not at any time exceed $15,000,000; and the amount of any payment by the government of Canada on account of capital of the board or as payment for farm loan bonds purchased shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on the authority of the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister be
kind enough to give us a 'brief explanation?


James Alexander Robb: The bill to be founded upon
this resolution will be submitted to the House in identically the same form that it left the House to go to the Senate last session.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credit for farmers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
Monday, February 14, 1927