1942-07-20

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of special committee on war expenditures.-Mr. Fournier (Hull).

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the secret session of the house to be held this day be not reported in the official report of the House of Commons Debates and that at the conclusion of the secret session a report of its proceedings be issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The house went into secret session.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Yien in the chair.
Progress reported.
At the conclusion of the secret session, the following report of its proceedings was issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker:
"A secret session of the House of Commons was held at 11 o'clock a.m. on Saturday the 18th of July, 1942. The sitting was devoted to the question of coastal defence in Canada. The situation was explained by the three Ministers of National Defence.
J. Allison Glen,
Speaker."
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
Monday, July 20, 1942

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of special committee on war expenditures.-Mr. Fournier (Hull).
Third report of special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment.-Mr. Turgeon.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many persons have failed to pay any part of their 1940 income taxi

Questions
2.	How many persons have paid only a portion of their 1940 income tax?
3.	How much of the 1940 income tax remains uncollected ?
4.	How many persons have failed to pay any part of their 1941 income tax?
5.	How many persons have paid only a portion of their 1941 income tax?
6.	How much of the 1941 income tax remains uncollected ?
7.	How many persons applied to the banks for loans to pay their 1940 income tax?
8.	How many persons applied to the hanks for loans to pay their 1941 income tax?


Mr. GIBSON:: I have given a good deal of consideration to this question. I would say that it is almost impossible to give an answer to the first part of it, because of the impossibility of saying with any degree of accuracy that every person has filed a return. Our officers are investigating at all times, and the numbers vary from day to day.
With respect to the second part of the question, we have found that returns are not always accurate, and they are being amended. Therefore it is impossible to say accurately the number of persons who have made full payment.
With respect to the third part of the question, I would point out that this information cannot be given with any degree of definiteness until final clearance is given in respect of each taxpayer. The same answer would apply to parts 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member will realize that the number of accounts for 1940 amounted to 663,000, and for 1941 to 920,000, and to answer these questions for any given date would entail going through the records of all those returns. In my view the labour involved would be completely wasted because the information obtained would be good for perhaps only one day, and would not be entirely complete even for that day.
We have no information with respect to parts 7 and 8 of the question, in which the hon. member has asked how many persons applied to the banks for loans to pay their income tax.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I realize that there is a good deal of force in what the minister has said. I would not suppose that questions 7 and 8 could be answered, but what I think the hon. member who has asked these questions wants is the relative proportions of the 1940 and the 1941 income taxes that are in arrears, so as to be able to form some estimate of what the situation may be in respect to the tremendously increased personal income taxes for 1942. If there is no appreciable amount in arrears, or if there is no appreciable number of taxpayers who have failed to pay
and we had that information, it would give us some indication of the attitude of the country.


Colin William George Gibson: An indication could be given as to what is in arrears, that is, in proportion to the returns already made, but these have not all been finally checked, and any figure given could not possibly be accurate.


Mr. HAZEN:: I thought the Minister of Finance should have information of this kind before him when he came to make up his last budget. He should have known how many people were behind with their 1940 taxes and how many had not paid. He should have known how many were behind with their 1941 taxes and how many had not paid. He must have had some idea about how many people had had to go to the banks in both years to borrow money to pay their income tax.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I could not get that.


Douglas King Hazen: I think that information should have been available to the minister when he came to frame his budget for the present year. It may be impossible to answer the question in the form in which it is put, but, if I may be permitted to say so, I have sometimes thought that the 1942 budget has gone altogether too far. We have to maintain in this country at this particular time some buoyancy among the people on the home front. We have to keep the home fires burning brightly, and if you adopt a policy, and it is possible that this 1942 budget will have that effecU-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am afraid the hon. member cannot enlarge upon the matter. Question No. 6 must be considered as having been answered.


PENSIONS-NORTHWEST FIELD FORCE OF 1885
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any applications for pension been received from the members still living of the 1885 Northwest field force? If so, from whom, and when?
2.	What action did the committee on pensions take on this matter during the sessions of 1941 and 1942, when it was last before them?
3.	How many veterans of this force (by provinces), are still living?
4.	Are any of them said to be in need of some federal financial aid or assistance?
5.	Will any action be taken this session to grant them the same treatment as veterans of the South African war receive?
6.	What study has been made of the question?
7.	What relief or action will be afforded?
' Mr. RALSTON: I suggest that this question be made an order for return except as to ques-
Questions

tion No. 7. In answering that question I would say that announcement as to any action to be taken will be made in due course.


GASOLINE RATIONING-MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	Has any gasoline been shipped from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick to Ontario or Quebec, since May 15, 1942?
2.	If so, what were the qualities and grades of gasoline involved?
3.	When will all points in Canada be given the same gasoline ration?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered By No. 1.
3.	It is impossible at this time to state whether the gasoline coupon value in any particular district will be raised, lowered or maintained.


CANADIAN COMBAT VETERANS' ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Were instructions given to a certain investigator by the name of Young, employed at Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver, to visit the secretary or any other officer of the Canadian Combat Veterans' Association of British Columbia, Incorporated, to make inquiries regarding the activities of such association, or any other inquiries?
2.	If so, by whom were such instructions given and upon what date Avas such visit made?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By the pension medical examiner on the instructions of the Canadian pension, commission which desired that a routine report with respect to the status of the association be obtained. The report bears the date of May 14, 1942.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-MRS. IRENE SPRY
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What position, if any, does Mrs. Irene Spry occupy in the rvartime prices and trade board, and was she appointed by the civil service commission, and on whose recommendation?
2.	What is her salary, travelling expenses, and other allowances and what duties does she perform?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Mrs. Irene Spry occupied the position of economist with the wartime prices and trade board. She was appointed by the civil service commission. She resigned effective June 30 and is now on the staff of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited.

2.	While with the board, Mrs. Spry's principal duty was to keep the board continuously informed on price control, supply and rationing problems in other countries. In addition, she prepared the quarterly summary of the board's activities, the monthly article for the Labour Gazette, and supervised the preparation of news summaries and correspondence analysis.
Mrs. Spry's salary was $3,000 per annum. She received no travelling expenses or other allowances while in the employ of the board.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. BLACK (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: 1.	When was the Canadian farm loan board organized ?
2.	How many first mortgage loans have been made by the board from date of organization to March 31, 1942, and what was the amount loaned during that time?
3.	How many of these loans have been retired or paid off by borrowers?
4.	How many securities have been acquired by the board for non-payment of mortgage obligations?
5.	Of the securities acquired by the board, hoAV many were acquired by, (a) quit claim deed, (b) foreclosure or sales proceedings?
6.	Of the securities acquired by foreclosure, how many were acquired on account of abandonment of their farms by borrowers?
7.	How many loans Avere outstanding on the books of the board as at March 31, 1942?
8.	Out of the number of loans outstanding as at March 31, 1942, hoAV many borroivers had their mortgage obligations paid in full in accordance with the terms of their contract?
9.	How many second mortgages have been made by the board since its organization and the amount loaned?
10.	Hoav many second mortgage loans have been paid off or retired by borroivers from the board from date of organization to March 31, 1942?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	January, 1929.
2.	Loans, 23,797; amount loaned $43,475,104.
3.	1,954.
4.	510.
5.	(a) 251; (b) 259.
6.	50.
7.	21,333.
8.	17,077.
9.	Loans, 7,916; amount loaned, $4,355,827.
10.	2,969.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- D. M. LEBORDAIS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is D. M. LeBordais employed by the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	If so, what position does he hold and Avhat are his salary and expenses?
3.	What previous positions did he hold between 1925 and the date of his appointment?

Questions


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. LeBordais is a director in the retail trade administration with particular reference to matters affecting independent retailers for which he is specially qualified by reason of his two years' service with the retail merchants association of Canada immediately prior to the price ceiling. His salary is $3,500 per annum. The total amount of expenses paid to Mr. LeBordais is $68.85.
3.	1926-1927, employed by the Toronto Daily Star; 1927-33, with the Canadian National committee for mental hygiene; 1933-38, a free lance journalist; 1938-39, staff writer for the Canadian Magazine, Toronto; 1939-41, organizer and public relations officer for the retail merchants association of Canada.


AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY-MORALE BUILDING CAMPAIGN-MIGHT'S DIRECTORIES LIMITED
Mr. DIEFENB AKER:: 1.	On what date was the contract let to Might's Directories Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, for the sending of letters to aircraft workers in the morale building campaign?
2.	What is the total amount to date that has been paid to the said company?
3.	Was the contract let by tender?
4.	If not, whv were other companies engaged in similar work not given an opportunity to tender?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	December 6, 1941.
2.	$7,682.74.
3.	No.
4.	Might's Directories Limited submitted an original proposal. It was not a case of buying a certain quantity of paper and printing: it was a proposal to buy an original plan of twelve suggested letters plus paper, printing, envelopes and the service of the establishment in the maintenance of lists and the distribution of letters. That the price was fair and reasonable is indicated by the fact that the total amount paid to date covers 180,000 pieces of mail, or less than one-half cent per letter including distribution and delivery.


RADIO BROADCASTING-CAPTAIN LACOSTE
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Why was Captain Louis A. Lacoste prevented from securing the wider audience for his broadcasts over the C.B.C.?
2.	Will the government state its reasons for preventing Captain Lacoste giving these broadcasts over the C.B.C. to his Freneh-Canadian compatriots?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	I am informed by the C.B.C. that Captain Lacoste's application to broadcast over the
C.B.C. was considered in the same way as other similar applications and was declined. The qualifications of radio commentators are continuously reviewed and decisions taken in the light of assessment of suitability.
2.	See answer to No. 1. Since the matter was solely for the C.B.C., there was no reference of the matter to the government and no action taken by the government.
victory BONDS-WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES- DOMESTIC LOANS


Mr. FONTAINE:: What is the total amount loaned to the government by Canadians since the beginning of the present war by, (a) victory bonds, (b) war savings certificates, (c) loans without interest, (d) any other method of contribution?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am passing in an answer to this question which merely refers the hon. gentleman asking the question to page 3633 of the appendix to the budget speech. I hope that that will be satisfactory. If not, perhaps he can speak to me.
The answer is as follows:
Details of loan flotations since the outbreak of war to March 31, 1942, will be found on page 36 of the appendix to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.


BRITISH WEST INDIES SHIPPING SERVICE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to supplying steamship space for the export of Canadian farm products to the British West Indies?
2.	If so, when will the service be available?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: The government, through the Canadian
shipping board, is giving constant consideration to the problem of supplying steamship space for the carriage of Canadian products including farm products, to the British West Indies. The amount of space allocated to the service is limited by the demand for vessel space for equally or more urgent purposes.
2. A limited steamship service is now in operation and every effort is being made by the Canadian shipping board to supplement this service having regard to other urgent demands for vessel tonnage.
DISTILLERIES-SYNTHETIC RUBBER AND HIGH * TEST GASOLINE


Mr. HATFIELD:: Will the government consider taking over 50 per cent of the capacity of the distilleries in Canada for the distilling of alcohol from wheat for the purpose of making synthetic rubber and high test ethyl gasoline?
Questions


Mr. HOWE:: The government is arranging to take over a certain amount of the distillery capacity for making a component of synthetic rubber. I think this is about all that can be said at the moment.
*1942 WHEAT CROP


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What arrangements are being made for the 1942 wheat crop with regard to, (a) quotas, (b) delivery regulations, and, (c) storage payments to the farmer?


James Angus MacKinnon: Preliminary regulations in connection with the handling of the 1942 wheat crop were provided by order in council, P.C. 1S02, dated March 9, 1942. It is impossible to reach any definite decision in regard to quotas and delivery regulations until we have some more definite idea of the size of the crop to be handled. Discussions are now being carried on in Ottawa with the chief commissioner and members of the wheat board, and as soon as decisions are brought to finality I shall be very glad to make an announcement to the house. If by storage payments to the farmer the hon. member refers to farm storage, there has been as yet no decision on this point.


CANADIAN FORCES-OPTOMETRY
Mr. COTE:: 1.	Does the government intend to give any recognition to the profession of optometry in the three departments of our national defence?
2.	What opportunity is there, at the present time, for a graduate of a school of optometry from any of our Canadian universities, to serve in his capacity as such in, (a) the army, (b) the air force, .(c) the navy?


Mr. RALSTON:: Answering the first question, I would say that the policy in connection with this matter will be announced in due course. The second question should stand as an order for return.
storage FACILITIES FOR WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS


Mr. PERLEY:: 1. What arrangements, if any, are being made to give financial assistance to farmers to provide storage facilities on their farms for wheat and coarse grains of the 1942 crop?
. 2. What storage rates will be paid for holding grain on farms?


James Angus MacKinnon: No arrangements have been made in connection with the matters covered by the first question. I have just given an answer covering the information asked for in the second question,

wheat BOARD-FIRST 1942 QUOTA Mr. PERLEY:
When will the wheat board announce the amount of the first quota to be delivered from the 1942 crop?


James Angus MacKinnon: The information asked for by the hon. gentleman has just been given by me in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any applications for pension been received from the members, still living, of the 1885 Northwest field force? If so, from whom, and when?
2.	What action did the committee on pensions take on this matter during the sessions of 1941 and 1942, when it was last before them?
3.	How many veterans of this force (by provinces), are still living?
4.	Are any of them said to be in need of some federal financial aid or assistance?
5.	Will any action be taken this session to grant them the same treatment as veterans of the South African war receive?
6.	What study has been made of the question?


HONG KONG COMMISSION
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many days or portions of days were occupied in the sittings of the Duff commission on the Hong Kong inquiry?
2.	What was the total cost of this inquiry (give details) ?
3.	Did Mr. George A. Campbell, R. L. Kellock and H. F. Fowler submit an itemized account for their services and expenses in connection with this inquiry?
4.	If so, give full particulars of each account as submitted by each of said counsel?
5.	What per diem counsel fee and allowance did each counsel receive?
6.	What official in the Department of Justice approved and certined said accounts as proper and reasonable ?
7.	Have any of these three counsel been engaged on other government investigations or work during the past four years? If so, (a) specify what work, (b) at what period, (c) what fees were charged?


IMPORTS OF BANANAS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many cargoes or part cargoes of bananas were imported into Canada from January 1, 1942, to date?
2.	What is the amount of bananas that have been imported into Canada through the United States from January 1, 1942, to date?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-INTERNMENTS
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	How many persons are incarcerated as a result of orders issued under the provision of section 21 of the defence of Canada regulations?
2.	Of this number how many are British subjects?
3.	What number of the said British subjects are such subjects by birth and what number are such subjects by naturalization?
4.	Have the naturalization certificates of any of such persons referred to in questions 2 and 3 been revoked?
5.	Have the naturalization certificates of any persons convicted under the defence of Canada regulations been revoked, and if so, how many?



CANADIAN FORCES


Mr. COTE:: What opportunity is there, at the present time, for a graduate of a school of optometry from any of our Canadian universities, to serve in his capacity as such in, (a) the army, (b) the air force, (e) the navy?



MILITARY SERVICE-FAILURE TO REPORT

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many of the men in each military district of Canada who were called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act failed to report?
2.	How many prosecutions of the men who failed to report have been instituted in each military district?
3.	What is the percentage in each military district of those who failed to report?



PLEBISCITE

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What have been the payments to date on the cost of taking the plebiscite vote, (a) printing, (b) advertising (stating agents and amount paid them), (c) broadcasting, (d) Ottawa head office expenses, (e) expenses in constituencies, (f) total payments to date?
2.	Have all accounts and expenses been paid?



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-and perhaps I should have given him notice-whether the work of removing the Japanese from the defence area in British Columbia is continuing, or has been brought to a standstill. How many have been removed, and how many are still there? I was told that the city of Vancouver is full of Japanese, that they have had their motor cars taken away from them, but that they have practically monopolized the taxi service in the city. Apparently they haVe all kinds of money, and are burning it
up on gasoline and all that sort of thing. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction out there, as reported to me, over the failure to get these people removed. I am told that in the United States they moved, within six weeks, 100,000 Japanese from the defence area in the state of California alone. The army did it, and they did a grand job. Those Japanese are out in the desert now.


Georges Parent: This is another of those questions of which notice should be given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it need not be answered to-day.
INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY "o Canada"-national housing act
On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the end of the session is, I hope, near, and I should like to call attention to two statements which have been promised by the government, in the hope that we shall have them before the session closes.
The Prime Minister, replying to a question by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) on July 8 in connection with the national hymn "O Canada", said: "A statement will shortly be made." Then, the Minister of Finance promised to make a statement in connection with the continuation of the National Housing Act. He said as quoted in sessional paper No. 171B:
This matter is receiving the consideration of the government, and the Minister of Finance has advised the members of the House of Commons that he will make a statement on the overnment's policy regarding housing at some uture date.
I should like to remind the government of these two promised statements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.



REPLACEMENT OF LOST RATION CARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Reports have been made to me from Vancouver that the controller of sugar rationing has given instructions that ration cards lost are not to be replaced. I cannot understand an order of the kind being made, and. I suggest that the minister should look into it at once.
Hon, C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):	I am not aware of such an
order, but I shall be glad to look into it.
Labour Conditions



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: I
would ask the government if they will comply with the request of my committee that the auditor general make a full report on finances so as to avoid many of these questions that are being asked on various problems. I have reference to a report such as they used to have in former years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a matter on which a statement is to be made before the close of the session.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I would ask the Minister of Finance if he can let me have an answer to question No. 5, which has been standing in my name on the order paper since June 9. I should like to get the information this week.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I think I can get the information by then.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: On July 17 I started to read a letter on which I proposed to base a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the employment of women in munitions work in Vancouver. Your Honour saw fit to cause me to stop reading the letter and indicated that the minister would have an opportunity to answer the question later. I wonder if I might have that question answered.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I thought the hon. member intended to put the question on the order paper. There is no government regulation under the war emergency training programme which prevents the training or employment of women over the age of thirty-five, but it does sometimes happen in particular industries that the employer himself, as a matter of internal policy, restricts employment to women not over the age of thirty-five. Every effort is being made by the government, through the war emergency training programme, to move as many women as possible into industry. I should like to correct the

impression that has got abroad in western Canada that there is any government regulation that has for its purpose the preventing of the training or employment of women in industry over the age of thirty-five.
[Later-in committee of the whole-.]



WAR MATERIALS


Colin William George Gibson: With the consent of the committee, I should like to make a statement which I would normally make when the Speaker was in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: I assume that the minister has the consent of the committee.


Colin William George Gibson: As this is for the information of hon. members, with your consent I should like to make this statement before releasing it to the press. An order in council has been passed under the War Measures Act authorizing for the duration of the war the transportation of United States war materials between United States points, through Canada, by motor truck in bond. This action has been taken as a result of urgent requests from the United States government, which represented that where a shorter route was available through Canada the movement of war materials would be expedited and considerable savings made in the use of gasoline and rubber. The necessity for such movement of war materials was inquired into by the board of transport commissioners, who, after a thorough investigation, recommended that for the duration of the war the permission requested be granted.
A consultation was held between representatives of the dominion government, the United States government and the province of Ontario, at which arrangements were entered into by which the movement of war materials in bond through Canada by motor truck could be supervised and controlled. The present measure, being under the War Measures Act, automatically expires at the end of the war, and is limited to war materials only. Regulations are being prepared to control the movement of such goods. These regulations will not apply to United States army vehicles, which are already permitted to enter or pass through this country free of customs restrictions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It this not a complete reversal of

Veterans' Land Act
the whole governmental position? Does the minister think that once a privilege like this is given it will ever be terminated?


Mr. WARD:: Why should it be?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ask the members of the railway unions what they think about it.


Colin William George Gibson: This was discussed fully with the union bodies, and I think the feeling is general that as a war measure and so long as it is restricted to war materials, and that no stops to make deliveries are permitted when passing through Canada, it will meet with approval.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not questioning the policy; I am pointing out the condition.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Do I understand that the railways are already handling so much freight that they cannot handle this traffic?


Colin William George Gibson: That is not the situation. The railways are not working to full capacity. The board of transport commissioners made an investigation and it was found that certain war materials were already being handled by truck, but these trucks were going along the south shore of lake Erie. It was to divert this traffic along the north shore and save about 100 miles in driving that the permission was sought.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were there any public hearings?


Major James William Coldwell: When this matter was discussed in the house before I think it was made clear by the minister that to some extent the decision would depend upon the ability of the railways to handle this type of traffic. As I see it, the thing we have to guard against is that this shall not be regarded as vesting an interest in our roads, and that only war materials shall pass through this country in this way. I think we are all aware of the fact that for a number of years a certain group of truckers have been trying to get permission to cross Ontario in order to shorten their route. After the war our railroads will not be overburdened with traffic, and I think we should protect our own traffic facilities and not permit any United States trucking interests to become established in this country.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 65, to assist war veterans to settle upon the land-
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre)-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that the minister give a brief review of the changes which have been made in this bill since it went to the special committee. It will be recalled that there was some debate on the bill as originally presented. The bill has now been amended and reported from the special committee, and has been reprinted, and I believe there have been some substantial changes. The name has been changed, but I do not attach much importance to that. The suggestion is that the name has been changed to keep this scheme distinct from the Soldier Settlement , Act, both in name and in main principle. It would appear also that eligibility for assistance under the act has been somewhat extended.
On the question of administration, I notice that it is the intention to keep the director- I believe that was in the original act-and the matter is put under the Minister of Mines and Resources, although I saw a suggestion somewhere that, as this was for the benefit of veterans, it should be under the same jurisdiction as other veterans' measures. The minister might explain, though not, I suggest, at great length, what the changes are. I would ask him to give his attention to section 16, on the question of an advisory board; just what does he intend to do under that? There is to be an advisory board of three members. The chairman shall be a county or district court judge of the province in which the board operates. One member is to be named by the Canadian Legion, and another by the chairman; that is to say, the government will name two and the legion will name one. In connection with these advisory boards, has consideration been given to the naming of practical men versed in the problems of the agriculturist? While a county court or district court judge might be a first-class presiding officer, I question whether he would have any practical knowledge which would be of great benefit to an advisory board. Why should a man of judicial education be a member of such a board? I do not know that he could add greatly to the sum total of the knowledge which an advisory board ought to possess in connection with a matter of this kind. Perhaps the minister will tell us just what are to be the functions of this advisory board.
Anything else in relation to the matter I should like to reserve until a little later. I want to say at once that I understand the
Veterans' Land Act

report of the committee was practically unanimous, and there is no intention on my part to hold up the bill.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I shall be very glad indeed to accede to the request of the leader of the opposition. All these changes are shown underlined in the reprinted bill submitted by the select committee. They do not in any way alter the main provisions of the measure which has already been given first and second readings by this house.
I need not detain the committee with a description of the proposed measure, because this is already to be found on the record, on April 20, 1942-when the house approved the resolution permitting the introduction of the bill.
May I say at the outset that the select committee which considered this measure, and which has carried on its deliberations under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Queens, has given the most thorough study to all the clauses of the bill, as well as to the probable effect of its various provisions and the general implications of the measure. The committee approached this problem from an entirely non-partisan point of view, and the thanks of the house are due to the members of the committee and its chairman for their excellent work.
The main changes which have taken place in connection with the measure relate to:
1.	The inclusion of Canadian seamen in receipt of a disability pension;
2.	Provision to include commercial fishing equipment in lieu of live stock and farm equipment;
3.	The setting up of advisory boards;
4.	Provision to enable the director to set up advisory committees to advise as to qualifications of veterans and selection of lands; and also
5.	A provincial advisory board to advise the director when cases of rescission are pending.
Turning to the bill itself, the following comment may be made as to the preamble. There was some discussion as to the necessity for such an elaborate preamble. The committee felt that the preamble ought to make it clear that the proposed enactments of the measure did not restrict the terms of the measure to full-time agriculture, and that a veteran might secure a holding and be assisted in settlement even though he had other employment. Furthermore, since it has been decided to include our heroic merchant seamen under the terms of the bill in certain circumstances, it seemed desirable that the bill
[Mr R. B. Hanson.]
should clearly indicate the committee's intentions.
The definition of "veteran" has been broadened to include, under section 2 (d) (iii):
"a British subject who was ordinarily domiciled or resident in Canada at the beginning of the said war and who is in receipt of a pension in respect of a disability incurred while serving upon a ship during the said war.
Until the war is ended, it would obviously not be in the public interest to encourage our merchant seamen to leave their present employment in order to take up land. Nor, at this stage, are we able to define with reasonable justice what kind and what extent of service in the merchant marine should be considered to qualify a man as a "veteran" for the purposes of this act. Accordingly, for the time being only, the definition of "veteran" was limited, in the case of merchant seamen, to one who had incurred a disability, and it was thought wise to indicate in the preamble very clearly the reasons for the use of the language that has been employed in the bill itself.
The preamble is also useful in calling attention to the fact that the bill is intended in the main to cover the case of the veteran who has limited financial assets rather than the veteran who possesses considerable capital.
As already indicated in the preamble, the committee recommends in section 2-the interpretation section-that British subjects ordinarily domiciled or resident in Canada at the beginning of the war and who are in receipt of a pension as the result of a disability incurred while serving upon a ship during the war, should be eligible under the act.
The other amendment in the interpretation section relates to qualification, where it is made clear that the qualification by the director is in respect of the capability of the applicant as a prospective settler.
Turning to section 9, the committee have added a subsection 2, which reads as follows:
The director may, in a case of a veteran deemed by him to be qualified to engage in commercial fishing, contract, subject to the provisions of this act and regulations thereunder, for the sale to such veteran of land and improvements thereon, building materials and commercial fishing equipment up to a total cost to the director of $4,800 subject to the same conditions set forth in subsection one of this section with the words "commercial fishing equipment" substituted for the words "live stock and farm equipment" wherever they occur therein.
There is also a slight change made in section 7, enabling the director to purchase commercial fishing equipment in order to conform with the general proposal of the committee.

Veterans' Land Act
Representations were made to the committee that many young men had enlisted in the services-many of them in the navy-who would wish to return to their previous occupation as fishermen. It was felt, therefore, that a veteran who was a qualified fisherman, and who acquired land and a home near coastal or inland waters, and would derive his livelihood from fishing, should receive consideration in respect of commercial fishing equipment, and that such equipment would be of more assistance to his rehabilitation than the purchase of live stock and farm equipment. It is believed that this amendment will commend itself to the good sense of this committee as being in line with the general policy of rural settlement and rural home ownership envisaged by the act.
Turning to section 16, the amendment suggested by the special committee would provide for the setting up of a provincial advisory board in each province, appointed by the governor in council, comprised of three members, the chairman of which shall be a county or district court judge of the province in which such board operates; one member to be nominated by the Canadian Legion, and one other member who, together with the chairman, shall be named by the director, to whom would be referred the question of rescission of contract in the case of a veteran who may have defaulted in the performance of the terms of his agreement. The reason why a county court judge was suggested was the desire to follow the procedure largely followed in the board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and to give the veterans personal representation on the committee. It was felt that the final word in regard to rescission might very well rest largely with an outside independent and neutral body.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: This is to review the case of any man in default, to determine whether he should go on or not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What power will the board have? They will have no power io reduce indebtedness?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They will be in the capacity of making a report to the governor in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; to the director. Representations were made to the committee by various ex-servicemen's organizations and others suggesting that
some such board should pass upon the question of rescission before finally closing out the contract which a veteran may have with the director under the proposed act.
Turning to section 34, it will be observed that the special committee suggest an amendment which would authorize the governor in council to appoint regional or provincial advisory committees to advise the director in respect to the qualifications of veterans, the selection of lands, and such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the director. It is appreciated, by all concerned with the selection of settlers, that the qualifying committee is a most important body. No matter how eager an applicant may be, it would be unfortunate to qualify unsuitable candidates, and it has been emphasized strongly in debate in this house, especially by the leader of the opposition, that the qualifying committee should assure itself of the suitability for settlement, not only of the veteran but of his family.
A great deal of experience can now be mobilized to apply proper criteria to the selection of settlers, and so far as it is humanly possible to do so, to eliminate unsuitable candidates. Those who have studied this bill will recognize that it does not aim to encourage speculative or the promotional type of land settlement and, in the main, its provisions are designed to meet the needs of the young men who have left our farms to serve Canada. It is intended that they should have a reasonable start, based upon their qualifications and their determination to live on the land.
On the other hand, throughout Canada, in cooperation with the provincial departments of agriculture and the universities, agronomists have made great progress in soil surveys, and there are now available maps and data which should be used to the full in the selection of farm properties upon which veterans will settle. Advisory committees in which will be included soil and other experts, are contemplated by this proposed amendment to the bill.
With these proposed amendments the bill lias, therefore, been reported to the house, and the special committee have also called the attention of the house to certain recommendations which they ask the government to take into consideration, apart altogether from the specific provisions of this bill. These recommendations have already been reported to the house, and I need not, at this stage, offer any comment upon them.
There is one point, however, in respect of the coming into operation of this act, which will, I know, be appreciated by the house.
Veterans' Land Act

It will take considerable time to set up the machinery and committees, and to begin the selection of farm properties which might be suitable for settlement. In war conditions there are difficulties of transport because of rubber and gasoline shortages, but also it must be recognized that the securing of staff, while the war is on, is none too easy.
The soldier settlement board now undertakes, in rural communities, a great deal of investigational work for the government, much of which is occasioned by the war. I trust therefore it will be understood that time must elapse in which an organization will be built up to carry the administration of the act. Indeed, the very purpose of bringing the bill before the house at this time is to establish the lines upon which the administration will operate and to enable a start to be made in organization, so that this service to discharged and later demobilized men may be built competently.
Inquiry will be made at once as to the status under this bill of those already discharged from the forces. It will be observed that the bill describes as "a veteran" a former member of the forces who has been overseas or who, not having been overseas, has had more than a year's service in Canada. While there are at present upwards of 50,000 discharged men-I believe there are 52,000-the number of those who would thus be eligible and who would be able to qualify is not great. On the other hand, it is recognized that each month there are upwards of 2,000 discharges, and inevitably the number of those who have been overseas, or who have had more than a year's service, will grow. But in any case it cannot be expected that much settlement would take place under the act until 1943.
In conclusion may I say that the bill in its amended form, as recommended by the special committee, should commend itself to the house as one important foundation stone in the structure of rehabilitation measures now being built to care for the veteran of the present war. I have never in my experience seen a committee that worked so well and gave so much consideration to a constructive issue.


Mr. STIRLING:: I did not hear what the minister said about the coming into operation of the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Probably by proclamation.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with the minister in congratulating the chairman upon the excellent job which he did as head of the committee. I think that all the members of the committee gave their veiy best to its

work, and it was certainly an investigation which, while very pointed at times, was nevertheless conducted on a non-partisan basis. It was a small committee, consisting originally of fifteen members. One of them was a gentleman in the army, and another could not attend, but on the average, of the remaining thirteen members, there was an attendance of eleven at all our discussions, and we held many meetings. We had a good many fine presentations by various organizations and individuals throughout Canada.
As has been stated, it was the purpose of the dominion government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans, upon their performance of the prescribed settlement conditions, in order to permit of their engaging in agricultural pursuits, either as a full-time occupation or as a part-time job coupled with some other employment.
May I say at the beginning that if it were not for the fact that I have some faith in the future, and a hope that agricultural parity will eventually be established in Canada, I would not have been able to support the bill even in principle. In the great nation to the south of us, the United States, there has been parity between agricultural and other products for a year now, and under the Washington wheat agreement of June 27, 1942, signed by the Argentine, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, the representatives of these nations have recognized the basis of a parity price for wheat which will return a fair remuneration to the producers as well as being fair to the consumer. On the basis of these agreements, and having regard to what has been done in the United States, I think we may hope that we are doing these settlers justice by establishing them on the land, because we hope that they will be able to carry on under parity prices, in the future at any rate. As I say, if it were not for that hope I for one could not have supported the bill.
This bill is distinctive. It is different from the soldier settlement act, both in name and in principle. It provides for the granting of a loan, and refers to ex-service men as veterans rather than settlers. In connection with section 5 of the act, I have felt some concern because in the early years, under the old act establishing the soldier settlement board, the municipal authorities had very many difficulties owing to tax arrears. I remember our western municipal union executive having to make trips to Ottawa on several occasions to have these difficulties ironed out. I am happy to say this was taken care of under section 5, which reads:

Veterans' Land Act
5.	The main purpose is to establish the legal entity and corporate powers of the director.
Subsection (6) of this section is a recitation of the relative subsection which appears in the Soldier Settlement Act, giving taxing authorities the right of recourse to the land itself for taxes duly assessed. In order to avoid conflict with the British North America Act with respect to the taxing of crown property, the director remains a corporation sole but not an agent of the crown. Any attempt to deprive the taxing authorities of the right of recourse to the land for recovery of taxes would undoubtedly meet strong opposition. In practice it is just as well for people established under such an act to realize from the start that they must pay taxes.
I was pleased to see that that point has been so covered.
The matter of agricultural training is covered in section 6. It states:
6.	The director may make provision for-
(a)	the placing of veterans with selected farmers for practical instruction in farming;
(b)	the supplying of instructors and inspectors to assist veterans with information and instruction in farming, or arrangements to this end with federal and respective provincial departments or the extension departments of Canadian universities or accredited agricultural schools or colleges.
Section 7 deals with the acquisition of lands and other property. It provides that:
7.	The director may, for the execution of any of the purposes of this act,
(a)	purchase by agreement, at prices which to him shall seem reasonable, or
(b)	in any other manner acquire by consent or agreement from His Majesty in the right of Canada or from any province or municipal authority, or from any person, firm or corporation;
I think that is very well covered.
Section 9 has to do with the sale of land to the veteran, and I think the various clauses of that section deal with it very well.
Section 10 points out that the veteran is deemed a tenant at will, that is:
Every veteran holding or occupying land sold by the director shall until the director grants or conveys the land to him be deemed a tenant at will.
Various safeguards are taken under that section and section 11. Section 13 provides:
13. The direct r may make advances to a veteran to enable the discharge of encumbrances on farm land which is owned and used by him as such, for the purchase of live stock and farm equipment and for the effecting of permanent improvements, of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of three thousand two hundred dollars, but subject to the following conditions:
(a) advances for all purposes shall not exceed 60 per centum of the value of the land as established by the director;
Section 15 deals with the interest rate, fixing it at 31 per cent; which is a very great improvement over the old soldier settlement act.
Section 23 provides that:
23. Loans or advances authorized by this act shall not be made to persons who obtained loans or advances under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, and who are indebted to the director of soldier settlement.
At this particular time.
In section 34, one in which I am very much interested, it is stated that:
34. The governor in council may appoint regional or provincial advisory committees to advise the director in respect to the qualifications of veterans, the selection of lands and generally in respect to such other matters as may be referred to any such committee by the director; and the director with the approval of the governor in council, may make regulations prescribing the number of members and the composition of each committee, the tenure of office of such members, the remuneration and expenses to be paid or allowed such members and generally the conduct and performance of such committees and the members thereof in the execution of their duties.
A great difficulty under the old soldier settlement board was that the authorities allowed these settlers to settle on a great amount of sub-marginal land. We cannot take too many precautions to prevent a repetition of settlement even in small numbers on sub-marginal lands, because it is detrimental both to the settler and to the country as a whole. We must guard against that at any cost. I should like to recommend that to avoid such difficulties our regional or provincial advisory committee should include a provincial soil expert from the university of that province, a representative of each provincial municipal organization of the province -because I do not know of any organization which would be more interested than the municipality in which the settler is placed- and a member of the provincial command of the Canadian Legion. Without their approval no settler should be settled on any land.
I think this committee made certain recommendations to the soldier settlement board. I should like to ask the minister if we may refer to them now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see no harm in referring to the recommendations of the committee, but of course they are entirely separate.


James Arthur Ross: I think I would save time by making reference to the recommendations with respect to adjustments in the old
Veterans' Land Act

soldier settlement board. They are to be found in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, July 17.
No. 1 provides that the director may grant the settler an extension of time, not exceeding twenty years, for the payment of his indebtedness. I think that is very proper.
No. 2 provides that the rate of interest to be charged from and after the standard date first following the coming into force of the section in respect of any agreement between the soldier settlement board or the director of soldier settlement and any such settler or person shall be 3i per cent. That is on the same basis as the new settlers under this act, and as I think it should be.
No. 3 deals with the setting up of an adjustment committee. I think it was the view of the committee that the objective of this committee should be, as stated in this clause, of establishing an equity for the settler, if feasible and practical, provided that the settler is in personal occupation of the land and that such agreement had not been terminated, rescinded or assigned. The committee felt that there should be certain safeguards, that the settler should carry on for a term of years, because while this is a matter of government policy some of us felt that these settlers, provided they are a going concern, should have an equity established of at least 30 per cent in their land and property. Naturally that will be a matter of government policy, but there is a sound argument why this equity should be established. Only last week we had the premiers of the three prairie provinces here negotiating with the federal government for the relief of western farmers in regard to debt legislation, and I think many of those settlers are those in difficulties under the soldier settlement board. In many of the last ten years the yearly income of prairie farmers in general in the three prairie provinces has been less than one-third the average income of 1926 to 1929, and still remains 8100,000,000 lower than in any year from 1926 to 1929. Over 70 per cent of the soldier settlers who are in difficulty are in this group of agriculturists for which the premiers of the three provinces are tiying to obtain adjustment. I think it is only just that the government should see that these settlers who are still carrying on should receive an equity of 30 per cent in their property.
I was quoted in the press as having said that we should first eliminate the misfits. I made that reference in the kindliest terms. I consider I should be a misfit in many callings. In making that reference I have in mind about 10 per cent or slightly more who might be termed misfits under the soldier settlement

board to carry on as able farmers. They should be taken care of as suggested in this recommendation:	.
4.	The committee strongly recommends that in those cases where it appears to be the desire of a settler to remain in occupation of his farm home there be developed a closer degree of cooperation between the director of soldier settlement and the war veterans' allowance board to the end that the settler may continue to occupy his present home at modest cost, on a basis whereby the settler can cooperate by assigning a portion of his allowance for this purpose.
This means, in simple terms, that the state owes some consideration to those who have become physically unfit to carry on, and that they should be provided for. I have not assumed, of course, that they would be forgotten. I believe this takes care of those whom I may have improperly described as misfits. They have been provided for, with the idea that they would not be able to carry on farming operations, and should be taken care of by another department of government. I am sure that under the provisions of the bill they will be looked after.
In my view this new bill No. 65 is a good one. There have been compromises on one or two points, and we have made many changes. The result is a good piece of legislation; and with a future parity in agricultural production we shall have done something worth while for agriculturists who are now serving in the armed forces, and who upon their return to this country may come under the operation of the act. I hope that those men will not be disappointed in this undertaking.


Mr. SENN:: I wish to register my approval of the main features of this bill, and the principle underlying it. This is a most important reconstruction project, and one which has some distinct advantages over the old Soldier Settlement Act. I believe the main features of the bill are somewhat similar to those in the old aot, but in preparing this measure we have had the advantage of profiting from the mistakes made not only in the provisions of the old act, but in its administration. There is the further advantage that land values to-day are much lower than they were when the old act came into force and purchases were made. Live stock prices, too, are lower. On the other hand it is only fair to say that farm machinery necessary for the operation of farms in these days is more expensive than it was when the old Soldier Settlement Act began to operate.
This measure has for its purpose the settling of soldiers on the land. I believe it aims to establish an equity in lands which soldier settlers get. It is to be a reasonable equity,

Veterans' Land Act
or one which will enable the soldier to carry on with a fair chance of success. If properly handled I believe the soldier will be able to succeed. His success, however, will depend to a great extent upon two main factors, the first of which is the settler himself and his family relationship. It should be considered whether the settler is industrious and has business ability. The success of his venture will also depend upon whether his wife will be capable of carrying on on a farm. The second factor upon which success will depend is the administration of the act. The administration will have to watch most carefully the selection of settlers. There will have to be careful supervision of the selection of land.
I believe it is section 34 which makes provision for the setting up of committees to assist the director in the selection of lands. In his brief observations the minister pointed out that maps and certain other data are available to the settlement board, and that this information will make it more unlikely for them to fall into the error of settling soldiers in areas which do not offer a reasonable chance of success. In my view there are certain drought areas in which soldiers should not be settled under any circumstances. Although it is possible that some of these areas may come into production again, settlement there would be too great a risk.
Another consideration which is important is the control which should be exercised over increased indebtedness. As the bill is now drafted the soldier should have at least a 50 per cent equity in his land, plus stock and implements. I voiced the fear when the bill was first discussed in the house, and also in committee, that the sum of $1,200 is, to say the least, little enough to provide stock and equipment on a farm, if that farm is to be adequately managed and cultivated. If a soldier lacks funds of his own it will be necessary for a soldier to go deeper into debt before he can adequately furnish his farm with stock and implements. The director should have some supervision over the amount of indebtedness which can be incurred by a soldier settler who has to purchase stock and equipment in addition to that furnished by the department.
I admit of course that a soldier settler cannot expect to begin operations on the same basis as a man who has farmed all his life, and who, by his hard work and industry, has gathered round him a good farm equipped with stock and implements. There will have to be careful supervision- and careful judgment by the soldier himself if he is to be successful, despite the favourable start he is given under the measure.
I agree with the main features of the bill. I hope it will pass without too much discussion or criticism, and I wish the director every success in his supervision.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Veterans' Land Act

is much good land there too; I do not mean it is all like that. In the early days this land was covered with the finest of pine. When the returned soldien saw all this pine he was satisfied to accept the land. He went in and settled, but in due course he had to leave. We should make certain that the returned soldier is placed on land of such quality that he will have a chance to make good.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Does not the hon. member think that the county to which he has just referred is a pretty good county?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did say that much of the land was good. If my hon. friend has visited Watson's Comers-


George James McIlraith: I know the district
quite well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -he will see that the 160 acres on the left side of the road is almost solid rock. Of the 200 acres that were awarded to one of my people, 160 acres proved to be solid rock with only 40 acres of arable land. A returned soldier should not be placed on land like that. The farms to which I h*ve immediate reference have been abandoned, but I did say that there is much good land in Lanark county; on the whole it is magnificent. No one in this house knows that county better than I do, because my people settled there in 1S20, and I have covered the whole territory. I feel confident that the minister will see that every returned soldier is given a chance and is not placed on land similar to that awarded to some of the soldiers following the Napoleonic wars. Many of the famous families of that day settled there- the colonels, the majors and so on; but much of the land has since been abandoned.
The next scheme was that which followed the South African war. In that case the governments of the provinces gave the soldiers the land outright. In Ontario the returned soldiers were given 100 or 200 acres in the county of Muskoka. Here again some of the land was good, but much of it was simply rock and water. A man cannot farm on rock and water. Without any desire to criticize the bill, I suggest that the director see to it that the soldiers are placed on land that will give them a chance to make good.
The next scheme was put into force in northern Ontario following the depression. I called on a number of people who had been sent up there, but when I returned a year or two afterwards I found many of them gone and the farms abandoned. In that case the people were settled too far from markets. A man was given 200 acres of land, and after spending a year or two attempting to break it he w'ould find that he had only five or ten

acres in a state of cultivation. He became disheartened and left the land. If a hundred or more families of returned soldiers are placed in a new area my suggestion is that the land should first be cleared with bulldozers and tractors in order that they may have a chance to produce something the first year or two.
I was greatly impressed by what was done in connection with the settlement of Sudetens in British Columbia. These people were brought here in 1939 and were placed on
23,000	acres of land under the charge of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In my humble opinion the Canadian Pacific deserve unstinted praise for what they have done to assist these Sudeten farmers.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Is the legion of British Columbia in accord with that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not considering the matter from that point of view. I am thinking only of the soldier. I want him to have a chance right from the beginning. Many of my own people are soldiers, and perhaps some of them will want to go on the land. The Sudetens were given the land outright, or they owned it within a short time after they went on the land. It was first broken up for them by bulldozers and then cultivated by the use of cooperative ploughs. They were shipping 70 hogs every two weeks, 75 cans of milk every week, and many cattle and so on. I have confidence in the minister and feel sure that he will see that the returned soldier is placed on land which will give him a chance from the very beginning. Many times in the past they have not had a chance, because of the land being poor, because of lack of transportation facilities and roads, or because of the lack of markets.
The most glaring example of lack of roads and markets is in the section north of the Peace River. This is fine land, and some day there will probably be a large settlement there. I ask the minister to make sure that before men are placed on land, roadways are constructed so that they may have free access to and from their land. Then some scheme should be undertaken to see to it that the produce can be got to a market.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That matter is covered, if not specifically, at least inferentially, by section 35.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have no doubt that what I have said in that regard would have come under the minister's observation. I am satisfied that every member wants the returned soldier to be placed on good land, with the proper roads and markets. If markets are too

Veterans' Land Act
far away, some plan should be instituted whereby the commodities produced can be taken to a market. This would not be done to injure other farmers; it would be done to render a service to the returned men. I cannot help but feel that this committee and the country will support anything the minister may decide upon to give these men an opportunity to make good.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to bear out the statement of the minister and of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) with regard to the able manner in which the chairman of this committee conducted the proceedings. I should like also to comment upon the earnestness of the manner in which the committee went about its work. The committee have as a matter of fact made several major changes in the bill, largely, I think, because of the men who were on the advisory committee which was appointed by the department to assist in drafting the original bill. On that advisory committee were some seven departmental officials, and five men who represented land companies and mortgage companies, and the two great railways which have large amounts of land available for settlement. But on that committee there were no representatives of agriculture, and no representatives of the men who settled under the old act. Some 25,000 men settled under the old act, and some 3.000 or more of them have paid off their indebtedness. Surely the government should have appointed some of these men to the advisory committee, because they knewT the actual conditions under which the settlers have operated over a number of years under the old act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We had the deputy minister of agriculture on the committee.


Percy Ellis Wright: But he is not a representative of organized agriculture. I deprecate the government's attitude in that regard-the assumption that when they appoint an official of the Department of Agriculture on a committee of this kind they are appointing a representative of agriculture. If agriculture is to be truly represented on these committees, the representative must be appointed by the organized agriculturists themselves, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other agricultural bodies.
The committee which considered this bill has certainly made some improvements in it as it was originally presented to the house. The bill has two objects. We are, first of all, to have a smaller settlement scheme under which men who have part-time employment shall be given small holdings on which to live and construct a suitable house, and it 44561-277J
is proposed that these settlements shall be in districts where part-time emploj^ment is available. That is a good idea, but I do not think settlement should be restricted entirely to territory adjacent to industrial districts. I know farming districts in western Canada where around almost every town small holdings have grown up naturally. The provisions of this part of the bill should be extended to include other than industrial areas. This form of settlement should not be on too large a scale, of course, but there is a definite place, both in eastern and in western Canada, for settlement on a small Scale around our larger towns and cities.
This part of the act will not be brought into effect, I presume, until the war is over, because we have not the material with which to construct these houses. I suggest that in the meantime the government should have able architects draw up forty or fifty plans for houses, and that when the war is over we do not place the construction of these houses in the hands of large contractors who will build them in a more or less wholesale manner.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but that matter has already been discussed with the dominion housing administration.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am very glad of that. I believe we should adopt a scheme somewhat similar to that in which St. Francis Xavier university of Nova Scotia is interested, and that these settlers, wherever possible, should gather together in study clubs to look over the plans for houses, and assist, under supervision, in the actual construction of their own houses. I do not think there is anything that has more of a tendency to hold a man in one place and to promote stability than for the man himself to assist in the planning and building of his own house. The government should bear this in mind when introducing this part of the scheme when the war is over.
The other part of the bill deals with those who are engaged in full-time farming. Since history began there has been a land settlement scheme after almost every great war. The hon. member for Davenport has mentioned a few of them that we have had in Canada. Go back through Roman and Greek history and you will find that after the Roman and Greek wars there were land settlement schemes in those countries. It is only natural that men who have left offices and served in the army for three or four years hate the thought of going back into an office, and when
Veterans' Land Act

land settlement schemes such as this are available they naturally wish to settle on the land, whether they are suitable for farming or not.
At the present time agriculture in Canada is in none too prosperous a condition. Over the past ten years no other industry in Canada has been so much in the doldrums as agriculture, and it seems a wrong idea to me for us to say now that when the war is over we are going to turn thousands of our soldiers on to farms unless we make provision for the marketing of their produce. The minister in introducing this bill said that approximately
35,000	men have already made application to settle under these provisions. During the investigation by the committee the minister was questioned by the hon. member for Haldimand as follows:
Mr. Senn:	It is not intended to limit this
to 35,000?
Hon. Mr. Mackenzie:	No, that is only a
guide.
Mr. Senn: Is there any intention to limit it at all?
Hon. Mr. Mackenzie: Of course, I could not be definite at the moment, but this present bill is based upon an estimate in regard to the financial commitment of 35,000 of $80,000,000 of which $34,000,000 is a direct gift to the settlers. We will have to go much further before this bill is through.
Mr. Senn: Yes, I think so.
Hon. Mr. Mackenzie: We have 33,000 w'ho have already signified their intention through the surveys we have made, and of course, when the surveys are complete we will probably have nearly 100,000 who want to signify their intention to go on the land.
If it is the intention to settle anything like that number of men in agriculture, the idea is entirely wrong. We have a committee of the house which is making a thorough study of reconstruction. They are agreed that before the war agriculture was not in a prosperous condition, and that further settlement and the further development of agriculture at this time without some definite knowledge of whether there is going to be a market for what is produced is not good. In that connection I should like to quote from the evidence given before the reconstruction committee by Doctor James:
There is, however, another problem underlying all of these in the field of agriculture, a problem which is causing concern here and abroad. Agriculture, during the last fifty years, has been greatly mechanized. I have already said that I am not a farmer, but even a layman realizes that a farmer with a tractor and appropriate equipment is able to look after many more acres of land than is his predecessor with two horses and a plough. We are able, with a steadily diminishing agricultural population in Canada, the United States, Argentina, Great Britain and most other countries, to produce a greater quantity of agricultural prod-

ucts; so that we must obtain some clear idea of the number of people that are necessary to meet our agricultural demands and the number which can attain a decent standard of living, with reasonable prosperity and comfort, through farming. On that aspect of the problem, the committee on reconstruction has instituted a rather comprehensive study which comes under the high-sounding name of "contemporary demographic trends in relation to the agricultural development of Canada," by Professor W. D. Hurd. The purpose of that study is to find out the exact distribution of population between town and country, the per capita production and the consumption of those populations, and to attempt the very difficult task of estimating the optimum production of a farmer, the best size of farm and the most reasonable size for the agricultural population that Canada needs.
The government, having that committee at work, should take its findings into very serious consideration. I am afraid that if we are going to settle under this scheme a lot of settlers who have not had agricultural experience, and who have been engaged in other industries, but who are to be sent to work with farmers until they have a knowledge of farming, we shall be making a mistake. Men who come from agriculture and have had experience of it should be the ones to be placed back in agriculture, under conditions which will give them a reasonable chance of success.
The hon. member for Davenport said that wre must place these men on good land, not marginal land. The director is going to have difficulty in obtaining good land, in proper economic units, for $3,600. In western Canada to-day a section to a section and a half of land is the only economic unit. You can give a man there a quarter section with clear title, and twenty years afterwards he will be mortgaged and in debt to the extent that he will have no equity, because a quarter section is not an economic unit unless a man can obtain other land to work along with it. That is one reason why only men who are engaged in agriculture and who have their relations similarly employed and able to give them assistance other than they can get through the board, have a reasonable chance of making a success under this scheme.
I feel very strongly on this particular point, and I believe the government should be, and will be, very careful in the selection of settlers to take up land under this scheme. Your director has had the experience of the past twenty-two years under the old soldier settlement board; he knows the conditions that exist and the problems that will face the board under the new act. I sincerely hope he will take those into consideration and will limit the numbers to be settled under this

Veterans' Land Act
scheme to those who can be successfully absorbed into agriculture, and to those who have a reasonable chance of success.
Included in the recommendations made to this house on July 7 by the committee were some which certain members would like to see included in the bill. The first was the advisability of adopting a system in which the annual payments to be made by the settler under this measure will be adjusted in accordance with the relation of the prices of the commodities that he has to sell to those that he has to buy. Personally I think that is a very important recommendation, and one which should have been incorporated in the bill. For a set-tier to be successful under this legislation he must obtain a parity price for his products. The reason which was given for not doing this was that the government felt that they could not apply the principle to one class of farmer unless they were prepared to adopt it for agriculture as a whole. I believe that this principle should be adopted by the government so far as agriculture is concerned in this country, and that it would have been a very good change to incorporate that recommendation in the provisions of the bill. We talk of a new order, of what we are going to do when the war is over; but when it comes to putting something definite on paper we seem to be very slow about doing it. The government would have been justified in including such a clause as this, especially since the returned men affected by this bill are going to make very great sacrifices for us who are staying at home.
Another recommendation made to the government was that settlers under this legislation be given the first option on the purchase of tractors, trucks and any military equipment suitable for farm use when disposition is being made of them after the war. I have no doubt that the government will take into consideration that recommendation, which is a very good one.
Third, that at a later date this act be so amended as to make provision for persons having had service on ships and who are not in receipt of disability pensions. I do not think any comment is needed on that; the committee were unanimous about it.
Fourth, the advisability of placing the administration of this act under a new department which would deal exclusively with all matters pertaining to ex-service men and women. It was the general feeling of the committee that the old soldier settlement act was placed under the Department of Mines and Resources for a definite purpose, namely that this department had control of much of the available land which was to be used for
settlement. To-day that condition is changed; the land is largely under the control of the provinces, and there does not seem to be any sufficient reason why the administration of the present measure should be under that department. In the opinion of the committee, with which I thoroughly agree, it should be administered either by the Department of Pensions and National Health or by the Department of Agriculture'. There is much to be said for placing the administration under the Department of Agriculture.
Under this act the director will have a wide range of power, and he can, if there is proper supervision, make it a success. His attitude will have a large bearing on the effects of the legislation. I sincerely hope he takes into consideration the matter of establishing at some time, under the act, cooperative farming on some scale at which he deems will be successful. The settlers under this bill will have a much greater chance of success if a number of them are working together than they will as individuals, each trying to carry on his small show with inadequate capital and inadequate equipment, which would reduce his chances of making good. Twelve hundred dollars will not procure a decent line of equipment to farm either a quarter-section or a half-section of land in western Canada, but S4.800 would buy an up-to-date line of equipment which would farm effectively a section of land. The director should give serious consideration to the establishment if possible of some form of cooperation among the settlers, especially in the earlier days of settlement, until they become more self-sufficient.
Under the act, the settler must insure his property. I know that under the old act much more was paid out in premiums than was ever drawn by the settlers from the insurance companies. I suggest that the government give serious thought to some form of group insurance of the property of settlers instead of turning it over to the line companies as was done under the last act. There is also the question of the dower right of the widow in the land. This is taken away, and the director will find after two or three years, when the settler dies and the widow is left, that the settler has no equity in his land so that the director will have to dispossess the widow of the land. It is not going to go over very well with the general public, and I would ask the director to consider seriously the matter of group insurance of married settlers to the amount that the board have an interest in the land, so that when the settler dies his widow or family will have clear title to the land. This is important, and it should receive serf-
Veterans' Land Act

ous attention. Personally I think the government should organize a company and themselves go into insurance to that extent. If they do not see fit to do this, I urge upon them that they make an arrangement with one of the regular companies for group insurance for settlers to the amount of their indebtedness to the board.


Thomas Vien: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that, so far, this discussion has been most irregular. It is in direct violation of standing order 58, subsection 2. Under the short title of a bill, according to the rules, it is not permissible to renew the general discussion of principle which has taken place on the second reading. A practice has developed whereby, sometimes, to expedite the second reading of a bill, an undertaking is given that general discussion will be allowed in committee on the short title. I observe, however, that when Bill No. 65 came for second reading, a very extensive debate took place and no undertaking to widen the discussion in committee was made. I therefore find it very difficult to apply the rule, if a discussion which should have taken place and which has taken place on the second reading were allowed to be repeated in committee on clause 1. Unless there is unanimous consent, it is my duty to remind hon. members of rule 58.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I entirely agree with your observations, Mr. Chairman; there is no question that they are quite right according to the rules. However, I suggest that by consent of the committee it might expedite the final passing of the bill if we had a short discussion on the short title-only by unanimous consent, of course.


Mr. QUELCH:: A great deal of credit is due to the chairman of the committee that investigated this matter for the admirable way in which he conducted the sittings. Generally speaking, I am heartily in accord with the various sections of the bill. It is a very great improvement on the bill introduced at the end of the last war for the purpose of settling returned men on the land. Nevertheless, I do feel that the success of the bill will depend to a very large extent upon the type of agriculture that is maintained after the war. If we are to have the same type of agricultural policy that we have had from the close of the last war until now, I am satisfied that the majority of men that are settled under this measure will fail to become established. So far as the administration of the act is concerned I think it will be very necessary that every sympathetic consideration be given to the soldiers who have settled under the act.

Generally speaking, under the old act, in its earlier stages, the men undoubtedly did receive that consideration, but on the other hand it seems to me that in later years the soldier settlement board had been adopting a hard-boiled attitude towards the men.
It was suggested in the committee that the settlers should be entitled to a parity price; at least I should say that it was felt by many members of the committee that this should be done. It was also suggested that their payments to the board should be adjusted on that basis. Section 1 of the recommendations in regard to this bill, reads:
The feasibility of adopting a system in which the animal payments to be made by a settler under this act will be adjusted in accordance with the relation of the prices of the commodities he has to sell with those he has to buy.
While quite a large number of members of the committee felt that this was a sound principle, we did not press for its inclusion in the bill because we looked upon it as a matter of national policy; that is, that it applies not merely to soldiers but to all farms at the present time. We felt, therefore, that as it was a question of national policy rather than merely a policy in regard to soldier settlers, it would not be well to include it in the bill. I remember when the bill was before the house for discussion, prior to its being sent to the committee, the Minister of Finance emphasized the fact that the reason so many soldiers had failed under the old act was to be found in the highly inflated prices they had to pay. Of course, there is a great deal of truth in that, but it was not merely the inflated prices they had to pay. The trouble was that prices were allowed to fall to a very low level. If the inflated prices had been allowed to fall only to a fair level, the results would not have been so disastrous; but prices were allowed to go down to a very much deflated level, a level so low that it was absolutely impossible for soldier settlers to recover costs out of prices.
That applies to all agriculturists as well as to the soldier settlers. There are many people who believe that it would be unwise to engage in any large land settlement scheme in view of the fact that before the war we had large surpluses of agricultural products, and no doubt after this war we shall have the same situation. On the other hand prominent dietitians have told us that if the people of this country were using a healthy diet the consumption of dairy products could easily be doubled. But no doubt we could, by further mechanization, easily maintain the level of agricultural products to satisfy that diet without any increase in the present settlement. Therefore I agree that it would be a

Veterans' Land Act
mistake aft^r this war to engage in any large scheme of settling people on the land. Nevertheless, since 30,000 soldiers in the forces at the present time have signified that they desire to be placed on the land, we must do everything in our power to satisfy that desire. No doubt before the end of the war there will be more than 30,000 soldiers wishing to go on the land. When we make provision for placing these men on the land it is up to us to see that everything that can be done to make that settlement a success shall be done. I believe this bill paves the way for such a settlement. But as I said before, unless we see that a sounder agricultural policy is maintained in the future than we have had in the past., I am afraid the consequences will be similar to those which followed the last war.
The preamble of the bill states:
And whereas the great majority of prospective veteran settlers have limited financial assets and the lack of such assets has proved to be the main obstacle in the fulfilment of settlement contracts and to the acquirement of farm home ownership;
This is going to be one of the main stumbling blocks to the success of this bill. The bill requires that a settler must pay down 10 per cent of the cost of the land at the time of his settling. He may be in a position to put up 10 per cent of the value of the land, but if he does so he will probably find it very hard to provide the money necessary to furnish the house, especially if he is a married man; and we know from past experience that if a married man has to settle under conditions that are not satisfactory for a congenial life, matrimonial troubles are likely to ensue. The committee gave a good deal of time to that point. They felt that it would be possible to overcome the difficulty. I think the same provision was in the last measure, and the difficulty was largely overcome.
I should like to deal briefly with the other sections of the recommendations. Section 2 provides that;
Settlers under this act shall be given first option on the purchase of tractors, trucks, and other military equipment suitable for farm use when disposition is being made of the same after the war.
The committee will remember that after the last war certain corporations bought up most of this equipment, and it was resold at a satisfactory profit. The committee felt that tractors and truoks should be made available to settlers direct instead of being sold through any corporation, thus bringing about a considerable increase in prices.
Section 3 states that:
-at a later date this act be so amended as to make provision for persons having had service on ships, who are not in receipt of a disability pension.
The feeling of the committee was that men in the merchant marine would be as much entitled as soldiers to consideration under this act. But it was pointed out that these men will be required at sea for a number of years after the war, so that it was not considered advisable to bring them in at this time. If they are suffering disability they will be taken care of. No doubt at a later time the act will be amended to make possible the coming of these men under its provisions, when their services are not longer urgently required at sea.
Section 4 states that:
The advisability of placing the administration of this act under a new department which would deal exclusively with all matters pertaining to ex-service men and women.
I think we all realize that soldiers are more likely to get sympathetic consideration under the department of pensions than under any other branch, and it was pointed out that in all probability a new department would be formed later on to deal with returned men. If that should be done, then we felt that this act should be brought under the administration of that department. Soldiers settling on land undoubtedly will require sympathetic consideration if they are to succeed. Agriculture as a whole has carried on under tremendous difficulties during the past twenty years. Soldiers face further difficulties in addition to those of civilian farmers. If they are to succeed it is essential that every consideration be given them in connection with the obstacles they have to overcome.
As several hon. members have referred to the recommendations regarding settlers under the old act, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words in that regard. While I have stated that generally speaking I feel well satisfied with this bill, I cannot say that I am so well satisfied with the recommendations regarding settlers under the old act. Whether or not these recommendations will be satisfactory will depend entirely upon the way they are interpreted. The recommendations may mean much, or in some regards they may mean nothing.
Section 3 of the recommendations reads as follows:
3.	The minister may with the approval of the governor in council appoint a committee of not more than three members to be known as the
Veterans' Land Act

adjustment committee at such rate of remuneration as the governor in council may fix and allow and for a period of not more than twelve months with powers to review and confirm or reduce the indebtedness of soldier settlers whose agreements with the director of soldier settlement were the subjects of proposals formulated under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act prior to October 1, 1939, or in the case of such other soldier settler as may be recommended by the director, with the objective if feasible and practical, of establishing an equity for the settler; provided that the settler is in personal occupation of the land and that such agreements have not been terminated, rescinded or assigned.
Exactly what is meant by an equity? If the debt of the soldier settler is reduced one dollar below the value of the land, that is an equity, but no one would suggest that such action would overcome the difficulty of that man becoming reestablished. At the present time about 3,800 men under the old act have an equity of less than 16 per cent. The loan companies in Canada recognize, generally speaking, that a man must have an equity of around 50 per cent in his land if he is ever to be able to repay the debt. The new act places the equity at 33J per cent. Many of us felt that in dealing with the settlers under the old act we should give them an equity of at least 33J per cent. What does this recommendation really mean? I hope the minister will later define what he considers should be the guiding principle in giving that equity.
The CHAIRMAN; I must point out that, except in a very casual way, reference to former legislation is not in order. On second reading of this bill an exhaustive comparison was made of this new legislation with the old act. I shall have to draw a line somewhere. Let us not neglect the real issue before the committee.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. PERLEY:: This morning a number of bouquets were passed around, to the minister, the chairman of the committee, and the committee generally. I want to associate myself with what hon. members have said in this regard. I was not a member of the committee, but I tried to keep in close touch with what was happening. I read the reports, and I think the committee did a splendid work. There were only thirteen members, two of whom are in the army. The eleven who remained have a splendid record of attendance. I think this idea of smaller membership should be applied to the other committees. The agriculture committee has
[Mr. Quelch.3
a membership of about fifty, which makes it almost impossible to do the work as efficiently as this committee has done its work.
This morning the minister referred to the amendments that had been made to the bill in committee. As the bill was thoroughly discussed in the resolution stage, it is not necessary to go into that now. The bill should go through the remainder of its stages rather quickly. It will come into operation by proclamation. It is a most important measure. It may be regrettable that the house will not have more time to study it, but we want to get through. I hope that the bill will prove more satisfactory for the returned soldier than did the previous soldier settlement scheme. The minister said this morning that from 50,000 to a possible 100,000 men may be placed on the land. In order to make this scheme a success there will have to be proper supervision and selection of both the men and the land.
I think it was the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who said that there is a future for agriculture. We are all coming around to that way of thinking. The hon. member referred to the agreement reached by the five leading w'heat producing nations in connection with parity prices for the producer, particularly the wheat producer. I believe this house is more or less in agreement that some arrangement should be made with respect to that.
I should like to refer briefly to what happened after the last war. I was going to say that at that time men were placd promiscuously on the land. There certainly were not proper investigations with regard to the suitability of the land, the nearness to markets, and other conditions. That is one reason why that scheme can be considered to have been more or less of a failure. A number of settlements were set up in the west, particularly one in my own constituency known as the Piapot soldier settlement. This land was part of an Indian reserve. It was practically covered with bush. The men located there did a wonderful job, and the minister's officials will vouch for my statement. During the good times in Canada, from 1920 to 1930, these men established homes and proved themselves to be a credit to the country. In 1930 they ran into difficult times, and many " of them went back. But I do want to pay a compliment to those men. If proper supervision is provided, and care is taken in selecting the land and the men, we will have a number of similar settlements in this country in a few years.
The financial assistance of $3,600 for land and $1,200 for stock and equipment is not any too much. If this is the only assistance

Veterans' Land Act
to be given, I do not think any farm should be larger than a half-section. The interest rate of 3| per cent seems to be reasonable. Section 23 of the bill reads:
Loans or advances authorized by this act shall not be made to persons who obtained loans or advances under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act.
It would seem that some injustice is being done to the veterans of the last war. A number of veterans of the last war who have been on the land left their homes and their families and enlisted in the present war. I understand that the subcommittee recommended to the main committee that consideration should be given to these men, and I trust that the minister will see that they get a square deal. I could cite many injustices which have been done to these men. I have in my office the records of many cases in which these men, and especially their wives, have been treated unfairly, and if I had the time I would place them before the committee. I know of several wives who have had to give up a portion of their allowance to pay the interest that was owing to the government under the agreement. That is unfair.
The selection of the land is dealt with under section 34. It is, of course, important that the land should be carefully chosen. I should like to see on the advisory committees a real dirt fanner representing the farmers and the young men who will settle on the land under this scheme. Under the old scheme many soldiers settled on the land at a valuation out of all proportion, even at that time. I hope that under this scheme, care will be taken to arrive at a proper valuation of the land.
This land settlement scheme will be a success with proper administration, guidance for the settler, and proper supervision. These are the important things to consider. I could say a good deal as to how the last soldier settlement scheme was administered, but I will content myself with saying that administration is the all-important thing, and given that, and guidance and proper supervision, I trust the scheme will be a success. I shall watch to see what is really done under this act, because, Mr. Chairman, it will not be long before it will come into force. Already some 52,000 soldiers, the minister has told us, have returned, and some of them are about ready to make their application to come under this scheme.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think I represent and have the right to present the views of the Canadian Legion in British Columbia. As the only representative in this house from British Columbia of the Canadian Legion, may I say that we are in accord with this
bill, but we are not in accord with the settlement of any colony, as a colony, be it returned soldier or otherwise, after this war; because so far in the Dominion of Canada no colony that we have ever settled as a colony has been satisfactory. That cannot be disputed. I include in that, English, Irish and Scotch- and particularly the Scotch, because I happen to be of Scotch descent myself and think they are the finest people in the world. But settling any people as a colony does not work.
I have no quarrel with this bill, and I have no quarrel with the committee. I think it was a wonderful committee and I think this is a wonderful bill. However, the chairman was a maritimer, and they do not know anything at all about British Columbia.
Under the bill as it stands the soldier settler is entitled to S3,600 for land and improvements, and SI,200 for live stock and farm equipment. In the riding of Fraser Valley, which I represent, and which is a dairying and poultry-raising riding, it is impossible to establish yourself, either in poultry or in cattle raising, with an expenditure of only $1,200. I hear some asides from my friends to my left of the legal profession who know nothing about farming. The increase in the price of dairy cattle in 1941 over 1940 was $9 in British Columbia. Nobody can tell me that a man can establish himself as a dairy farmer, with the necessary stock and equipment, on $1,200. Therefore the Canadian Legion of British Columbia-I have been ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, before, often enough-


Thomas Vien: I must confess that I should rule the hon. gentleman out of order now, were it not that, from the start, the procedure on this bill has been most irregular. I cannot mete out to the hon. gentleman any treatment different from that which has been accorded to other hon. gentlemen who have preceded him and who were also out of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall try to confine myself within proper limits.
I am not finding fault with this bill, but I want to point out as emphatically as I can that in British Columbia you cannot start dairy farming, pay for your cattle and equipment, with only $1,200. That is obvious.
There are several other points in this bill on each of which I should like to speak for forty minutes. But there is one item on which I speak with full authority and with the full knowledge of the returned soldiers in British Columbia, and that is the capital required. It is obvious that $1,200 is not sufficient for a man to start up dairy farming.



Veterans' Land Act
Under this bill as amended a settler, even though he has made 90 per cent of the payments on his farm, is still regarded as a tenant. That is provided by section 10, and he is not entitled to be elected as a reeve, alderman, councillor or anything else. I am sure that the leader of the opposition will agree with me when I say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He can
be a member of the House of Commons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: From what I have seen, anybody can be a member of the House of Commons. This provision in section 10 may not mean much to the leader of the opposition, but it does mean much locally.
There is another point which I wish to bring before the committee. Under this amended bill, as I understand it, the municipality may sell a soldier settlement farm if municipal taxes are in default. Prior to this amendment they could not do that. Some hon. members present may not come from what we call organized territories, but it is a serious thing to a municipality that under the bill, as I understand it, you cannot sell that particular piece of land for the benefit of the municipality. The municipality has to supply schools, hospitals, and so on; yet it is entitled to no protection. That is my interpretation of the new bill, although I may not be correct. Certainly it was in the old act until it was amended.
Under section 10, as I understand it, the soldier who establishes himself in a particular district is not eligible to become reeve or alderman unless he has paid off the entire charge. He is treated as a tenant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Tenant at will.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The leader of the opposition says he is tenant at will. I do not know just what that means, not being a lawyer.


James Arthur Ross: That does not prevent him from acting as the hon. member stated, in my province; he may act under agreement of sale.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
depends on the local law.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting advice around here from such distinguished men from the maritimes and Manitoba that I am going to lose the line of my own speech. I do know this: probably for the first and last time in my life I agree with the leader of the opposition, and, certainly, with the hon. member for Souris, who, I thought, put up an

excellent story in connection with returned soldiers' problems so far as this bill is concerned.
There is another thing to which I wish to draw attention, and I am bringing it up now because I want to expedite this bill as much as anybody else does. I think that someone from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture should be on these boards. I have every respect for the Department of Agriculture under the present minister, I think we have an excellent system, but I would point out that the farmers have suffered owing to the fact that the wartime prices and trade board have overawed or overstepped the Minister of Agriculture. As I understood the hon. member for Souris, he suggested that, instead of a practical man from the Department of Agriculture, a practical farmer should be appointed on these boards. A suitable body from which to pick a representative is, I think, the federation of agriculture.
There are a number of other things to which I might draw attention. I am not criticizing the soldier settlement board of the past, but I am very much interested in these two points. Personally, and I believe I speak for my riding, I am absolutely opposed to colonies, I do not care of what class or of whom they are composed. Second, in British Columbia there is no place where you can buy cattle and equipment for SI,200 and support your family or even pay your debts. You could not even go into debt properly with a borrowing like that. We think that sufficient leeway has not been allowed in that respect. Again, under the bill as now drafted, the land does not become the property of the settler even though he has paid 95 per cent of the cost; he is still subject to tax sale, and, as I understand the bill, has no recourse other than to this board, even though he may owe no more than 5 per cent.


Mr. REID:: It is not my intention to
delay the passage of this bill, because I spoke when the bill was first introduced. I have one remark to make before asking the minister two questions. I want to place myself on record as being opposed to the imposition of any interest charge whatever on the land. Most of the difficulties encountered by soldier settlers under the old act were due to the fact that the interest charges mounted up to the extent that in many instances, years afterwards, the soldier settler found himself owing more than he did when he first went on the land. I still advocate the Australian plan, where a soldier in going on the land knows exactly what he will pay, and his debt does not increase; he has the incentive of paying so

Veterans' Land Act
as to acquire title to the property. However, the committee did not deal very long with that question, and I am merely placing myself on record, pointing out where the great difficulties were in the past.
The first question I want to ask the minister is this. The soldier settlement board, I understand, have been making a survey of the Japanese property in British Columbia. Will this property vacated by the Japanese be made available for occupation by returned men? Many choice pieces of property are involved, and most of us from British Columbia are particularly interested in this settlement of the Japanese-vacated lands. We are interested from" two points of view: that our soldiers may not return after their war service and find once again orientals holding special pieces of property in the province; and that, if soldier settlers are given the right there, there will be no great incentive for the Japanese to return to British Columbia after hostilities cease.
My second question is this. Of late years we have been passing legislation dealing entirely with those who have been unable to pay. That is all to the good. But there has been a class of soldier settler whose position and case no one has so far voiced. I am thinking of the man who scraped every last cent he could, who denied himself the necessities of life, who, with his wife, struggled along to pay for the property. I have in mind a case in point. A soldier settler went on a piece of property in 1924 and is still struggling to pay for it. He said when I was back there, "Mr. Reid, is nothing to be done for me? Do you want me to collapse like some of the other boys have done, and go before the farmers' creditors arrangement board? I can't get one cent of reduction. My wife and myself have struggled and denied ourselves all these long years, yet no encouragement is given by the government and the country for us to carry on." Are we going to do anything for that class of settler? I make no apology for raising my voice on behalf of these people. Is there to be any court or board set up to review these cases of long years ago? Some of them will not be able to pay this side of the grave, although they have been endeavouring to do so. Some attention should be given to that type of soldier settler.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The second question raised by my hon. friend deals entirely with the conditions of settlers under the soldier settlement board, which, as he knows, is not under my jurisdiction. But a committee of the house did review conditions under the soldier settlement board, and made
certain recommendations to this house which will be considered by the government as soon as possible.
As to the first question of my hon. friend, regarding the survey of lands previously occupied by Japanese in British Columbia, it is almost impossible at the present moment for us to make a definite statement of policy in the matter. As a result of surveys to be made we must first of all know the nature, quality and value of the land available, and an ultimate disposition of the matter will depend upon the policy finally decided upon by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question of alien enemy property is clear now. The minute Japan came into the war the property of Japanese nationals automatically came under the jurisdiction of the custodian. As to the property of persons of Japanese origin who are now Canadian nationals, that is another thing.


Mr. FAIR:: I wish to call the attention of the leader of the opposition once more to the fact that he is the man who is advocating that this house should get through its business in a hurry, but no one has talked more and said less than he.
Mr. HANSON (York-SunbuoO : That is an offensive statement. I leave it to the judgment of the committee if I do not contribute more to the discussions in the house than the hon. gentleman who is now on his feet.


Thomas Vien: The language the hon.
member used is offensive. Hon. members should not indulge in such language.


Robert Fair: I did not get what you said, Mr. Chairman. I am a long way from the chair and I did not hear your remarks. When this 'bill was introduced some weeks ago I intended to say a great deal more than I did, and much of what I should like +o say I shall reserve until a subsequent time. However, two things are necessary if this bill and the soldier settlers themselves are to succeed. The first point I had in mind was that no system can succeed unless agricultural prices are such as to bring cost of production. This has not so far been recognized by the government. No matter what this bill may contain, no matter what the government may think it is doing for the soldiers, the fact is that they cannot succeed unless that aspect of the matter is attended to.
Another point I wish to bring out is that the administration of the act will have a good deal to do with the success or failure of the
4456:-2785
Veterans' Land Act

soldier settler. I understand that in large part the business of the committee was conducted in camera, and for that reason we are not able to bring here a good deal of the evidence that was given to the committee. However, from statements that I have from members of the committee and others I gather that everything is not as it should be with the administration. During the years I have been in this house I have received many letters, and I have read letters that have been written to the press of western Canada, in which I am particularly interested, showing that a number of settlers have lost faith in the present director of soldier settlement. Perhaps the director is not acquainted with what these soldiers have to go through.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are on section 1 of the bill. I submit that the discussion now going on with regard to the conduct of the director is entirely beside the point. The hon. member should be asked to desist.


Robert Fair: I am dealing with the administration of the act, and I am following exactly the line that has been followed by several members this morning.


Thomas Vien: I shall have to apply the rule sooner or later, and, I fear, sooner than later. The whole debate has been out of order. I do not wish to appear to be partial. I wish to treat all hon. members equally, but the difficulty is to know where to draw the line. I have already quoted several times standing order 58, which provides that at all times the discussion must be strictly relevant to the section of the bill before the committee. I do invite the cooperation of all hon. gentlemen and ask them to limit their remarks, as much as possible, to the subject matter under discussion.


Robert Fair: This morning the minister in charge of the bill suggested that a good deal of latitude be given and the members of the committee gave their consent. I believe the Chair takes direction from members of the house, and I suggest that I have a perfect right to say what I intended to say. It is only a very few words.


Thomas Vien: Provided it is confined to something which has a direct relevancy to this particular section of the bill.


Robert Fair: I did not intend to take one-third of the time I am taking if there had not been these interruptions. All I wanted to say was that we have some farms, some fairly good, perhaps some poor ones, or some of medium quality, on which some of the

high officials in charge might have been placed for a period of twenty years, alongside a number of old soldier settlers. In that way they could have gained at least a little appreciation of what the soldiers have been going through, and we would have had a more sympathetic administration of the act.


Mr. SHAW:: There are one or two observations I have to make which have been inspired by a communication in the form of a resolution which I have received from the Bowden branch of the Canadian Legion in Alberta. But before I read this communication, may I say that farming conditions in that district are generally regarded as favourable. The majority of the members of the Bowden branch of the Canadian Legion are hard-working, energetic farmers, many of whom settled under the soldier settlement scheme, and they have been operating thereunder for approximately twenty years. Many of these settlers, before settling on the land, fought in the mud of Europe to preserve the right to live, and most of them have been fighting in the succeeding twenty years for the same right, though they are not sure yet whether they have attained that right or not. The resolution reads:
Whereas the dominion government is establishing another soldier settlement scheme to rehabilitate servicemen when discharged from the service;
And whereas the last settlement resulted in an enormous percentage of complete failures and a very considerable number of those still operating their farms are hopelessly in debt;
And whereas the proposed scheme is undoubtedly an improvement on the last it still is tying an interest-bearing debt on the settlers which past experiences indicate will ultimately prove disastrous:
Therefore be it resolved by Bowden branch No. 83, B.E.S.L. that no interest be charged to any scheme of rehabilitation, land settlement or otherwise.
Be it further resolved that before constituting any new settlement scheme we strongly urge that steps be taken to see that settlers still operating their soldier settlement farms be eased of some of their burden of debt so that they have a reasonable chance of obtaining title to the land within a few years.
I believe we all welcome this new land settlement scheme in principle. I dare say it will be discovered before long that a certain number of changes will have to be made in it. However, I feel that we should give our support to the general principles of the scheme. One suggestion that has been made of which I do not approve is that - these persons be established in settlements next to industrial centres where they might take part-time employment. That is interfering with labour people who have no other way of making a livelihood except by their labour. Moreover,

Veterans' Land Act
to admit that your settlers will have to go into industry for part-time work is an admission that the scheme is not self-sufficient. I cannot support the suggestion unless it is clearly understood that should that be done it would be for the express purpose of enabling such settlers to take part-time employment elsewhere because they cannot get along under the provisions of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
George Hugh Castleden: I notice the definition of land is:
(b) "land" or "lands" includes granted or ungranted dominion, provincial or private lands . . . and all rights or interests in, or over, or arising out of, and all charges upon, land or lands as herein defined.
What about mineral or oil rights?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that they would not be involved where they run with the title.


Mr. EVANS:: Has any consideration been given to settling on the irrigated lands of western Canada which are being developed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These lands will be considered with other lands as long as suitable schemes can be devised within the compass and scope of the proposed legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Appointment of director.
Frederick Davis Shaw: One point about which I am considerably exercised is with respect to the appointment of such officials as supervisors under the soldier settlement board, sometimes referred to as field men. Does the Civil Service Commission of Canada make these appointments, or does the director of soldier settlement make them? Furthermore, if an appointment has been made by the civil service commission, has the director of soldier settlement authority to override the appointment? If the recommendations of the civil service commission are not proper recommendations, we had better do something with the civil service commission and their examiners. I am not criticizing them or saying there is anything wrong with them, but if they have examined the candidate, either orally or by written examination, and the candidate rates at the top of the list and is subsequently appointed by the civil service commission, what authority has the director to upset the whole thing and have the man discharged, as was done in a case in my constituency a year ago?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that these appointments will be made in the future, as they have been in the past, by the civil service commission. As to the second question, any dismissals that are necessary are within the terms and conditions and provisions of the Civil Service Act. I have no personal knowledge of the case referred to by the hon. member, but probably the opinion of the director was sought by the civil service commission. All these appointments and dismissals are within the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that the question the hon. member is raising would come under section 4. We are now on section 3.


George Hugh Castleden: Whether a bill of this kind will succeed or fail is largely dependent on the attitude of those administering it. The soldier settlement scheme after the last war was a dismal failure, as has been proved in this house on several occasions. I believe the records show that not more than about 10 per cent of the soldier settlers have established homes of their own on the land. For Saskatchewan I think 10 per cent would be high. Of the 10 per cent who are still on the land, very few have established complete equity in the land, or have been able to pay off their indebtedness [DOT] from the proceeds of their years of toil. Investigating numerous cases I have found that those who have been successful in paying off their indebtedness have had outside source of income. I have in mind the settlement around Stockholm. About twenty-five settlers went there after the last war, and to-day there are three left, bitterly disillusioned. I have had difficulty in understanding the attitude of the director-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must with reluctance rise to a point of order. There is no administration provided for the carrying out of the bill we are now considering. The hon. member is discussing the administration; that I think is not germane to the provisions of the measure now before this committee.


George Hugh Castleden: Section 3 has to do with the appointment of director and employees. I am trying to point out how important it is that these men be in sympathy with the men who are placed on the land. I should like to impress upon the government, whatever department administers the act, that the attitude of the sons of these men who took up land under the old scheme is such as to drive them away from a land settlement scheme for veterans. The fact that
Veterans' Land Act

at the present time there are only 30,000 men in the armed forces who are thinking of going back to the land is proof of the failure of the old scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct. It was 30,000 out of
200.000	among whom a survey was made. There are 500,000 in the fighting services at the present time.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, 30,000 out of
200.000	is about 15 per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The percentage is 16-6.


George Hugh Castleden: What I have further to say as to administration under the old act can be reserved for another time. But unless the director takes into consideration the health of these men, the assistance they have, and looks upon this as a scheme to establish men on the basis of a decent standard of rural life, the whole scheme will fail.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there a possibility that the director of the soldier settlement scheme may be the director under this measure? If so, there should be some consideration of his salary. There should not be two salaries, and it would not be amiss to set out the director's salary in the section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member's suggestion will be carefully considered at the proper time.


Ernest Edward Perley: We should have some
assurance. One man should not hold two positions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not the minister entrusted with the administration of the act. All I can say is that my hon. friend's observations will be noted in the proper quarters.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I find myself in agreement with hon. members who say that the success or failure of the scheme depends entirely upon the manner in which it is administered. I would ask the minister a question in connection with the explanation given opposite page 3, where it is stated:
This section makes provision for the type of administration. It recommends administration by a director responsible to the minister, rather than administration by a board. Very great responsibility would be vested in the director, and it is deemed wise to establish direct contact between the minister and the director responsible for operations.
What is the advantage to be gained by the act being administered by a director rather than by a board?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend will recall that in its early stages the old act was administered by a board. The change was made from a board to a director on the theory that a director responsible to a minister of the crown would set up a closer connection with parliament as such than was possible under the old soldier settlement scheme.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I notice that one of
the duties of the director is the purchasing of agreements of sale, or the buying of lands. In my opinion this is one of the most important provisions in the measure, and it was a failure to carry out this provision properly that practically ruined the old soldier settlement scheme. Too high prices were paid for land. Upon the return of the soldiers to Canada the government decided to buy lands, and they paid two or three times the proper amounts. I hope that under this measure it will be seen that right and proper prices are paid.
I do not know of any more difficult procedure to-day than that of valuing land. I know what I am talking about when I say that it is almost impossible to find a man in western Canada who will put the same value on land as will some other man. You will find the soldier settlement valuator out on the bald prairie, or in the southern part of Saskatchewan, which is known as the bald prairie or the short-grass country, valuing land as low as $10 an acre. Then you may call in a representative from the Saskatchewan farm loan organization, who may value it at $20 an acre. Then you may call in a man from a mortgage company who may value it at $25 an acre. And so we find the same piece of land valued at all the way from $10 to $25 an acre. Each man has a different opinion as to what the land is worth. The value of land depends on whether one is going to get a crop; it depends also on the price one will receive for his wheat. It depends, too, on whether you will reap your crop. Taking all these factors into consideration it is at once apparent that land is worth what one can get out of it, and that is all. When one is placing a value on it he has to be careful about what he is doing. If not, many settlers will go out into the country and find themselves unable to pay for their land.
A man cannot be expected to begin the production of wheat on the $3,500 he is to pay for the. land. That is not enough capital to buy land to become a wheat grower. As I have pointed out before, wheat growing is a specialized form of farming, just as much as are the growing of apples or the raising of

Veterans' Land Act
dairy herds. Ranching or the raising of cattle is also a special kind of farming. This amount of money may be all right for farmers in the northern part of the province, where there are bluffs and mixed farming. But a man is not going to be able to buy enough land with $3,500 to start up wheat farming. He would have to put crop in one half and summer-fallow the other half if he is on the bald prairie. The result would be failures such as we have had in the past.
In my part of the province very few soldiers who settled are now in that vicinity making a success of farming. In the last ten years I doubt whether the soldier settlement officials in my district have collected enough money from soldier settlers to pay their own salaries. We do not want that to happen again. This is why I dread that there may be failures such as we had after the last war. When I talk to men in my district they say, "Oh well; any soldier settlement scheme on lands in this district is bound to be a failure". That is the view held by many people, and that is why I say to the minister that if he approaches a scheme of this kind with the idea of putting people out on the bald prairies to grow wheat, he is going to have trouble.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: Several times during the debate it has been stated that the last land settlement scheme failed. It did, in a most outstanding way. There are two main requirements for success on a farm; the first is the farm itself, and the second is the farmer. I believe much of the failure of the last scheme was due to the quality of land bought and supplied to the farmer. The farmer may have had his faults, but the low grade of land purchased at the time of the last scheme was perhaps the chief explanation of the failure of that scheme. Obviously the amount of money which can be invested is limited. As soon as it is learned that the government proposes to buy land under a scheme of this kind, every farmer with a gravel pit-that he calls a farm-rushes to the board and tries to pan it off. They did that with much success at the time of the last scheme.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In Ontario.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: In Ontario, and, I presume, everywhere else. I am not competent to describe the type of land on which a soldier should be placed, but I am satisfied that those who did buy land under the last scheme were not more competent than I am.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: I do not think that was true of Alberta.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It may not have been true of Alberta, but from what I have learned about land settlement in the past I am inclined to think much of the failure was due to the miserable quality of soil those people were asked to cultivate. I see in this measure no provision against a repetition of that failure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a selection committee.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Well, if they are anything like the last selection committee they are not much of an insurance policy. I hope they will be very different under the present minister. I suggest that the government of Canada should never invest money in farm lands on the recommendation of a director selected by the civil service commission, without having a report respecting the purchase-possibly two or three reports-from the dominion agricultural authorities. This bill should make it necessary that there be a recommendation by men who know land, who are experts in land, who know what crops can be grown suitably in a locality, in connection with any land to be settled by these soldiers. The first essential should be a report by somebody who is not too close to the picture, who is not taking part in the negotiations, who would be responsible for saying that the land is suitable for the purposes for which it is to be used. No purchase should be made until such a report is obtained from a disinterested expert.


James Arthur Ross: I think this discussion should be under section 9.


Thomas Vien: I was just going to draw the hon. member's attention to that. Will hon. gentlemen cooperate with the Chair so that w'e may proceed in an orderly fashion?


James Arthur Ross: I have one suggestion to make, and I do not know whether this is the right section under which to make it. My question has to do with the administration of the act in the future. Governments will change, and-


Thomas Vien: Section 2 states that "minister" means the Minister of Mines and Resources.


James Arthur Ross: All undertakings having to do with soldiers should be under the control of one department, and that department should be headed by a minister who is an ex-service man. That is why I suggest the Department of Pensions and National Health as it is now constituted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Veterans' Land Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 4-Officers instructors and other employees.
Frederick Davis Shaw: Subsection 1 of this section reads:
The director may from time to time, subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, attach to his service such officers, instructors, clerks, stenographers and other employees as the execution of the purpose of this act may require and at such salaries as the governor in council may approve.
We have a civil service commission to administer the Civil Service Act. I do not know whether I am using the right language,- but the civil service commission has in its employ several dozen examiners. Calls are sent out for applications to fill vacancies that exist and candidates meet at certain places to take either a written or an oral examination. From what has taken place in certain cases-I do not apply this to the soldier settlement board alone -I must conclude that the civil service commission will be obliged to call in the director of soldier settlement, who will approve or disapprove a man whom the commission may believe to be a suitable appointee. It would appear that the director of soldier settlement can override the civil service commission. If the director of soldier settlement is not consulted before an apointment is made, and he is not satisfied, all he has to do is to raise objection, and a man who has been appointed by the commission may be bounced out on his head, even though the appointment has been made after the commission has taken into consideration his qualifications, his physical condition, and his period of service in the war.
If that be true, why in the world do we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on a civil service commission? Why are we sending civil service examiners from coast to coast at great expense to the people of Canada if their decisions can be overridden by some official at the head of a department? A very important principle is involved. If the civil service commission make appointments, let their decision stand. If the heads of departments-I am not speaking of cabinet ministers-are to make the appointments, why have this camouflage of a civil service, civil service examiners and a civil service commission? It will take a certain amount of explanation before I shall be satisfied in this connection. If I were to give the particulars of a certain case I would be ruled out of order; therefore I shall not ask any question as to a particular case about which I am greatly exercised. I should like to know whether the civil service commission are going 
to appoint field supervisors, for example, or will that be done by the director of soldier settlement?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will be appointed by the civil service commission. I regret that I am not familiar with the case mentioned by my hon. friend, because it is not in my department.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Some minister is going to be made familiar with the particulars of this case. Does the director of soldier settlement sit in with the civil service commission when they are considering applications? Must an appointment meet with the approval of the director of soldier settlement before it can be made?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is dealing with the Soldier Settlement Act, of which I have very little knowledge. I cannot really answer his question with regard to administration. We are dealing with the future, and I am just answering questions which have to do with the future.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I appreciate the position in which the minister finds himself, but it is important to determine to a certain extent what is going to happen in the future. The minister should examine into this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to look into it. Will my hon. friend be kind enough to give me the particulars privately?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have no objection to that.


Percy Ellis Wright: We have one minister introducing a bill which is to be administered by another minister. The result is that we are not getting the information we should get. The minister who is to administer the act is not here.


Thomas Vien: We are not discussing the Soldier Settlement Act; we are discussing Bill No. 65. To a question put to him, the minister answered that this bill dealt with the future. I do not believe it is in order to press the minister for information in connection with the administration of another act which is not before the committee.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am simply pointing out that we have a minister introducing a bill which will be enforced by another minister.


Thomas Vien: The minister has
answered the questions put in connection with the administration of the bill now before the committee. No hon. member has the right to inquire from a minister with respect to another act not now before the committee.

Veterans' Land Act


James Arthur Ross: I think it would have been the proper procedure to have the minister present who will have the administration of this legislation. If the Minister of Pensions and National Health wants to sponsor the bill, it is quite all right, but surely the minister under whose jurisdiction it will come should be present.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The government as a whole will be bound by any answer that I may make to any question asked. I can assure my hon. friend on that point. When I stated, as the minister in charge of this bill, that appointments will be made by the civil service commission, I am responsible, and so is the government, for that declaration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
clarify the position. Section 4 gives the power to the director to employ, subject only to the applicable provisions of the Civil Service Act, all the temporary staff that may be needed at the inception and perhaps the most active stage of this scheme. The government has the power under the Civil Service Act to appoint temporaries. That is exactly the power that is being vested in the director under section 4. The civil service commission will not appoint these temporary employees; they will be appointed by the director. That is the principle involved in this section. I wonder whether the members understand it, and if they do understand it, do they approve the principle?
Secondly, under subsection 2, "all such appointees shall perform such duties and functions as the director may prescribe." Somebody, of course, has to prescribe the duties and functions of these temporary employees. But subsection 3 provides that officers attached to the present soldier settlement board are to be sloughed off and put under this act. The whole object of subsection 3 is to give the power to do that. It says:
Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or any other act, a civil servant, who, at the time of his appointment or employment under or pursuant to the provisions of this act, is a contributor under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. . . .
And so forth. By some process the civil servant is to be sloughed off from the one department and put into the other. That is contemplated by subsection 3, and we might as well understand it. Do we approve the principle? I think hon members ought to understand the intention of section 4 before we pass it. The minister may say that all appointments are to be made by the civil
service commission, but, with all due respect, that is not correct. The appointment of temporaries will be made by, the director, subject only to the limitations in the Civil Service Act, which are mighty little with, respect to temporaries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is of universal application, with the exception of transfers of civil servants from other departments to this new department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If civil servants can be transferred now from one department to another, why the necessity of subsection 3 of section 4? It is to preserve their rights, I suppose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it means m-ore than that. I think the minister ought to tell us exactly what it does mean.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It means exactly what I said. All appointments, with the exception of transfers, are made by the civil service commission, within the terms of the Civil Service Act.


George Hugh Castleden: Will it be possible, as under the old act, for the director to override appointments made by the civil service commission?
' Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I am giving only my personal opinion, but I think the only exception would be where the director thought a person was not suitable or technically qualified. He could then make representations to the commission, where the ultimate decision must rest.


George Hugh Castleden: After the commission has made an appointment and the man has been told to report, will it be possible for the director to override their decision?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The civil service commission establish an eligible list. Then they consult the officials of the department concenjed, who may make representations as to whether or not in their opinion the person chosen is suitable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister must know that under the Civil Service Act, after the civil service commission has given a candidate a certificate, he may be rejected by the department. That has been done a thousand times in the last few years. They have to show cause, of course, but I have known cases where a man has been rejected because the department wanted to get somebody who was a little further down
Veterans' Land Act

on the eligible list. That is a negation of the principle of the Civil Service Act. I point this out so that hon. members will understand what the power is, what the practice is, and what the ultimate result may be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is exactly what happened in tire case my hon. friend referred to a few minutes ago.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have only one observation to make in this regard. I must conclude that the authority vested in the civil service commission exists in theory and nowhere else. It is time that this house should demand an examination into the operations of the civil service commission-not that I am criticizing that body, but to find out what authority they have and what interference they must put up with in order to remain civil service commissioners.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The note to section 4 says that this section contemplates employment of temporary staff. What period of time does the soldier have, after the war is over, within which to indicate that he wants to come under this scheme? Is it one month, six months, a year, or a number of years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no limitation whatsoever.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should there not be some indication of that in the bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Other means will be taken to advise those who might wish to become applicants.


Percy Ellis Wright: What publicity is to be given to the fact that this enactment is in existence for the benefit of the soldiers, so that they may start to acquire the 10 per cent that is necessary to come within the provisions of the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have already distributed small cards amongst those in the service, but as soon as the bill is approved steps will be taken to see that its contents are ' thoroughly publicized amongst those serving Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If hon. members will look at section 24 of chapter 22 of the revised statutes of 1927, which is the Civil Service Act, they will observe that appointments are to be made on probation. It says:
The deputy head-[DOT]
That would be the director in this case:

The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
2.	Where a person is rejected, the commission shall thereupon select' another person to take the place of the one rejected.
3.	The commission shall, after investigation, decide whether the name of a rejected person shall be struck off the list as unfit for the service generally or whether he shall be allowed a trial in some other position for which he may be eligible.
So that any deputy minister can frustrate the appointments made by the civil service commission. Let us have that clearly understood.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For cause.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It must be for cause, but one cause is pretty nearly as good as another. He can invent a cause. I know of a case where that was done two or three times until the right man was obtained. That is, of course, an abuse of the principle of the legislation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Was he a good Tory?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it was for another reason-imagine what you like. I am pointing out what the legal position is. There is no doubt about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Director to be a corporation sole.
Richard Burpee Hanson: It does appear to- me that this is setting up an entirely new principle, the creation of a corporation sole as a crown company or crown agency. What is the reason for it? The soldier settlement board was set up under a statute; it was a corporation, and the conveyances of land were all vested in it. I suppose the only difference between that creation and this, is that this is a corporation sole. It is putting very wide powers in the hands of one man, the director.
I suggest that it is a departure and rather a questionable practice. I suppose provision is made elsewhere in the bill for someone else to be appointed immediately if the director dies. Where is that section?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that the director

Veterans' Land Act
of the old soldier settlement board was made a corporation sole in 1935, when my hon. friend himself was in the ministry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was because the scope of the act had been narrowed so little. This is going to be on an enlarged scale.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The principle is the same.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is. I
am not sure that I approve the principle, notwithstanding what may have been done in 1935. However, I simply call attention to the fact that this is establishing a legal entity as a corporation sole and defining the powers of the director. It could not be done, I think, in the right of the crown; it could not be conveyed to the crown. I agree it has to be done by some holding body.


James Alexander Marshall: I want to come back to the question of the power that has been given to one individual as a director. The question is premised upon a recommendation which was submitted to the committee by the provincial committee for reestablishment of veterans in Saskatchewan. It says this:
We also feel that every effort should be made to eliminate any suggestion of political influence or favoritism in the acquisition of the lands and we fear that if the director, and that means the minister, is the sole arbitrator, that, no matter how well lie does his work, nor how free the selection may be from the influences suggested, there will always be room for the suspicion that such influences were effective and such suspicion will give ground for agitation later on.
Were any other representations received, either by the minister or by the committee, with respect to this matter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I read that very carefully. In fact, it is an excellent representation which was sent down, I believe, by Brigadier-General Ross, who was chairman of that committee in Saskatchewan. That was made to a committee of this house before additional provisions were added to the bill as it was introduced and sent to the special committee, one dealing with regional and advisory boards, and the other dealing with provincial boards, with regard to the right and power of rescission. I am quite sure these provisions meet the objections which were raised by the Saskatchewan committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What does section 5, subsection 6, mean in so far as British Columbia is concerned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It means that any land acquired by the director can be assessed by the taxing authority just the same as any other land can be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: So that there will be no misunderstanding, is it confined to the realization of taxes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: The powers vested in the director here are extensive. "For the purposes of acquiring, holding, conveying and transferring-any of the property which he is by this act authorized to acquire, hold, convey or transfer" he is granted full powers, and the section establishes in him a legal entity and corporate power to handle the whole of the property. Under subsection 4 he shall have an impress seal inscribed with the words "The director, the veterans' land acts". It appears to me that this power would be more appropriately vested in the minister, would it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; my hon. friend will find, if he looks in the old act, that the same powers were vested in the director of the soldier settlement board, as the result of consideration by various committees, in days gone by. I have here in parallel columns the old act and the present bill.


George Hugh Castleden: The coat of arms, I
suggest, should include a scale with a pound of flesh and Shylock's knife, that is if it is to represent the same administrator as under the Soldier Settlement Act.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Under section 5,
subsection 6, what will be the standing in connection with municipal taxes, and the hedging and ditching taxes so far as the provincial government is concerned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that any taxes of any nature whatsoever assessed by a properly constituted taxing authority will be a charge against the land.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
I can add something to that. Under subsection 6 any land which is vested in the director is made liable to taxation, and recourse may be had to the land itself. But the taxes are not a debt of the director and therefore he could not be sued by any municipality for the amount of a debt. Is not that the distinction?
Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: ' That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
asked by my colleague the hon. member for Yale who has had to go out for a moment, to inquire if any plan has been established for the acquisition of the land. How are the lands to be acquired? Will a survey be made? Under the old act-I suppose we can constantly refer to that because of the experience under it-


Thomas Vien: Section 7.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
it will become germane to section 5, subsection 1. A soldier would see a piece of land which took his eye, we will say, and he felt he would like to have it. He brought it to the attention of the authorities, and if other things were equal he usually got that piece of land. Will the soldier have anything to do under this legislation as to what particular piece of land will be bought for him? In other words, putting it on a principle, will he have the right of exercising choice-Which, of course, is a very important factor in all our lives?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that the soldier will have a certain right to choose, but subject to the land which he desires being approved by regional committees, who will undertake a close inspection of the values and suitability of the land, and the soil itself. Really it is a commingling betw'een his choice and that of the committee.


Grote Stirling: The question my colleague asked is one I wanted to ask. Will the minister describe the plan the government is going to form in buying this land? Are the regional committees to be asked to look over this section and that section and indicate which properties are suitable for the purpose, and then is the government going to buy, and say to the returned man, "You can choose from these"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that it is contemplated that some land may be acquired before operations are actually undertaken, but not in every case. Conditions would vary in eVery province; they would vary in British Columbia and the prairies, the maritimes, and Ontario. Although blocks of land might be acquired, no plans have yet been developed.


Grote Stirling: That is the real answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have not developed a plan at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In the event of there being a question as to priority of taxation as between the federal government, in this settlement scheme, dykes and drainage, and municipal taxation, who would have the priority? For example, if there is principal, or principal and interest of a certain amount, to be paid to the federal government, and there is a certain amount to be paid to the provincial government for dykes and drainage, and also municipal taxation, say, $25 in each case, what would be the situation? I know it is hard to answer these questions, but that is what we are here for. Let us say there is $100 to be paid out. The farmer has to pay $25 to the federal government in principal and interest, $25 for dyking, $25 for ditching, and $25 to the municipality. Will he lose his farm if he does not pay them all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret I am not familiar with all the details of the situation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You should be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the land were acquired under the conditions mentioned by my hon. friend, the tax would have to be assessed and paid. There is no priority that I know of.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is not clear to me. I am not finding fault, but I want to find a way out. The farmer has a certain amount of revenue from the farm. He has to find a certain sum for dyking and ditching, for municipal taxation and for principal and interest to the federal government. I am not referring to the old act, but as I understand this new scheme he has to pay to the federal government, in the form of principal and interest, a certain amount, on the $3,600 or whatever it is, and he also has to meet taxation. In some places in western Canada there are ditching and dyking taxes and municipal taxes, all of which have to be paid. There is only a certain amount of revenue. How can the farmer pay all these if he has to pay the federal government also? Suppose the federal government's bill called for $100 and he had only $100; would he pay all that to the federal government and disregard the provincial government and the municipal authorities, and if so would he lose his farm in consequence? .

Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is discussing a matter which comes under section 15. I wonder if he would wait until we come to that section.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be delighted to deal with it then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. member is trying to elucidate is this. A crown impost usually has priority, but this property is not the property of the crown, legally speaking, and I think they would be on a parity. I venture that opinion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The point is that under section 15 the director has the right to pay taxes and assessments and collect again from the soldier settler at the rate of 3J per cent interest.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the director assume the taxes from the time that land is acquired?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Training and instruction in agriculture.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Under
section 6 is it intended to use existing facilities for training these farmers, or has the government some elaborate scheme-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no other scheme.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May we take that as an accepted statement, that no new costly and elaborate scheme will be set up involving a substantial outlay-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -in placing veterans with farmers for instruction. I assume that will mean courses of instruction at local agricultural schools, which I think are very good. Subsection (b) certainly contemplates setting up a staff of instructors and inspectors to assist the veterans with information and instruction in farming. They would be travelling instructors, I presume, and arrangements will be made with the respective provincial departments or the extension departments of the universities. This gives the director pretty wide power. And what about the question of assistance while the veteran settler is undergoing training? Is provision being made for him under some other authority?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is taken care of in order in council P.C. 7633.	'


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the one referred to on the opposite page.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The post-discharge order. I have not the full information by me at the moment, but benefits have been paid under these classifications, under that order, and I shall be glad to give the amount expended and the number of beneficiaries up to the present time. The question was asked some time ago. With regard to the training of men, the idea is to have real practical training with farmers already established, and the supervisors referred to are supervisors who will give advice and help after the settler is on the land.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it contemplated that there shall be a great army of inspectors and instructors all over the country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it is quite possible that the government will have dozens and dozens of inspectors throughout the country. I can see a flock of people who will want jobs under this act-and they will not have to be appointed by the civil service commission, but by the Minister of Agriculture. We know what that means.


An hon. MEMBER:: Adding	to the
machinery.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Part of the political machine.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to make just a few observations, not on what the section contains, but on what it implies. It is implied in this section that we shall establish on the farms men who have no practical knowledge of farming and we shall have to send them to practical farmers to receive instruction. With agriculture in the state in which it has been for the last ten years, I do not see why we should take men from other occupations and establish them in farming under government assistance. One might as well train a thousand barbers and set them up in Canada with government assistance when we have plenty of barbers already. Until there is definite indication that there is need of more men in agriculture, I protest strongly against this particular section. If there is need for these men in
Veterans' Land Act

agriculture it is all right to send them to practical farmers to receive instruction, and they would probably be better instructed in farming in that way than in any other. Under this section these men, if they have been engaged in agriculture, should receive a short course in the agricultural college during the winter months. On that short course they should be taught some standard system of bookkeeping.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is involved in the section.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, but in this course some standard system of bookkeeping should be taught to these settlers so that they will be able to keep a set of books to which the director and officials of the department can have access so that they may know exactly the financial situation of the settler and be able to show him where he was making mistakes or could improve. A definite mistake is being made if we intend under this bill to establish a lot of men in agriculture when there is no need for agricultural products.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the basis of the veteran's right to training?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that the basis would be, first, his application to become established as a settler; then the judgment of the officials of the board as to whether he was ready and suitable, on the advice of selection committees and others, to take immediate possession of land that was available. If he was a man with an agricultural background but slight experience he might have a course in an agricultural college in the winter, or a short practical course on the farm.


James Alexander Marshall: Section 6 is more or less a joke. I should like to read what is said at page 2 of the report regarding the qualifications of these individuals to settle on the land. Mr. W. S. Woods is giving evidence before the committee:
Much has been said about the necessity for being rigid in the qualification of those who are accepted for settlement. I agree that qualification should be strict and should be carefully done, but am inclined to think there is a tendency to attach too much importance to a background of actual experience.
In my judgment, farming is a matter of temperament as well as experience. I have encountered settlers with a long background of experience who have not made a success, and have also encountered many with limited experience who have made first rate farmers once they acquired the requisite knowledge.
That is not all. He says:
The suitability of the wife is just as important, if not more important, than that of

the man and should be taken into consideration when qualifying men for settlement under the new act. Unless she is going to be a real helpmate to him and is temperamentally suited to farm life she might well be the cause of failure of the enterprise.
So that it is not a matter only of how well he may be trained or how excellent his knowledge of agriculture may be; he must have the proper temperament, and also his wife must be suited to farm life. Then, to wind it all up. he says:
, It is felt that with an overhead debt not exceeding two-thirds of the cost of the land and improvements, or one-half the cost of the land, improvements, and stock and equipment, with an interest rate of per cent and given reasonable luck, the men established under this measure have at least as good a chance of success as the average farmer.
He must have the education and temperament; his wife must be suitable, and he must have a certain amount of luck. These are the qualifications of the supermen who are to be placed on the farm.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I am
inclined to agree that this does not look so good. It seems to me the government is leaving the way open to get out of a lot of headaches arising from conditions that will exist when this war is over. When men came back after the last war one of the best ways the government had to get rid of them was to push them off on a farm. They were permitted to stay there as long as they could eke out an existence, and in a great many cases that is about all it was. You cannot take men who have no desire for farming, no inclination along that line, put them on a farm with an instructor and make farmers out of them. Nor can you send them to an agricultural school for six months and expect them to get anywhere, unless they are agriculturally inclined. Perhaps to a limited degree the section may be applied effectively; but certainly if it is the intention of the government after the war to send a lot of these men out on farms, give them agricultural instruction and undertake to make them worthy farmers, the government is going to find them in a very difficult position before many years. Unless these men are inclined to farming they wall never make it go with a little training. As the hon. member for Melfort pointed out, what are you going to do with all these farmers when you get them on the land? Even now we are producing a surplus of all these things, and when the war is over there will be a great influx into the farming field; what will you do with the produce? Prices will be so much reduced because of increased

Veterans' Land Act
production that it will be a miracle if the government is able to sustain the market and sustain these men on a decent standard of living. It would be more sensible to endeavour to expand industry and make more provision for returned men to develop in industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You cannot do that under a free trade government.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now we have the big industrialists saying "we do not want these men-"


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, we want them.


Charles Edward Johnston: "-push them out on the farm where they can starve without so much noise."


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are not suggesting that for a moment.


Charles Edward Johnston: The thing must be looked at from a business point of view. There are too many farmers now; that is why the farmers are not organized, why they are not getting decent prices for the things they are raising. If farmers cannot make a decent standard of living in these times when they at least have a chance of sending their produce outside the country, what are they going to do after the war when you have thousands upon thousands of these men pushed on the farm? They will be raising a great amount of farm products; prices will drop, and then where will they be? Unless the new minister is a wizard on this job it will result in the same financial condition as prevailed after the last war, and that is not a desirable situation. I am afraid the results of this provision are not going to be as rosy as the minister contemplates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If all these predictions that there is no future for agriculture in Canada are accepted, of course you might as well wash out this or any similar measure. I am glad to know that two hon. members on this side have declared to-day their belief that agriculture has a future in Canada. If it has not, what is to be the future of Canada? Agriculture has a future in this country and it should be the government's policy to see that it is bright. It has not been done under present conditions, and one of the reasons is the suddenness with which the government clamped down its price ceilings. It froze agricultural products at an uneven level, and there is not enough flexibility to allow that to be evened up. That is one of the main complaints I have about government policy. It froze agricultural prices at a relatively low and uneven
level. If you want confirmation of that, compare prices of agricultural products in Canada and in the United States.
Take wool, for example. We are being asked to raise more wool in Canada. Look at the price!-frozen at 25 cents, while across the line it is 41 cents. I know that the principle for which I am contending is a good one. I do not attempt at this time to lay down any principle for the rehabilitation of agriculture, because this is not the proper time to do so. But I do say that if we are going to take a defeatist attitude with regard to agriculture the bill is washed out.
There is something in the point made by the hon. member for Melfort, that until such time as agriculture can be made more profitable in Canada we should not take men away from other vocations or occupations and put them on the land unless they know something about what they are going to do. You cannot take a clerk from a drygoods store, send him to the war and then bring him back and make a farmer out of him. You cannot take people from London, place them on farms in New Brunswick and expect them to be successful, no matter how much assistance they may get from the government. You cannot take a lawyer from his office and make a farmer out of him; no one would argue that for a moment.
The minister should declare the government's intention. In establishing this policy is it the intention of the government to invite people who have had no experience in agriculture heretofore to go on the land?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that in a large degree this scheme should be limited to farmers, sons of farmers, or those who show that they have not only a desire to go on the land and a love of the soil, but also an adaptability to that kind of work, and whose records show that they have already had some background and experience in agriculture. The scheme should not go beyond that stage. If the minister will give some assurance that that is the intention-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the intention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that be so, then I suggest that the government should adhere to that policy, and should not invite to go on the land or try to make farmers of people who are not suited to that type of work. It should not put square pegs in round holes.


James Arthur Ross: This point was discussed in committee, and unless I have
Veterans' Land Act

misunderstood the minister, he said it was not the intention to take under this land settlement plan any one without agricultural background or experience. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: That was my understanding; otherwise I would have disagreed violently with those sections. There are a great many young men with agricultural background, men who have been raised on farms but who as yet are not efficient farmers. I believe it was Professor Hope who pointed out in a detailed survey across the country that under present conditions not more than 2 per cent of our farmers are operating on an efficient basis. If before becoming settlers some of these young chaps could be placed with efficient farmers, under the scheme set up by the Department of Pensions and National Health, they could learn a great deal about efficient farming methods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
getting their farms?


James Arthur Ross: Yes. They might receive their training either through that scheme or from the agricultural colleges. If the present 2 per cent of our farming population could be increased to any appreciable degree it would be a step in the right direction. I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Melfort. If we can increase the small percentage of our farmers who keep books, and who know exactly what their losses or profits have been, we shall have done something worth while. It is my understanding now that no one without agricultural background or experience will be brought in under this scheme. If that plan is carried out it will be worth while, and we shall be assisting our young farmers to become more efficient producers.


Ernest Edward Perley: The point raised by the hon. member for Souris is worthy of consideration. I would be opposed to any extensive scheme for the training of men to go on farms. To a large extent the future of agriculture depends on land settlement, and if after the war we expect men to come from Great Britain to settle on our land, we should certainly, however, give consideration to our owm men first.
I agree that the method described by the hon. member for Souris is the best one for the training of farmers, and I say that because I have had some experience along those lines. In the early days from ten to fifteen men were employed on my father's farm. My father, who was a former member of the house and of the senate, had a scheme under which he

got young men from the maritime provinces and some from England to spend a year or two on his farm. Those men were employed at reasonable wages, and some of them are now my neighbours, and the best possible farmers. They came from England without experience in farming, but they learned. Many men who have not had actual farming experience could be placed with good farmers throughout Canada, and I know many farmers would be pleased to take those men and give them a course in farming for a year. Such a course would be to the advantage of the men, and during the term of their instruction they would would receive reasonable wages. I believe that procedure would prove more beneficial than any training scheme possible of development.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How many instructors and inspectors are there in the 106 farms operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway at Tapper, British Columbia? I believe they have about
23,000	acres at that point. I venture to say there are very few inspectors or instructors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed they have only one inspector.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would this scheme call for a greater proportion of inspectors? I believe the farmers who have settled on the railway property did not have farming experience. They had worked in factories in the Sudeten-land, and were brought out here to these farms. I understand the Canadian Pacific Railway have trained them to the point where they are fairly efficient farmers. They are making good, and seem to be satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Purchase, et cetera, of lands, buildings and other property.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I note in the section the words "and commercial fishing equipment". I render thanks to the minister and the committee for not forgetting the man who for a long time in Canada, and especially on our eastern coast, has to a_ large extent been forgotten. People from the west talk about the trials and tribulations of western farmers in time of drought. I should have liked them to see the conditions of the fishing population of the maritime provinces in days gone by. Last summer in August I interviewed a fisherman at Passamaquoddy Bay who told me that up to that date his total catch takings had been less than $25. I said to him, "How can you live?" He said, "I cannot go on any longer."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was he a lobster fisherman?

Veterans' Land Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; he was a sardine fisherman. It was not the fault of the price or of market conditions, because there was a market at the big cannery at Blacks Harbour for his catch. The fact was that the fish had not arrived; I have seen them delayed until the fall of the year.
There is another fisheman there, known as the shore or line fisherman, the price of whose products for many years has been so low as to be most discouraging. How can he hope to maintain his family? I have watched the catch of those shore fishermen go to the factories where it is processed, filleted and sent to the markets across the country. Not so long ago for a large-sized haddock in my own city I paid 87i cents. I just could not believe the grocer when he told me the price of the fish, because I had bought salmon for less than that. It was a large sized haddock weighing seven or eight pounds when dressed, but I venture to say that the shore fisherman did not get more than five or six cents for that fish. There is a considerable spread between the price paid to the primary producer and what the consumer has to pay. I do not know how you are going to handle the situation. The fish goes from the fisherman to the factory where the processing takes place. There is a considerable loss in processing, and then the fish is packed for consumption. There are also transportation costs and retailing costs. The spread is terrible, but I do not know any way in which it can be overcome.
I know there has been a most substantial enlistment from the eastern provinces, and I want to give credit to the committee- perhaps more credit is due to the committee than to the department-for including this class of person and providing for his rehabilitation in the business he knows best. It may be that there will be considerable loss in connection with this. I do not know, but time and experience will tell. These men are as much entitled to be rehabilitated in the business they know best and to which they may desire to return as any young farmer or farmer's son who wants to go back to the land. They form a substantial part of our population, especially in constituencies which front on ocean waters.
I want to send out this warning. Great care will haye to be exercised in the expenditure of this public money to prevent loss. Fishermen's equipment is very perishable property. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) will agree with me in that. One storm may ruin the whole thing, and the government must be prepared to accept a substantial loss in connection with
this proposal because of circumstances beyond the control of the fisherman-settler, if I may so term him. Nevertheless I am prepared- I was going to say, take a gamble, but it is not quite as bad as that-to see the country back these men and rehabilitate them. As I say, however, the greatest care must be exercised in seeing how much money is expended. There is provided in the bill a limitation of $4,800, with $1,200 for equipment. This does not necessarily mean that each man will have to have the maximum. Is $1,200 enough for a fisherman's equipment? Will his home be included in the $4,800? In the case of the farmer, $3,600 is provided for land, improvements and building material, and $1,200 for stock and equipment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This equipment would compare with the live stock on the farm.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose it is to be allotted on the theory that $3,600 would be for his home and $1,200 for his equipment. Along the bay of Fundy, $3,600 will buy a very fine fisherman's home, but in these days of power boats and expensive nets and other equipment, $1,200 will not go very far. I am not qualified to express an opinion or to speak dogmatically, but I would think that there should be a little leeway; that the one might be extended and the other reduced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If there were two returned soldiers, I should think they could get along very nicely with $2,400.


Mr. POTTIER:: I approve heartily the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). This is a step in the right direction, one of the things that we seldom see. The fisherman is now being placed in the same category as the farmer. I have been here for a number of years and have heard a great deal about the farmer being a person who is developing our natural resources, and he has been placed in a privileged class. The magnitude of the farming resources of Canada has brought that about, but there is no reason why the fisherman should not be in the same class. He is an important citizen. While the fishing industry may not be quite as extensive as farming, it is just as important in so far as the individual is concerned. I commend the government and the committee for developing this policy.


Alan Webster Neill: I am inclined to agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) with regard to the division of the money. Three thousand six hundred dollars would
Veterans' Land Act

buy a house out of proportion to the value of the gear, because $1,200 at the outside will not buy very much gear if it includes a boat. I notice section 7 refers to commercial fishing equipment, and I should like to know if that is defined anywhere else in the bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think it is.


Alan Webster Neill: A year from now this may be defined by some official as meaning not a boat but only a net or something of that kind. It should be defined.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I recall, that point was discussed by the committee, and the committee declined to make any specific allocation as between boats and equipment. They preferred to have a lump sum allocated for fishing equipment, whether it be boats or gear or part of the one and part of the other.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the minister certain that the words "commercial fishing equipment" would include a boat? If I were asked what fishing equipment was I would say it was the gear used on a boat, not the boat itself. A boat is not equipment. It is like a car which you buy and put equipment on. Furniture is the equipment of a house, but does not include a house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was certainly the intention of the committee that that should be included. The definition drawn up by the drafting counsel referred to boat as well as to gear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The same equipment as a truck would be on a farm.


Alan Webster Neill: I can understand that the committee intended that, but a year from now will these actual words on this page mean that? Can the minister guarantee that the words "commercial fishing equipment" include boats?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can, and I will see that the regulations cover the point raised by my hon. friend.


Grote Stirling: It is not at all clear to me from this wording that a fisherman's house is covered by the section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The drafting was intended to cover that. Section 9 provides $3,600 for a home as apart from live stock and equipment, and then provision is made to substitute "commercial fishing equipment" for "live stock and farm equipment" in other sections of the bill. The same benefits go to the settler who is a fisherman as go to the settler who is a

farmer. If the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) will look at subsection 2 of section 9 he will see that the point he raised is covered.


Percy Ellis Wright: This is the section under which the director may purchase land. In most of the provinces extensive surveys of different soil types have been made, and I want to recommend to the director that these be considered in the purchase of land. No land should be purchased which does not come within the first two most productive types of soil. It will mean a lot to the success of this scheme if the right type of land is purchased. While we cannot put all these provisions in the bill, I do not think that point can be stressed too much. Land should not be purchased unless it comes within the better types of soil as surveyed by the various provincial departments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall see that the suggestion of the hon. member is carefully looked into.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Section 7 reads in part:
The director may. for the execution of any of the purposes of this act,
(a) purchase by agreement, at prices which to him shall seem reasonable, or-
I hope that anything I said this morning advising against rocky or swampy farms being purchased on behalf of soldier settlers will not be taken as a reflection on the county of Lanark to which I referred, because otherwise, if the director were not thoroughly awake to the opportunities in Lanark county, he might not direct his eyes toward it as a suitable county in which to buy farms on behalf of the soldier settler. Let me say at once that there is no finer agricultural county than Lanark and no more magnificent agricultural townships than Ramsay, Drummond, Dal-housie, Lanark, Beckwith, Bathurst and many others. I had no intention at all of intimating that the county of Lanark had very much rocky land in it because, as a matter of fact, it is a fertile and prolific county. I was simply urging that the soldier settler be placed on land where from the very beginning he would have a reasonable opportunity of winning out, and of course, he could not do that on a farm of 100 acres of rock, of which unfortunately there are a few not only in Lanark but in other counties as well.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Section 7 provides
that the director may by agreement purchase land at prices which to him seem reasonable. I recall a section which said that prices must be agreed upon by a judge of the county court and a representative of the legion.

Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committee to which my hon. friend refers, on which sits a county court judge, is the committe dealing with a rescission of contract. If the director decided to have a contract rescinded, the committee would review that decision. Then under section 34 regional or provincial advisory committees may be appointed to advise the director in connection with the selection of lands and the suitability of the applicant.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv:	I was simply asking for information. On page 5 of the bill, under the heading "Acquirement of lands and other property," section 7 provides:
The director may, for the execution of any of the purposes of this act,
(a)	purchase by agreement, at prices which to him shall seem reasonable, or
(b)	in any other manner acquire by consent or agreement from his majesty in the right of Canada or from any province or municipal authority, or from any person, firm or corporation.
I do not want to see again the unfortunate policy that was followed in soldier settlement after the last war, and as I understand section 7 of this bill and subsequent sections, if the director cannot agree to a certain price for a piece of land, the question is submitted to a committee composed of a county court judge and a representative appointed by the Canadian Legion. Am I correct in that? In other words, the soldier may have an idea of what a certain piece of land is worth and the director may have his idea. There should be a "body, consisting of a county court judge, a representative of the Canadian Legion, and so on who would more or less be a check on the director. I understand there is such a provision in the bill. Am I correct in that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only section that would give the director the discretion to consult in regard to prices would be section 34, which provides for the setting up of advisory committees to advise in respect of the selection of lands and other matters of that kind as may be referred to such committees by the director. No doubt he would consult such a committee as to the fairness of prices in any particular region.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In other words,
sections 7 and 34 are tied in together. Am I correct in that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They would be in practice, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Sale of land, et cetera, to veterans.
James Arthur Ross: There has been considerable discussion whether the 81,200 was sufficient for stock and equipment. While there is plenty of room for argument, the decision of the committee was that this settlement scheme was to be, first of all, a way of life for the returned men and their dependents, and second, a business undertaking. I hope that under this bill-this was agreed to in committee-where three or four or half a dozen settlers in a community-I am not advocating community settlement-desire to cooperate in purchasing power equipment, it will be possible for them to do so. Is provision made for that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that in practice the administration would have to be more or less certain that these men would be prepared to cooperate in agricultural development.


James Arthur Ross: Such a provision is very important. The hon. member for Wood Mountain said this afternoon that he hoped there would be no more settlers in his part of the country who would be expected to produce wheat, because they would be failures. The hon. member for Melfort pointed out that the soldier settlers would not have enough money to buy the necessary equipment. I do not think we should put settlers on the land with the idea of expecting them to produce wheat in the future as it has been produced in the past. I made reference this morning to the wheat agreement at Washington from which I should like to quote article 11 (production control):
1. The governments of Argentina, Australia, Canada and the United States of America shall adopt suitable measures to ensure that the production of wheat in their territories does not exceed the quantity needed for domestic requirements and the basic export quotas and maximum reserve stocks for which provision is hereinafter made.
That is something we should keep in mind when we are drafting legislation of this kind. Then article 111, dealing with stocks of wheat, provides that Canada's minimum should be 80 million bushels and its maximum 275 million bushels. This is a four-year agreement. and if we tfarry it out we shall have to change our agricultural set-up in this country, whether we like it or not. That is something we must keep in mind, and I am glad to have the assurance of the minister that a small number of farmers will be able to cooperate in the purchase of power equipment to reduce their overhead.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the SI.200 mentioned in paragraph (c) part of the $3,600 mentioned in paragraph (a), or is it additional ?
Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is additional.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In other words, a total of $4,800?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The idea was this. The hon. member for Haldimand raised the point in the committee that a man might not take up a holding worth $4,800, but might take up one costing $3,600, and yet he might need $1,200 for equipment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is very important. Could the total for land be $3,600 and the remainder of the $4,800 go for the purchase of equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was not in the bill as introduced, but that is exactly the change that was made by the special committee.


Victor Quelch: The explanatory note on the page opposite section 9 states:
It will be observed, however, that there is no ceiling as to the cost price of land if the veteran is in a position to pay all costs in excess of $3,600. There will probably be very few such cases, but it was not felt that the veteran with considerable capital of his own should be held to a $3,600 farm.
I understand from that, that if a soldier had saved and had in the bank $4,000, there would be nothing to prevent him from acquiring a farm valued at S7,600. In other words, he would put up $4,000 and get the board. to put up $3,600. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that that is the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Veteran deemed a tenant at will.
George Alexander Cruickshank: This section reads:
Every veteran holding or occupying land sold by the director shall until the director grants or conveys the land to him be deemed a tenant at will.
What does that mean? A man may be a tenant in a municipal area for some fifteen or twenty years, contributing his full share of taxation, yet having none of the rights of municipal occupation. That is the position of a tenant. You know, Mr. Chairman, what I mean by "municipal occupation". For once I am correct in my legal terms. He cannot be a councillor or reeve or alderman. Why he should want to run I do not know, but under this section he cannot.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This section is particularly necessary in respect of administration, to obtain payments from production on the farm without starting

proceedings for cancellation of the contract; to protect the administrator or administrators upon advances made for taxes, and to administer a separate farm if he has to absent himself therefrom.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I appreciate very much the legal expression given by the minister, but it does not mean a thing to me. I will try to put in as plain English as I can what I am trying to get at. As I understand it, $4,800 is the total amount the soldier can borrow. He may pay back $4,600, but so long as he still owes $200 he is still living in Russia, Italy, or some gestapo country where he has no rights from the government. I do not think the minister or committee has realized what the section means. It may not mean much in unorganized territories, but in certain organized territories in the far west it means a great deal. A man may borrow $4,800 from the people of Canada, because he fought on behalf of us and enabled us to live under these conditions; he may pay $4,600 back, and yet-and I am sure hon. members with municipal experience will bear out what I say-he is debarred from being the elected representative of the people of his district, the district in which he has paid his taxes year in and year out, for some twenty-four years, because he is still a tenant at will. I do not think that is the intention of the minister or his department. Under the old Soldier Settlement Act there had to be a payment of $500 on account of, not amortization or interest, but principal.


James Arthur Ross: I am not going to attempt to answer for the minister, but I think this chiefly revolves round provincial legislation. In my province-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All over the dominion.


James Arthur Ross: -this will be an equivalent to an agreement for sale; is that not right?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Well, in Manitoba, where property is held under agreement of sale, a candidate for municipal office simply makes a declaration that he is the owner of the property and has an equity of $500 in it, and that is all that is required. I do not know what the law is in British Columbia, but certainly we in Manitoba are covered, as are most provinces, by that legislation. But it is definitely a matter of provincial legislation.

Veterans' Land Act


George Alexander Cruickshank: I may be emphasizing this a great deal. I am not worrying about running for reeve or councilman; the next time I run it will be for Prime Minister. But whatever the law may be in Alberta or in Manitoba, that is not the law in British Columbia. I cannot see why any veteran of this war who borrows $4,800 and pays back $4,600 has to go to the house of Farris or some legal firm to prove he is entitled to run. It is beyond my ken; I do not approve it at all, and I want the minister to tell me. If he can assure me that that is not the intention of the section, I am satisfied. As I understand the section, however, the man will still be a tenant, and I defy the hon. member for Souris or anyone else to tell me that any man who is a tenant in any province can run for the office of reeve or mayor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This section is word for word the section in the old act. It has been there for twenty years; the matter has been decided in the Canadian courts, and it has always been held that it has nothing whatever to do with the right of a candidate to run for office. His right is determined, as my hon. friend directly said, by provincial legislation and regulation. There is no imperilling of anybody's rights with regard to running for office, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley is in error if he supposes that there is.


Olof Hanson: This provision is put in for the protection of crown property, and I do not think it has any bearing except incidentally upon the civic rights and obligations of the tenant. I am not going to give a dissertation on the different tenancies there are, but under a tenancy at will a man is legally in possession but may be turned out without notice upon certain defaults. It is a pretty summary process under the landlord and tenant acts of the various provinces, but I would hesitate to suggest that the crown could relax this right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will ask one question, and then it will be on record. Will a veteran holding or occupying land sold by the director under Bill No. 65 have the right at such time and prior to such time as he completes his payments, to run for any municipal office provided he has complied with all the laws and regulations in so far as they come under provincial jurisdiction?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The answer is, subject to the proper qualifications which are dictated or directed by the
statutes of the various provinces. This bill has nothing whatever to do with the right to run for office.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Title, et cetera, to remain in the director.
Alan Webster Neill: Under subsection 2 of section 11 provision is made for a man holding some of this stock that the government has bought for him being enabled to sell it; how he should sell it and so on. Apparently no provision is made to ensure what I might call the continuity of the live stock. Perhaps he is running close to the border-line; he has not much equity left and he wishes to sell off the older stock. He may be entitled to do so, but if he does get permission to sell it I would point out the explanation that is given on the right-hand page opposite section 11:
In some cases release of title to a chattel would be followed bv taking title to a replacement-in others it would not, depending upon circumstances. This, however, is an administrative detail to be covered by regulations.
For the protection of the crown and also of the settler should it not be provided that the department might give permission to sell certain stock, such as a mature pig or cow perhaps, on the understanding that the settler should replace it? If you do not make some provision of this sort, the man is liable to sell off all the stock and leave the crown in the lurch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the position, I am told, and it will be specifically provided for in the regulations but not under the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder what they will do to overcome a case such as the one that was known as the Duncan Marshall bull act in Alberta-a rather notorious matter. How will they cover such a situation? Is it intended to take a chattel mortgage, or will title automatically vest in the director as a corporation sole?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The title will vest in the director. It will be sold under lien agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Director may make advances under certain conditions.
Victor Quelch: It is hard to understand how this will work. There seems to be something in it contrary to section 9. On the page opposite section 13 the following appears:
This section simply makes provision for a long term loan at a low interest rate, all of which is repayable, as there is no provision for
Veterans' Land Act

a conditional grant where the loan is made on the security of land owned by the veteran. It is felt that provision for the grant iii such cases would go beyond the need-for-rehabilitation aspect of the whole bill. Cases may well arise where a veteran possessed of property worth anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000 needs a loan of say only $2,000 to facilitate resumption of ordinary farming operations.
The settler has a place worth, say $6,000, and he owes $2,000 on it. Why would he not be entitled to turn that half-section over to the settlement board, obtain a loan of $2,000, pay off the mortgage and get $1,200 for stock and equipment? He has an equity of only $4,000. Under section 9 I asked this question. If a settler had $4,000 in the bank, would he be entitled to buy a place worth $7,600 and obtain $3,600 from the board, putting up the $4,000? In answer to that question the minister said yes. Why should he discriminate against the settler who has $4,000 tied up in land and say that he cannot come under section 9, but that the man who has $4,000 in the bank may do so? There is rank discrimination. The minister is saying that where the $4,000 is in the land the settler cannot come under the benefits of the free grant, but where that money is in the bank in the form of a deposit he can get that benefit under section 9. He can get an outright gift of $2,400 under certain conditions, whereas under section 13 a man in a similar position cannot get a grant at all, but can get only a loan. I repeat, there is rank discrimination. Could the settler evade it by doing this? If he had a half-section worth $6,000, with a mortgage of $2,000, could he sell that half-section for $6,000 and then buy it through the settlement board, obtaining $3,600 and paying the remainder in cash? He would be doing the very thing to which I referred under section 9. Where is the dividing line between permission to a man to come under section 9 and compelling him to come under section 13? Under section 9 he gets an outright gift of $2,400 under certain conditions, whereas under section 13 he does not get any gift but has to pay back every cent with interest. There should be some clarification.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We debated this in the committee for three days, and it was decided that this is the way it should appear in the bill. I would refer the hon. member to section 23:
The director may decline to purchase land for or resell land to a veteran w'ho, for the purpose of qualifying for assistance under this act, has made a voluntary sale or transfer of land or property suitable for his reestablishment under the provisions of section thirteen.
That is a partial answer; it is not complete, I admit.
[Mr. Quelch.l


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the exact difference between the two? Under section 9 the land is sold to the veterans up to a limit of $4,800. Does the soldier make any contribution at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ten per cent of the land value, $360.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has to pay that 10 per cent and that is all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the direct contribution of the government under the scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take the maximum for land and buildings, $3,600; add stock and equipment, $1,200. That is $4,800. The settler pays $360 and on contract $2,400, 50 per cent of the cost, or $2,760, over a period of twenty-five years, and equity given by the government of $2,040, making $4,800.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that there is a grant of $2,040 by the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a free grant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the maximum.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the hon. member (Mr. Quelch) refers to advances on security of the land owned by the veteran, and apparently he has raised the question of discrimination. There would appear to be some discrimination.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think there is myself, but the committee went into the question thoroughly and we decided that it could not be corrected in any other way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Director may require insurance policies.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the usual clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: With regard to insurance, will the government consider the question of insuring the veteran's property under some group insurance scheme rather than by the method which has prevailed in the past? There have been many premiums paid in

Veterans' Land Act
excess of collections made, and I think there is a point there where a considerable saving might be made to the settler without any additional expense to the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The government has already considered the question with regard to fire insurance but not the mortgage aspect of it. I shall be glad to bear the hon. member's remarks in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Director may pay taxes, etcetera.
Alan Webster Neill: This section deals with the payment of taxes. It has been well said that the most expensive way of borrowing money is to fail to pay taxes. It is far better to borrow from a money shark than to obtain money by delaying to pay taxes. Conditions vary in certain provinces and municipalities, but let us say that the taxes for the year 194% were due in February or March, perhaps in April. If they are not paid by a certain date, generally six months afterwards-about June-10 per cent is often added, and in some instances, 6 per cent. A few months later they add another amount, in some instances. 6 per cent and in others, 10 per cent. That is all in the one year. On top of that you have a $10 fee for holding a tax sale and interest on the taxes as well. Our idea should be to help these poor fellows out. I say "poor fellows" because anyone who is struggling to make a living on the farm is up against it. Let us try to help them. The section says that if the veteran fails or neglects for one year to pay, the government can step in and pay, but you have to wait a year. The result is he will not pay at the proper time to take advantage of the discount. Then he runs up against 10 per cent plus 6 per cent and a tax sale, and the government comes in and redeems, but it is all piled on the settler. The government practically own the property anyhow. Let the government pay the taxes at the reduced rate, charge it up and collect it if they can; if not, charge it on the land; that is what it comes to in the long run. But do not put the settler in the position that he is going to drag on and incur this tremendous expense, and then the government pay it and charge him. Let the government pay it in the first place at the reduced rate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course this is the section we have had in the old act for many years. I am informed that in actual practice the director will probably step in and advance the payment in order to enable the settler to avoid a tax sale.


Alan Webster Neill: But he cannot; the government has no authority. It says, if the man fails or neglects to pay for one year the director may pay. He cannot lend him the money until it is in default for a year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The actual procedure in British Columbia is that if a soldier settler does not pay his taxes, the title being in the ciown, obviously he cannot be sold out. In order to protect their interest the soldier settlement board pay the taxes. But they do not pay interest or penalty anywhere in British Columbia. If the soldier has to pay, he must pay the penalty and interest. Follow that through; if the soldier cannot pay his taxes this year or the second year, in our province after two years the property automatically goes to tax sale, and to protect their equity the soldier settlement board must pay. But they pay neither penalty nor interest; yet they charge that up to the soldier and he has to redeem his land. Say the taxes are $100, the penalty $10 and the interest $8. He has to pay $118 to redeem his property. But the soldier settlement board have paid the municipality only $100.
They have the same thing only to a far greater extent in dyking and ditching taxes in our province. In the reclaimed area 76 per cent of the farmers are in that category They have to pay that; the soldier settlement board does not pay it, but the soldier automatically loses his farm. Obviously the soldier settlement board do not let it go so that they lose the title to the municipal or provincial government, but they pay neither penalty nor interest, whereas the poor soldier in order to save his home has to pay that.
What I suggest is this. If the government or the board are protecting the legal title, which they should do, there is yet no reason why that should be charged to the soldier who pays up. He must keep his payments up, including taxes and principal and interest, to the land settlement board. What I maintain is that the land settlement board do not pay that to the municipal or provincial authorities; they pay the principal but no interest. Therefore I cannot see why when the soldier, in order to maintain his title to his property, must pay the taxes he should pay something that the soldier settlement board have never paid.


James Alexander Marshall: I have had considerable experience as a municipal secretary in levying and collecting taxes in Alberta, and I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just spoken.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He was speaking about British Columbia.
Veterans' Land Act


James Alexander Marshall: I know. It is true that perhaps ten or fifteen years ago there was considerable difficulty experienced by municipal bodies in the collection of taxes from soldier settlers, but after representations were made by municipal organizations an agreement was reached whereby the levying and collection of taxes affecting soldier settlers was greatly improved. I have also had a good deal of experience with soldier settlers and their contracts, and I have yet to find where any concession whatsoever on taxes which have been paid was not passed on to the soldier himself. The arrangements which are now operating are very satisfactory indeed.
I cannot understand how any soldier settler is being charged 10 per cent on taxes. In Alberta we levy penalties twice a year, 4 per cent on December 15 and 4 per cent the following July 15. It works out about 8| per cent for the year. But if the soldier settlement board have been forced to pay any taxes and any discounts are given, those concessions in every instance that I have investigated were passed on to the soldier settler.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct all over Canada.


James Alexander Marshall: I think that is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I believe I was
correct in what I was trying to say, and I think I have just as much knowledge in the matter as the hon. member who has just spoken, and certainly more than the minister has in this connection. May I clear the point I was trying to bring out. I am not insinuating that the soldier settlement charge is an extra tax. But I do ask the minister to show me any case in British Columbia where the soldier settlement board paid interest and penalty either on municipal taxes or on ditching and dyking. Of course they did not, and it is nonsense to say they did. I did not insinuate that the soldier settlement board charged that on to the soldier, and I want to make that clear.	,
The minister is not aware of the situation, and certainly his officials are not, when he tries to tell me that the board paid either interest or penalty on ditching and dyking taxes in British Columbia. I know that is nonsense, and it has never been done in the last twenty years. It has never been paid in connection with municipal taxes. I did not say they charged it up to the veteran.
But let me point out the difference. There is a tremendous difference in the fact that the soldier has to find that penalty and interest. I am sorry that the minister and his adviser have not told me what it amounts to. The penalty and interest amount to

$4.57 an acre of tax on dairy farm land. That fact about British Columbia is not advertised, possibly because of modesty. Apparently British Columbia has not advertised the fact that milk is supplied to Vancouver at a price cheaper than to any other city on the north American continent. A tax of $4.57 an acre is paid on that dairy farm land.


Thomas Vien: Order. Section 15 provides that the director may pay such rates, taxes or assessments; all moneys so expended by the director shall become a charge. Therefore it would be irrelevant undeT that section to refer to what may have taken place in other circumstances.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the
future? I will quote from page 9 of the bill.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has
been referring to circumstances which are not covered by the section now before the committee.	,


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am referring to
section 15, which states in part:
. . . until so repaid the amount of such payment shall be added to the sale price of such property or shall become a part of the principal secured by any charge, mortgage or hypothec in favour of the director, as the case may be.
I am now talking about the future. If I am not allowed to talk about the soldier who won the last war, I would talk about the soldier who is winning this war. I am talking about facts which are facts, and which cannot be controverted. I say definitely, with all due deference to you, Mr. Chairman, and speaking as a soldier member of the house, that the soldier settlement board or the federal government do not and never have paid the penalty or interest charge on dyking and ditching in connection with either government or municipal taxation, and that the soldier has had to pay those charges.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That statement is absolutely not in accordance with the facts, as I am advised by the officers of the department. If the director receives any concession whatsoever from the municipal authorities he passes that concession over to the soldier settler.
The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that I consider an amendment. Possibly we would meet his objection if we were to strike out the words "for the period of one year" in the first and second lines of section 15. Would that be satisfactory?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should think it would.

Veterans' Land Act


Alan Webster Neill: It could be adjusted by regulation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The penalty goes on at midnight, but it could be arranged. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has mentioned something about concessions granted by the municipalities. I do not know about that. I can hardly credit the suggestion that in the event of a default the province will turn round and take it off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My colleague will move the amendment.


Mr. MULOCK:: I move in amendment:
That the words "for the period of one year" be deleted from the first and second lines of section 15.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Leaving it entirely in the hands of the director.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Vien: Shall the section as amended carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No. If necessary I rise to a point of order. My understanding is the minister said that my statement was absolutely incorrect, and I should like to know if he is challenging what I have said. In other words, he suggests that I am not telling the truth. I make the definite statement that the settler does not get the benefit, and I make the further definite statement that the soldier settlement board does not pay the penalty or the interest on dyking or ditching. The minister said that that was .not correct. If I am wrong I will withdraw, and if he is wrong he will have to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I were wrong I should be delighted to withdraw. But I am only giving the information I have received from those in charge of the administration of the act. They say that where the director obtains certain concessions from municipal authorities the benefits from those concessions are passed on to soldier settlers. That is the statement I made, and it was made on the information I received. I must trust to those officials who guide me in the matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not satisfied with that at all. I said definitely that the soldier settlement board do not pay penalty or interest.


Thomas Vien: Order. We are not now discussing the operations of the soldier settlement board. The clause provides for what
the director may do when a veteran fails or neglects to pay taxes. The hon. member has made his statement. The minister has stated the facts according to his information. It would be irrelevant to go on debating a statement of facts extraneous to the section now before us. We must come back to the section before the committee. Shall section 15 as amended carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I declare it six o'clock.


Thomas Vien: We have still one minute before six o'clock. Shall section 15 as amended carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I do not agree that it is carried.


Thomas Vien: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: Those in favour will say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Thomas Vien: Those opposed will say "nay".


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nay.


Thomas Vien: In my opinion the "ayes" have it, and I declare the section as amended carried.
Section as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 16-Advisory boards.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: This bill as drafted is one of far-reaching importance. It will depend for its success upon the selection of the land, of the settlers who are to go on the land and of the personnel who will administer the legislation. However well these selections may be made, there are bound to be defaults. I think this section and the succeeding one could very well be taken together because they cover the results flowing from such defaults. As I read the sections, they place the entire power in the hands of the director.


Thomas Vien: Is it the desire of the committee that sections 16 and 17 should be considered together?

Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. gentleman is quite correct because they are interlocked.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think this parliament has been asked under any other statute to confer upon any one person the comprehensive powers which this bill confers upon the director. I am not going to go into the sections except to refer to them in connection with the argument which I wish to advance. Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 give unlimited powers to the director. Section 3, subsection 1, shows the extent of the power which the director has, in that he is made responsible only to the minister for the administration of the measure. Again, the Extent of his powers is shown in section 37, which states:
The director may, with the approval of the governor in council and subject to the provisions of this act, make regulations prescribing:
(a) qualifications necessary in order to entitle veterans to the benefits or assistance or to any particular benefit or assistance under this act.
As the bill stands, the director is supreme, subject to no law or any control known to law. Section 16 provides for the setting up of provincial advisory boards which are to be comprised of three members, the chairman of which shall be a county or district court judge, one member of which shall be nominated by the Canadian Legion and the other member, together with the chairman, to be named by the director. In other words, not only does the director control the operation of the legislation without any control being exercised1 by the statute, but when there is a default the board that decides whether or not proceedings shall be taken is in turn appointed by the director.
Section 17 shows the extent of the powers given to the director. He is given the right, without any recourse to the courts, without any formal reentry or retaking, to "rescind such agreement, repossess and resell or otherwise deal with the property as authorized by this act." I contend that this is placing too much power in the hands of the director. One of the pronounced trends of recent years has been the establishment of administrative boards, but these boards should as far as is practicable be subject to parliament and subject to control by statute. As this bill is at present drafted, the position is that the director can do what he pleases, refuse whom he will the benefits of the measure, disallow an application, allow an application although a person is not entitled thereto, remove a person from the land without recourse to law and without that individual having the right that the application of the rule of law should accord to him.
[The Chairman.]	-
I suggest that there should be a provision whereby the advisory boards would be appointed by the governor in council instead of by the director, and that any person settled under the provisions of this bill shall have the right of appeal to the courts of the land. I repeat that I know of no other measure that has been brought before us wherein such absolute powers are placed in the hands of one administrative officer, free and uncontrolled by parliament or by statute. I suggest to the minister that if an appeal to the courts is not to be allowed, an amendment along the lines of the amendment suggested by the Canadian Legion should be brought down. The suggestion of the Canadian Legion was as follows:
The bill should provide, either a section similar to section 69 of the Soldier Settlement Act, or a committee of review to examine all cases where settlers appeal rescission proceedings, this committee of review to be composed of three members, two of whom shall be entirely independent of the Veterans' Land Act administration.
I should like to know the reason why such absolute powers are placed in the hands of the director. I can understand that he must have wide powers to administer the measure, but it is difficult to understand why he whose ruling will be appealed from is permitted to have that appeal heard by a body set up by himself. It is necessary, having regard to the exigencies of war, to appoint administrative boards, controllers and authorities of that kind, but I submit that the necessities of war do not justify parliament legislating such absolute powers to an individual in connection with civil matters after the war is over. Instead of our attitude being the approbation of the placing of such comprehensive powers in the hands of one individual, I think it should be so to legislate as to control the controller to the end that absolute power should not be placed in the hands of one man.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With much of what my hon. friend has said I agree. As a matter of fact we thought in the committee that we had gone even farther than the request of the Canadian Legion. As my hon. friend knows, under the old act rescission first of all took place. It -was effected by the director himself, and then there was an appeal afterwards to the district court judge. Under the provisions of this bill, I would not say we are more generous, but I think we are more fair to the settler. Before rescission takes place, this reviewing committee will act. My hon. friend objects to the fact that two of the three members are appointed by the director. If there is any virtue in having these appointments made by

Veterans' Land Act
the governor in council, I have not the slightest objection in the world to that. We honestly thought in the committee that we were going farther than the request of the Canadian Legion as contained in the memorandum. I consider that this bill which makes provision for the rescission to be reviewed before it actually takes place is far more equitable to the settler than the old provisions where, after the rescission had taken place, he had the right of appeal, and possibly all the expenses of the appeal.
In regard to the point whether the director or the governor in council should make appointments, I have not the slightest objection to an amendment if that provision is troubling anybody in this committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Lake Centre has made an indictment of the principles underlying the powers of the director in administering this measure. Here is a director not responsible to parliament, responsible only to his minister-and even that responsibility is not stated in very clear terms-with power to spend $100,000,000 of public money.
The power to deal with the rescission of the contract before the actual event makes that provision an improvement over the one in the old act. But can you imagine any judicial body, with a member appointed by the director himself, set up to review decisions of the director? The appeal should be to a body entirely removed and apart from the director, and he should have nothing to do with it.
Just let us review the whole situation. Here is a director appointed by the governor in council, under section 3, subsection 1. He is responsible, not to parliament, but to a minister, and is an officer who has wider powers, I think, than have ever been given to any peacetime controller in so far as the quantum of public money which he may expend is concerned. He is given greater powers than any of the controllers appointed to-day under the War Measures Act-and the bill now under discussion is a measure which is to operate after peace returns. I do not think very much will be done under this measure in war time. It is a gesture to the soldiers of the country, and the legislation will not become effective until after this war is over. I know that 52,000 soldiers have been discharged from the armed forces, and the minister says that he has already had a considerable number of applications, but this is a rehabilitation measure which will have its greatest effect after the cessation of hostilities, and not now. After the budget has been given effect to, I do not think there is going
to be such a tremendous amount of money available, to be diverted from war taxation, to put this scheme into effect.
But I do suggest to the minister that the position and powers of the director should be fully reviewed before anything is done under this legislation, and that, notwithstanding the consideration which has been given to this bill by the special committee. I am sure they could never have taken into account the tremendous powers that are being vested by this bill in one man. Why, prior to the war, in peace time, we would never have thought of giving one man the powers that are being given the director under this bill. It must be that our judgment is being warped by war conditions, or we would never give the director, whoever he might be, all the powers that it is proposed to give him under this bill. Look at the powers given under sections 7, 8 and 9, and then look at the powers conferred by section 37, the last section referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Under section 37 the director is given powers of legislation which should be reserved for parliament and for parliament alone. Surely there should be greater safeguards. The mere publication of the regulations in the Canada Gazette and the tabling of them within fifteen days after parliament meets is not good enough. That is informing the public after the event. Regulations with respect to certain matters are necessary, of course, for instance regulations as to forms of agreements, notices and other documents essential to the operation of the legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Also paragraph (a).


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no.
Paragraph (a) is not procedural, as is paragraph (g) dealing with forms of agreement. That sort of thing in paragraph (g) could properly be the subject matter of regulations made by the director and subject only to the approval of the governor in council. But look at paragraph (a):
(a) Qualifications necessary in order to entitle veterans to the benefits or assistance or to any particular benefit or assistance under this act.
Is parliament going to vacate its functions and say that the director, instead of parliament, shall say who is to have this assistance and who not? I call upon the members of this house to study this bill and the implications of section 37, paragraph (b), for instance, dealing with the manner in which applications for purchase and sale may be made, and so on.
This bill gives altogether too much power to any individual, and I call upon the minister to shear the powers of the director.
Veterans' Land Act

Here is a man who is going to handle $100,000,000 of the public money. Parliament should have some authority over him. Who will audit his accounts? How are we to know whether this money has been properly expended or not? What provisions are there in this bill which call for public control of public money? I put that principle to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same as there have been for years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because
we have sinned, let us sin some more

that is all that means. There is a principle at stake here, and the longer we submit to the soporific influences of war, the further shall we go in abdicating our functions as a parliament.
. Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): The old act was not passed in war time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know very much about the old act, but we are dealing now with a situation that we have within our jurisdiction, and we should not let it pass out of our jurisdiction until we have anticipated the evils that may occur. The fact that something was done ten or twenty years ago is no reason why we should repeat the error.
The principle of this bill is good; the objective of the bill is good, but the methods are reprehensible because they violate the principles of responsible government. We are vacating our functions. My friend here, the hon. member for Lake Centre, has on his desk a file almost six inches thick of orders in council which override acts of parliament. How many people in this house or in the country know how much legislation that was deliberately passed by this House of Commons in days gone by has now been set aside under the authority and powers of the War Measures Act without the public knowing anything about it? How can there be any stability to law in this country or certainty as to what the law of this country is when this power is taken and used, sometimes necessarily but, I venture to suggest, many times unnecessarily? Many times there were passed while this house was in session orders in council about which parliament should have been consulted. This is a deliberate affront to the parliament of Canada, and would not be tolerated for one minute by this House of Commons if we had a sense of our responsibility as representatives of the people. Let us turn back, if we can. These powers and jurisdictions and authority rest, under the constitution of our country, in the

parliament of Canada, and not in any committee of the cabinet. There are members on both sides of the house who must be seized of the danger of such a situation. What does it mean? It means that not only are we thrown into a totalitarian state but that we are proposing to perpetuate it by passing an act of parliament such as this which may go on for fifty years. It is a complete abdication of the functions of parliament to allow this director to legislate in matters respecting the expenditure of public money. Why, if a Conservative government were to offer a suggestion like that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -my hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health would raise the roof in denunciation of any such principle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is their phraseology.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that may be true; all right. I accept the minister's statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You had better.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if that was wrong, it does not make this right. The Soldier Settlement Act was amended and amended and amended, and I warrant you that the original Soldier Settlement Act did not in its inception give anybody as wide powers as this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ten times wider. There was no appeal at all, and no judge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is all right; the minister has just one little leg to stand on


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two or three legs.


Richard Burpee Hanson: and that is, he is going to the advisory board before the event of rescission rather than after. I am not so much concerned about that one detail or any detail as with the general purview and principle of this bill. I object, and the people of Canada if they know will object, to the tremendous powers which are going to be given to any one individual without any control over him. What financial control will there be? I put this question to the committee: what control will there be

Veterans' Land Act
with respect to the purchase of properties and the disposition of applications for properties?


An hon. MEMBER:: Political control.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not saying that. I am raising a question to stimulate interest in this matter, and I think the hon. member for Lake Centre has done a great service by raising it here. I intimated the possibilities under this bill, a little while ago when we were on section 5 dealing with the corporate powers of the director, and the power he has to appoint all the temporary employees of this board. I suggest to this committee that that is a violation of every principle which should obtain with respect to the expenditure and control of public money, and on that principle the measure cannot be defended. I have not anything more to say at this time, but I believe the minister should review that whole position.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to say that as a member of the committee I did not understand the meaning of this section as it now reads. I am not a lawyer, and I never for one moment thought anybody could select the judge who was to make the ruling; I imagined you had to ask the court to appoint the judge. I remember a discussion on this matter to the effect that the legion should appoint a representative and that the chairman was to be the county court judge. I assumed that the court would make that appointment. But subsection 1 of section 16 reads:
There .shall be a provincial advisory board in each province appointed by the governor in council, comprised of three members, the chairman of which shall be a county or district court judge of the province in which such board operates, one member to be appointed by the Canadian Legion and one other member who, together with the chairman, will be named by the director.
That, to me, is almost unbelievable. I never thought of the director appointing the district court judge along with another member. I thought that either the director or the governor in council would appoint one member and that the court would be responsible for the appointment of the judge, the chairman. Certainly I would never approve that section as it stands.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I wish to
say a word about this, because there was discussion in the committee on this very section, and it was deemed advisable by every member to have a county court judge appointed as chairman. The question then came up, which county court judge should be
appointed; would it be safe to leave the appointment to the whim of any organization such as the legion?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or the chief justice?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Or should
we name the judge now? It was the opinion of the committee that those who were in charge of administering a measure such as this would know the type of judge that should be appointed to deal with questions of this kind. In every province, as is well known, there are certain judges who know something about rural conditions and about the problems that confront soldiers and are familiar with acts such as the Soldier Settlement Act; on the other hand there are county court judges in all the provinces who would not be suitable or proper appointees for the hearing of appeals from the director in cases of this kind. The committeee arrived at the conclusion that the proper person would be a judge, who would be selected after people concerned with the welfare of soldiers in the various provinces had been consulted. I see nothing at all unreasonable about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Except
that he is named by the director.


William Chisholm Macdonald: The director is more closely concerned with the direct interests of the soldiers than a body in a particular province. He is the man who has the welfare of the soldiers at heart, and as I have said, if you are to have a county court judge, it is desirable to have one who would be familiar with the regulations and provisions of this legislation and know something of the cases with which he would have to deal. If you left the fate of the settler to the decision of any county court judge; if you said that any such judge might exercise jurisdiction in the particular county in which the lands in question were located, in one part of the province a soldier settler might get one sort of treatment and in another part he might have an entirely different kind of treatment meted out by a different judge with wholly different views.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that
is not what is contemplated here. There is contemplated here a provincial advisory board- it says so-in each province, and one chairman out of the province, and he is to act throughout as the provincial chairman of the board. Why not name him through the governor in council? They are responsible.


William Chisholm Macdonald: They name him, but they take the recommendation of the director; they would approve it.
Veterans' Land Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: How would the director
know who the best judge was?


William Chisholm Macdonald: He would
be a judge appointed and holding office in the province. The director only suggests his name to the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does
not say that. It says he shall name him.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Yes, but the appointment shall be by the governor in council. They can dismiss the director if necessary, or they can suggest some other appointee. I think in the interest of the soldiers' property some provision such as this is advisable, rather than to allow one particular, settler in one part of the province to be dealt with by one judge, and another settler in an adjoining district to be dealt with by another judge actuated by different principles. You would have the same question arise as has been brought up here in connection with appeals under national war services.


Percy Ellis Wright: In the discussion in committee of this particular clause I think it was generally agreed that it would be much more satisfactory to have one judge act for a whole province rather than have each county court judge act separately. But I think we owe thanks to the hon. member for Lake Centre for having brought out this point. Under this bill a tremendous power is vested in the director; in fact you might term him a dictator instead of a director. He could become a dictator if he were a certain type of person, and I think we should have some restrictive clauses in the bill. Under this section the governor in council should appoint the judge and one member, and the legion should have the appointment of the other member. I am not familiar enough with the law to know what financial checks we as a parliament have upon the director. The management of the Canadian National Railways have to report to the committee on railways every year, and the accounts are checked by that committee. I think under this measure that the director should report to some committee of the house each year, and the accounts could then be checked.
Subsection 2 of section 16 provides that:
The director . . . shall, upon due notice to the veteran concerned, refer the question of rescission in any case to the advisory board of the province in which the land concerned is situated, for its advice as to whether the default in performance of the agreement warrants the director in exercising the powers given him. . . .
After the board has decided that the circumstances do not warrant the director in making

the rescission, can the director still make it? There is nothing here to prevent his doing so. The finding of the board should be final. The director should not be given power to override a recommendation of the board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course, after this machinery has been set up, the director could not rescind any decision of the board.
With regard to the rather unexpected tirade of the leader of the opposition, I fail to see the connection between his fulminations against orders in council having the effect of overriding statutes, and the section which is before us. The point made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is a good one. If it would satisfy the committee to insert the words "governor in council" in lieu of the word "director", I do not see any objection. They would probably take the advice of the director in any event, if they had confidence in him. Therefore there is no objection to amending the section in that regard. But why summon up all these sinister, potential inequities which the leader of the opposition seems to conjure up in connection with what w7as a constructive proposal adopted by a non-partisan committee of the house? I cannot understand that at all.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the life of the advisory board to be set up?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They would be appointed by the governor in council and would be there until they resigned or were dismissed for cause or for any similar reason. They would normally function as any ordinary boards function, during pleasure. They would probably have only limited expense accounts, and it would not be highly remunerative-the same as boards of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


George Hugh Castleden: With regard to the Canadian Legion, it says that one member is to be nominated by the legion. Is that the provincial command?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be by the national organization in Ottawa, I should think, in cooperation and consultation with the provincial command.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I presume this is correct, and I want to have it straight. I am quoting from volume 2, H-M chapter 116-199, pp. 1559-3092. Not having a legal mind I do not know' much about this. I made a definite statement and was directly contradicted by the minister, and I wish to be corrected if I am wrong. If I was wrong I am prepared to withdraw what I said, and I expect the

Veterans' Land Act
minister to do the same if he is wrong. I presume that this statute is correct-it came from the library-and I am quoting chapter 119, page 3019. I am sorry to take up the time of the committee, but the minister and I were in direct contradiction on the facts and one of us is wrong. We cannot both be wrong, and I am prepared to withdraw if I am. As I say, I expect him to do the same.


Thomas Vien: The point raised by the hon. member is out of order. We are discussing Bill No. 65, to assist war veterans to settle upon the land, and any reference to the Soldier Settlement Act is irrelevant.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not speaking at all about the Soldier Settlement Act Under section 16-


Thomas Vien: What is chapter 119 to which the hon. gentleman refers?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am trying to read it.


Thomas Vien: What is the title of the act to which the hon. gentleman has referred?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It says, advisory board-[DOT]


Thomas Vien: What is the title of chapter 119 to which the hon. gentleman has referred?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Revised statutes of British Columbia-


Thomas Vien: I declare reference to another statute absolutely out of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Might I ask the
minister a question-


Thomas Vien: Order. The discussion is on sections 16 and 17-


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the
minister a question under section 16?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would it meet the objections of my hon. friends if we substituted "governor in council" for "director"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You will
have to change the phraseology a little bit.


James Arthur Ross: In subsection 1 of section 16 it is provided that one member is to be nominated by the Canadian Legion. Would you put "named" instead of "nominated" there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The effect is the same.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The amendment should make it clear that the governor in
council appoints the chairman and one member. If that could be worked out, it would be all right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. member allow me to have the amendment moved now?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think you will have to have it properly drafted first. Under subsection 2 of section 16 all that the director does with respect to this advisory board is to go to them in a given case, before taking any action or proceedings under subsection 1 of section 16, and after due notice, and "refer the question of rescission to the advisory board of the province in which the land concerned is situated, for its advice as to whether the default in performance of the agreement warrants the director in exercising the powers given him under the said subsection or as to the remedial conditions to be fulfilled by the veteran, in default of compliance with which rescission of the government may ensue." There is nothing that says that the advice shall be binding on the director, and that is a weakness in the section. It ought to be taken care of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the intention of the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it has not that effect in law, I am satisfied about that.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Strike out "who, together with the chairman".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would ask my colleague to move that we delete all the words in lines 15 and 16 of subsection 1 from the word "who". In other words, delete the words "who, together with the chairman, shall be named by the director."


Mr. GARDINER:: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: There
should be some provision that the advice shall be binding on the director, because this does not go that length.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was the intention of the committee to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But I am sure that in law it does not go so far. He can disregard the advice. I do not say he would. This is only an advisory committee. He refers the matter to them only for advice. There are no operative words that make it compulsory to take the advice.
Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think there is any question that the advice of the committee would be completely binding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not in law. I suggest that it is permissive, not mandatory, the way it is now.


Percy Ellis Wright: With regard to the question I asked about the director reporting to a committee of the house each year to review the financial set-up, the director is going to spend in the first years under this bill millions of dollars of public funds. There should be some accounting to a committee of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I entirely agree. In the first place there is accounting to the treasury officers, and I think the suggestion that there should be a report and, if necessary, a committee of this house to review in every year, is a good one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the financial control?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand the system at present is that there is a complete audit by treasury officers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that is not parliamentary control. As this bill stands there is not a dollar that can be legally spent. There must be an appropriation. Where there is an appropriation there must be a report back to parliament. Treasury control is not good enough. There should be parliamentary control. The minister should accede to that principle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend suggest a report back to the house within a certain number of days?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to think that over.


George Hugh Castleden: The explanatory note
relating to section 7 says:
This section is intended to be broad enough to enable the director-by estimates approved .by the minister and passed by parliament

If that were in the bill, not merely in an explanatory note, it might clear up that difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is showing the intention, but that is not the law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is elementary that the estimate must be passed by parliament. What I think my hon. friend means is a special report to parliament within, say fifteen days of parliament convening, in which case parliament has an opportunity of reviewing all expenditure, by discussion either
[Mr R. B. Hanson.]
in committee of ways and means or in a special committee of the house, which I think is proper and highly desirable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the Chairman read the amendment?


Thomas Vien: Mr. Gardiner has moved that the words in lines 15 and 16 at the end of paragraph 1 of section 16, reading "and one other member who, together with the Chairman, shall be named by the director" be deleted.


Alan Webster Neill: Then the board will consist of only two people.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Justice recommends that we leave out all the words after "Canadian Legion". It has the same effect. It will be three members in any case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: With reference to subsection 2, which states that "default in performance of the agreement warrants the director in exercising the powers given him under the said subsection or as to the remedial conditions to be fulfilled by the veteran, in default of compliance with which rescission of the agreement may ensue", can the government collect interest and penalty on dyking and drainage tax and the director authorize that but not remit it in the event of collection to the municipality concerned? The reason why I ask this-I made it clear before, I will put it in another way-is this. Has it been the practice of the department in the past to refuse to pay any interest or penalty to the municipality concerned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The question of the hon. gentleman has nothing to do with the contents of subsection 2.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It states, line 23:
. . . the director is exercising the power given him under the said subsection or as to the remedial conditions to be fulfilled by the veteran, in default of compliance with which rescission of the agreement may ensue.
The rescission of the agreement may come about by default of payment of penalty or interest on dyking or ditching tax. I think I am quite in order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is out of order. The section provides for a procedure to be followed by the director under certain circumstances. It does not deal with the powers of the director, but simply the procedure which the director must follow. The remarks of the hon. member are therefore out of order.

Veterans' Land Act


George Hugh Castleden: Subsection 2 merely says that the director, before taking any action, shall refer the question of rescission in any -case to the advisory board for its advice. It does not state anywhere that he shall act on the advice of the board, and it leaves the director the chief high commissioner, without any control over him. I suggest that there should be some provision to make it mandatory upon the director to take the advice of the board. Otherwise the board is of no use.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That point was discussed some time ago, and on behalf of the government I gave my personal assurance that in every case the director would act upon such advice. If this is not placed in a mandatory fashion in the statute, it certainly will be impressed upon the director that he shall act on the advice, of the board.


George Hugh Castleden: May we have the
assurance that the advice of the board will be made public, so that we may find out whether or not such advice will be acted upon, or will this be in camera?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not say that at the present time. There might be some difficulty in making such matters public, because they might involve the disclosure of the private affairs of a soldier on land. That is one difficulty which occurs to me offhand. However, I believe I am acting reasonably when I give my hon. friend the assurance he has been given.


John George Diefenbaker: The word "advice" seems to denote an opinion without the exercise of any compulsion upon the director, regardless of what that opinion may be. Would not the substitution of the word "consent" or "decision" for the word "advice" cover the situation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The word "consent" would be all right. Would the hon. member like to have it that way?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I think so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I shall leave it to one of my colleagues to move the substitution of words.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move:
That the word "advice" in line 21, section 16	(2) be deleted and the word "consent"
substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to
44.561-280
On section 17-Director may rescind agreement in case of default.
George Hugh Castleden: Section 17 states:
If any instalment mentioned in any agreement of sale under this act is not punctually paid or if the veteran makes any other default in performance of the terms of such agreement, the director may, subject to the provisions of section 16, without any formal reentry or retaking and without resort to proceedings in equity or at law, rescind such agreement, repossess and resell or otherwise deal with the property as authorized by this act.
Terms of agreement of sale usually call for annual payments. I am sure the present director of the soldier settlement board knows that for a number of years it has been absolutely impossible for men operating under the old act to make payments each year. In many years incomes have not been sufficient to meet interest payments. This section makes no provision for looking after the equity of the veteran. His case is brought forward, and if he fails in his payments in any one year the director has complete power to go to the board, ask for a rescission and close the man out. There is some further provision in subsection 2 of section 19 with regard to payments, but the provision now under discussion seems a very hard one indeed. Experience of the past would surely suggest at least that some clause should be inserted to soften the blow, and there should be some consideration of the fact that in some years there is not sufficient return from agricultural operations under the soldier settlement scheme to make it possible for a man to make his payment. That is the situation, unless, of course, a man is receiving a pension from the government for the loss of a limb. In such event he would be able to make payment out of his pension. Then perhaps he could take the money from his wife's separation allowance, if he has enlisted in another war.
I suggest that there should be some provision in the section to take care of those cases where incomes are not sufficient. The board should have the power to take official notice of the fact that an income has not been sufficient to warrant the making of any payment. It would seem wise under the section to cancel any interest payments in those years. The farmer's labour goes for nothing in a year in which he is dried out, frozen out or rusted out. There are many things which can happen to a crop; and to compel a man to live up to the letter of the law and make his payments every year under such conditions is unfair and unjust. That is one of the factors which has caused the ruin of the old scheme.

Veterans' Land Act


George Alexander Cruickshank: When section 17 makes reference to "the provisions of section 16" I presume it is referring to the county court judge who is to act as chairman of a provincial advisory board. Appearance must be made before such board before any final decision is made?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I presume the effect would be the same in connection with dyking or ditching taxes?


Thomas Vien: Carried?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; I asked the minister a question.


Thomas Vien: I shall have to repeat the ruling that I have already given. This section provides for the procedure to be followed under certain circumstances. The question of penalty discussed earlier is irrelevant under this section. Shall section 17 cany ?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Surplus to be paid to veteran.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I find in this section the expression "if and when such property is resold." I presume this concerns new land sales, and has nothing to do with the old scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It states:
If and when such property is resold by the director any surplus remains in excess of the balance of cost price outstanding and interest at 34 per centum and expenses of taking over and reselling the property, the director shall pay such surplus to the veteran.
In the event of the interest rate being reduced, who will get the benefit of such reduction? Second, in the event of any provincial or municipal legislation which will carry interest or penalties, will that be credited to the soldier?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The answer to the first question is that no one can tell at the present time. It will depend upon the policy adopted by parliament in days to come. With regard to the second question I have said about twenty times this afternoon and evening that the matter is governed by provincial legislation and has nothing to do with the provision in section 19.


George Hugh Castleden: May I point out what can happen under section 19, where a property is sold out. We will assume that the soldier's debt amounts to about $2,400. If over a period of years he has paid off $1,500 or $1,600, and if the property is sold for $1,200, the farmer receives no payment for the equity he has acquired over that term of years. That is the condition, because the section states:
If and when such property is resold by the director any surplus remains in excess of the balance of cost price outstanding and interest at 3J per centum and expenses of taking over and reselling the property, the director shall pay such surplus to the veteran.
It seems to me only fair and just that if a veteran has paid $1,600 out of a debt of $2,400, and the property is sold, his equity to the extent of two-thirds of whatever the selling price may be should be recognized. This section appears to look upon the matter as a hard business deal into which the government has put money it is bound to get out again. The equity of the veteran is not recognized at all, and in my opinion this is unjust.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. The settler undertakes to pay only two-thirds of the cost under this most generous legislation, and there will be no right to anyone to have the complete cost refunded.


George Hugh Castleden: I did not wish the complete cost. What is the maximum total to which any veteran can be indebted to the board?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is $4,800.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 20 and 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Conditions for sale.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This section reads:
The director may sell any land which is at his disposal for sale,
(a) as a site for a dairy factory, cheese factory, fruit preserving factory, or creamery, or for any educational, religious or charitable purpose, or for any other purpose in the public interest.
What is the full import of this section? Will such land be sold by public tender or by public auction?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told that offers to purchase are being made continuously to the officials in charge of the administration, and this section is for purely illustrative purposes. There is

Veterans' Land Act
nothing limiting in the phraseology of the section, but the land could be disposed of for the reasons mentioned.
With regard to the second point raised by my hon. friend, these things are done by negotiation between the officials of the board and the parties in question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the land is to be sold would it not be just and fair to advertise it by block number or description so that anyone might tender for its purchase? Why should the director be allowed to dispose of it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told that any land that reverts to the department is always advertised for tender before it is gold.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-To whom loans may not be made.
Ernest Edward Perley: Is there not discrimination against the returned man of the last war in this section? If he is in the army now or has re-enlisted, should not some consideration be given to him so that he can adjust his present debt and come in under this scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sure my hon. friend has been too busy to follow the proceedings of the special committee. That committee decided to keep the two pieces of legislation entirely separate. My hon. friend may recall that the first terms of reference authorized by this house dealt only with this bill now before us for consideration. The question mentioned by my hon. friend came up for discussion before the special committee, and we came back and asked this house for additional terms of reference in order to discuss the special problem of old settlers under the Soldier Settlement Act. We received those powers. Three or four reports were made by the committee, the first reporting this bill as amended, the second reporting on certain other considerations affecting some of the provisions of this bill, and the third making certain recommendations with reference to the amelioration of conditions of settlers under the Soldier Settlement Act. We must keep the two completely distinct and separate. The report of the committee with regard to the old settlers is now before this house and will be before the government for such action as it is deemed wise to take.


Ernest Edward Perley: According to this bill it is not being considered at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister rather contradicts himself. He says that the two pieces of legislation are to be kept separate, but section 23 provides that there are to be no dealings under this bill with anyone who is indebted under the Soldier Settlement Act. That is in direct contradiction to the suggestion that we must keep the two bills entirely separate. However, that is a small detail. Section 19 of this bill provides that where certain circumstances exist, where a settler can put up a hard-luck story, can refer to acts of God and misfortunes and so on, the director may refund his initial down payment in whole or in part. I was going to compliment the government upon that section because it is most generous. A settler starts out with the payment of 10 per cent. Then the government finances all the rest of it, takes all the risk, and if the settler cannot make it stick, they will give him back his original money. Nothing could be more liberal than that.
However, that having been done in connection with men who would come under this new legislation, it seems to be rather harsh to enact section 23 which will prevent settlers under the Soldier Settlement Act from qualifying under this bill. This new legislation provides that a man cannot be charged more than one-third of the cost and the interest rate is 3J per cent, whereas the old settlers had to struggle along and pay 5 per cent, at the beginning at least. In spite of various loan reductions many are still unable to make it stick. Conditions were very hard, stock was selling at three times its economic value, and they were handicapped in every way. Why not give these men who have suffered misfortunes similar to those detailed in section 19 another chance? A man may owe the government S150 on the old deal, but many of us who are in business have given a man credit although he owed an old bill. We wanted to give him a fresh start. Why not give the man who has gone to the front again, or even if he has not, another chance? Why should an old debt he held against him? You are going to make it easy for the men who come under this bill, so I think in all fairness you ought to treat the others the same.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend if he has read the recommendations of the special committee in connection with the old soldier settler. If an old soldier settler wishes to surrender his security, he will be eligible for the benefits of this legislation, but the two systems of loans must be kept entirely separate. Comprehensive recommendations have been made by a committee
44561-280J
Veterans' Land Act

of this house which have not yet been acted upon. We want to keep the two things entirely separate.


Alan Webster Neill: Section 23 will stop that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: Surely a man who is overseas should be able to come under this legislation if he wishes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He can come under it, but he would first have to surrender his security. It is necessary to keep them separate.


Alan Webster Neill: That would be like my saying to Tom Smith, "I cannot lend you any money because you owe Jones some money." Through no fault of his own, because of misfortune, a man may have fallen by the wayside, and he ends up by owing the government a sum of money, large or small. There is probably no chance of recovering that, and the government knows it. That man enlists and goes overseas, and when he comes home I think he should be treated on the same basis as the other man who went overseas for the first time last year. The minister says that the two are separate, but section 23 says that no advance shall be made to anyone under this measure if he is indebted under the old Soldier Settlement Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he gives up his security under the old act he would be eligible under this measure if he serves in the present war.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think there
should be any trouble over this, because that matter was discussed by the committee and recommendations were made. There is no reason why the man referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) could not adjust his affairs in order to bring himself under this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 25-If immediate relative is occupant and vendor.
John George Diefenbaker: This section goes
a long way. It reads:
The director may decline to sell land to a veteran whose parents or other immediate relative is the occupant and vendor of the land to the director and is not incapacitated by reason of age or other disability or if for any other reason the director considers such transaction not in the public interest.
To that there can be no objection, but the latter portion of the section, I submit, again places the director in a position where he 
could discriminate if he chose. It is just that sort of thing that should be provided against in the statute, but the section says: '
. . . or if for any other reason the director considers such transaction not in the public interest.
That is going too far. It is placing the director in the position of being able to decline to sell land to a veteran for the reason given in the first part of the section, and then it goes on to say "or if for any other reason" the director considers it not in the public interest. I suggest that the minister give consideration to the deletion of the words beginning with the word "or" in line 21.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If we did that it would deprive >
the treasury of all protection, but if my hon. friend wants to limit the powers of the director we could insert the words "with the consent of the governor in council." To strike out the words beginning with "or" in line 21 would be opening it up rather widely. If my hon. friend thinks the director is being given too much power, I shall be very glad to amend the section by inserting the words "with the consent of the governor in council", or "with the approval of the advisory committee". Would that be more satisfactory?


James Garfield Gardiner: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the words "with the approval of the advisory committee" be inserted in line 22 after the word "director."


Thomas Vien: The section as proposed to be amended would then read:
The director may decline to sell land to a veteran whose parents or other immediate relative is the occupant and vendor of the land to the director and is not incapacitated by reason of age or other disability or if for any other reason the director with the approval of the advisory committee considers such transaction not in the public interest.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not make very good grammar the way it reads now. The words "with the approval of the advisory committee" should be inserted earlier in the section so that it would read: "or if the director with the approval of the advisory committee" and so forth.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is all right. It would read "or if for any other reason the director with the approval of the advisory committee considers" and so forth.


Thomas Reid: Does this mean that if a man on the land wants to sell it to his boy, and the director considers it inadvisable, he would have to secure an order in council before he could refuse?

Veterans' Land Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the old act there were many abuses which this is intended to correct. My hon. friend the member for Lake Centre took the objection that the director was being vested with too wide powers. We are trying to correct that, and I think we have corrected it satisfactorily.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
On section 27-Wife or husband of purchaser not entitled to dower or curtesy.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of the words "by the curtesy of England"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I anticipated that the hon. member for Davenport would ask that question and I have a memorandum on it as follows:
Where a man marries a woman seised of land in fee-simple or fee-tail, and has by her issue horn alive capable of inheriting the land as heir to her, notwithstanding the issue may afterwards die, yet if the husband survives the wife he shall hold the land during his life. Coke explains that "he is called tenant by the curtesie of England, because this is used in no other realme but in England onely". If land is given to a woman and the heirs male of her body, and she marries, and has issue a daughter and dies, the husband is not tenant by the curtesy, because the daughter by no possibility could inherit her mother's estate in the land.
Where a married woman is entitled to an equitable estate of inheritance to her separate use and does not dispose of it by deed or will, the husband is entitled to equitable curtesy.
By the custom of gavelkind a-man may be tenant by the curtesy without having any issue.
And by the special custom of some manors the widower of a deceased female copyholder is entitled to a customary curtesy.
Copyhold enfranchised under the Copyhold Act. 1894, is, except in the case of a husband married before the enfranchisement, subject only to such curtesy as applies to freeholds (section 21).
Under the Settled Land Act, 1882, section 58 (1) (viii), a tenant by the curtesy has the power of a tenant for life.
I trust that makes it clear to my hon. friend.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why did the minister anticipate that the hon. member for Davenport would be the only one who would ask that question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knew that the member for Davenport would be on the job.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, exactly.


Alan Webster Neill: Was that not abolished long ago-dower or curtesy? It surely does not apply to Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am advised that this section is necessary.


George Henry Ross: It is doubtful whether this parliament has the right to enact that no wife of a veteran shall be entitled to dower. Is that not a provincial matter? Has the minister considered that point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Frankly, no, I have not. I have been advised by the legal officers guiding the committee, but before the third reading I shall be very glad to look up the point raised by my hon. friend.


Grote Stirling: Must "curtesy" be spelled in that way?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is spelled both ways in the legal dictionaries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 28 to 30 inclusive agreed to.
On section 31-Persons may be appointed to hold inquiries.
John George Diefenbaker: This is a rather wide power to give to the director, to hold inquiries under the Inquiries Act. That power should be vested only in the governor in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend would like to have the words "governor in council" substituted for "director" in the first line of the section, I am agreeable.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Advisory committees.
Ernest Edward Perley: This is a very important section providing that the governor in council may appoint regional or advisory committees. I would suggest that a practical farmer should be appointed to these committees. It is important that there shall be some practical advice with respect to the operation of this section. Some practical farmer should be on the committee to advise as to the selection of land, the qualifications of the settler and so on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no objection, if that appellation has any
Veterans' Land Act

particular significance. If my hon. friend wishes an assurance that this will be done, I shall be glad to give that undertaking, but I doubt whether the term "practical farmer" has any significance.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is to make sure that there is someone with practical experience on that committee to advise on the matters I have mentioned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The appointment is left to the governor in council, and I think my hon. friend may accept my assurance and also that of my colleague who is in charge of the administration of the bill, that that will be done. But from the point of view of legal draftsmanship it would be impracticable to insert it in the phraseology.


James Arthur Ross: Quite a little has been said about the type of land that should be settled on, and in discussing this matter this morning, as I also did in committee, I believe the minister and his adviser agree that probably there should be appointed a soils expert. The soils experts of the universities of the prairie provinces know a good deal about farming, and they have analysed the soils of their respective provinces. I also suggested as a suitable representative someone from the unions of municipalities of the provinces. I believe that an appointee of these bodies would also be a practical farmer. One member also should be appointed by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion. I am in accord with the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and other hon. members that, if possible, practical farmers should be appointed on this committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which committee?


James Arthur Ross: The advisory committee under section 34. I have just offered three suggestions, and I believe that if the advisory committee included a practical farmer nominated by the federation of agriculture it would be all to the good, and would increase public confidence. '


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I still think, with all respect to my hon. friend, that we cannot define "practical farmer" in a statute. I think he can accept my assurance that the proposal will be followed out in practice.


James Arthur Ross: I am not asking that that be included in the bill, but would ask that it be kept in mind in appointing the committees.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 34, line 6, after providing for the appointment of the regional committees, says:
. . . the director with the approval of the governor in council, may make regulations prescribing the number of members and the composition of each committee.
What is the meaning of the words "the composition of each committee"? What is the significance of those words?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I imagine it would mean exactly what has been discussed a minute ago-one who would represent practical farmers, one the legion, and another some active public interest.


Percy Ellis Wright: In the United States, under the agricultural adjustment administration, they have carried on a lot of rehabilitation of farm lands among share-croppers in the southern states, and advisory committees have formed a very important part of that scheme. Not only have they advised with regard to the land; but being local men who were acquainted with the peculiar conditions of farming in the districts in which they were appointed, they have continued to act in an advisory capacity to the men who were taking up the lands under the act. I think that is something which the director should take under consideration. The men on these committees being practical men, as the minister proposes they shall be, their advice would generally be accepted by the veterans, and the effect in the community would be very good.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 35-Minister may enter into agreements with provinces.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I notice that subsection 2 provides:
The agreement shall contain such proviisons, conditions and limitations in regard to such settlement as the minister and the province may mutually decide.
I assume that this clause means that the minister and the provincial government may enter into agreements to the mutual advantage of both governments and the soldier settler; is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That being so, I assume the minister will take into consideration the best interests of the soldier, and under that section, he may, in doing so, consider the penalty and interest in regard to dykes and drainage; am I correct?

Income War Tax Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad, Mr. Chairman, to see that the dyking and ditching referred to so often by the hon. member will be considered by the director in British Columbia when these matters are being dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-Fine and imprisonment where no penalty prescribed in act.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know why subsection 3 is worded as it is:
Every land inspector, field supervisor, official, employee . . . who knowingly or negligently makes any false or deceptive statement in any report . . . shall be guilty of an offence. . . .
Does that not go rather too far-to penalize officials of the department who through neglect or negligence make a false report?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is taken word for word from the old act.


John George Diefenbaker: It goes a long way. First it says it must be "knowingly"; then in the alternative "negligently". It means this, that if any official of the department makes a statement that is not true, even if he did not know the statement was not true but did not investigate the matter fully, he would be guilty of an offence, and the penalty is very heavy. It practically makes every civil servant in the employ of the director the guarantor of the truth of the statements which he makes in his returns.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Here is section 63, subsection 3, of the Soldier Settlement Act:
Every land inspector, field supervisor, official, employee or servant of the board, and every agent engaged by the board or acting for it or on its behalf, who knowingly or negligently makes any false or deceptive statement in any report, return, appraisal, statement or other document respecting or referring to any real or personal property. . . .
And so on. It is exactly the same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 37-Director may make regulations.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will
the minister elaborate a little on subsection 1, paragraph (i) ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed it refers to those still in the service. They might be veterans, and an arrangement might be made for their settlement while they are still serving but before they are finally discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As a result of the observations of the leader of the opposition the following is suggested by the law clerks, which I will ask one of my colleagues to move as section 38:
38. A detailed account of the financial commitments entered into and the expenditures made under authority of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons of Canada during the first fifteen days of the then next session of parliament.
I.think that meets the point raised by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. CRERAR:: I so move.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Thomas Vien: We are on resolution 6.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On Friday night the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked a question about resolution 6. He wanted to know whether, in the event of a man and his wife both having incomes, they were taxed as single persons and whether the refundable part would be 8 per cent or 10 per cent. Was that the question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No;
that is not quite the question. It says 10 per cent of the income of a married person, or SI,000, whichever is the lesser. Would each be allowed 10 per cent? Previously, the husband could deduct from his and the wife could deduct from hers. It would be one or the other who would deduct so much, and in regard to the defence tax, each had a deduction. Now it is doubtful, owing to the change, making the wife, in the case of an earner, the same as a single person, whether this would apply or not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is intended to make this comply with the other resolution. One gets into complications in discussing this subject. For instance, part of the income might be earned and part might be derived by investment income. I think the only thing I can do is to see that the section of the bill is carefully drawn, and we can discuss it under the bill. But it would not do, it seems to me, to allow 10 per cent to both the man and his
Income War Tax Act

wife. If the wife is. taxed as a single person and the man is taxed as a married person, the husband should have 10 per cent returnable and the wife should have only 8 per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have brought this matter up because I know an automobile salesman who last year had an income but who this year has had that income taken from him by the wartime prices and trade board. The wife is earning more than the husband this year, and in that case she would have 10 per cent deducted and the husband 8 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the husband's income?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This year he gets about $1,000 and the wife about $1,100.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The husband would not be taxable if he is earning only $1,000. As a result of the amendment I proposed to resolutions 1 and 3 the wife is entitled to earn more than $660 without depriving her husband of his exemptions as a married man. Since a married man is not taxed unless he makes at least $1,200, that man is not taxed. The wife would be taxed as a single woman, and in that case the amount returnable should be 8 per cent instead of 10 per cent. However, I will give the point careful consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This
is something which will be a sticker for the accountants throughout the country. It will have to be made quite clear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I said $1,000, but I have not the letter here. I believe it is a little more than that. I think he has an income of $100, after the $1,200 exemption.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister brought down a resolution in relation to soldiers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
resolution is that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will come at the end.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are on resolution 6 now. Has the minister formed any idea as to what he will do having regard to the effect that this resolution may have on the voluntary saving plan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: My intention is to see that voluntary lending to the government is sought after and encouraged as in the past, and I hope and believe that we shall be able to get very large sums from the Canadian people 
under the voluntary method. The national war finance committee has fifteen or twenty thousand workers. There are plant committees in nearly all factories in Canada, and if committees are not formed among the *workers of these plants they have access to the plants. As soon as this legislation is passed and the regulations are made under it, so that the procedure is known, it is my plan that the workers in the organizations of the national war finance committee will see that workmen and employers are fully informed of the procedure that must be adopted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is with respect to deductions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to deductions and offsets against the deductions which will be provided for in resolution 7, that is the payments to pension plans and on mortgages and life insurance premiums. It will be explained that in some cases the pure taxes, the taxes that are not refundable, are no higher this year than last, and in some cases they are actually lower. The impression has been created that this puts terrifically heavy burdens on the people. It does, but not impossible burdens. I received one letter from a woman who wrote that it was going to be impossible for her and her husband to carry on and raise their family under this budget, and it turned out that she was not taxable at all. A large amount of education of the public will be necessary. The publicity has all been in the direction of burden and weight and oppressiveness of taxation, whereas with a great many persons, those who have offsets against their compulsory savings, against the refundable part of the taxes, the tax burden will be only slightly greater than it was last year, and in some cases, the very low brackets, it will actually be less. When these facts are explained to workmen, if they are explained with clearness and enthusiasm and the necessities of the case pointed out, my expectation is that they will not cancel their war savings certificates, and they will continue to buy them and perhaps small bonds. In one case 350 workmen in a particular plant said they would have to cancel their war savings certificates because of the burden imposed by this budget. A representative of the war finance committee went to them and pointed out that they were entirely wrong about the weight of the taxation, and the whole 350 withdrew their cancellations. Therefore there is a great educational task to be performed. We have a great organization, Mr. Spinney's organization, which will have to perform that task. If the job is done well, I believe we can preserve and extend the voluntary lending to the

Income War Tax Act
government and at the same time get the somewhat larger taxes imposed by this budget, and get a large volume of compulsory savings in the case of persons who are not saving otherwise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to say any word that would in any degree retard the principle of voluntary saving; I said so in the remarks I made on the budget. But I felt that this compulsory saving, especially with respect to the smaller taxpayer, was imposed on the theory that the voluntary saving plan had not yielded the result that the nation had expected and had the right to hope. I think the figures given some time ago as being less than $100,000,000 a year w'ould bear out that presumption. Have there been in fact many cancellations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give the figures of redemptions, but certainly redemptions have been substantial.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Over what period?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They cannot be redeemed until six months after the certificates are bought. They started as soon as they could start, but they were small for a while. The more war savings certificates are held by the public, the larger the amounts presented each month for cancellation will be. The national *war finance committee have the figures and follow them with great care from day to day as to the number presented for redemption. Naturally it is undesirable to have that redemption going on. The compulsory saving will put an end to that; that will not be redeemable until after the war. But I would not say that the voluntary system has failed. The figure the hon. gentleman has given is correct; that is, it has run at a rate of less than $100,000,000 a year for war savings certificates. In addition, however, there are the purchase of small denomination bonds, and a great many of those are kept by the persons who buy them. I have not the figures of sales of those.
The main reason for this feature, however, is that there are many people-I have not the figures-who do not feel any obligation to save.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the reason for this?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it was considered that it was only fair that everyone who has an income of a certain size should save something, and not allow their neighbours to do the whole thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister intimated that redemptions had increased.
Have there been many cancellations of the arrangements whereby subscriptions poured in automatically through the banks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could not say. That is one of the important plans for the sale of war savings certificates. I could get that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is automatic almost.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it is an order given to the bank to take so much out of the account each month for the purchase of war savings certificates.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the minister outline in greater detail the steps taken by his department to discourage the redemption of these certificates? If they are being redeemed in large quantities it is going to defeat their purpose. I have not seen much in the way of advertisements to discourage the redemption of these certificates. What is being done?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what steps have been taken. In a speech or two I have made I have pointed out that a person is withdrawing the support he has given his country when he redeems a war savings certificate. I know that after the last victory loan campaign billboards were used urging the people to keep the bonds that they had bought. That did not apply to the war savings certificates. I am not sure what advertising has been done or whether it was thought a good plan to advertise and tell people not to present their war savings certificates for redemption. I know in the early months, perhaps in the first year or so of the war savings campaign, we felt that we should not say anything to the effect that redemption was discouraged, because there had been some propaganda- perhaps that is not quite the correct word- in certain localities to the effect that war sayings certificates would not be redeemed. If the government came out and said, "Do not present them for redemption," it would look as though we were afraid of having them presented for redemption.
That view was held for some time, and it was considered that we should abide by our contract. We sold the people war savings certificates, and we said that if they were presented at the end of six months they would be redeemed without interest. There is no interest payable if they are presented then. The longer they are kept, the more interest accrues, and the higher the rate of interest received by the holder. It was felt that we should take a businesslike stand.
Income War Tax Act

Later it was,pointed out, however, that to sell war savings certificates or bonds was harmful to the war effort, and harmful to the financial effort of the government and the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand this is the only resolution under which the method of deduction may be discussed. Of course the resolution itself is entirely silent as to what method will be pursued. Will the minister say whether a method has been determined upon, and what it will be? In that connection we would have to discuss resolution 7 along with resolution 6, because there is a question of life insurance and superannuation payments.
I would understand that large corporations like the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which are perhaps the greatest employers of labour in Canada, outside the government itself, will be faced with a tremendous undertaking if all this money is to be deducted at the source. The private situation of each individual taxpayer liable to taxation would have to be divulged. Has the minister decided on a method by which the deduction is to be made? *
Before he answers that question would he give the committee an idea of what the cost of the war savings campaign has been. He has pointed out that 20,000 or 30,000 people worked on the campaign, and it would seem to me that if they were full-time employees the campaign would be an expensive one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could get the figures,
although I have not those figures before me. When I referred to the 15,000 or 20,000 persons I pointed out that they are not engaged solely in the sale of war savings certificates. There were two separate sets of persons working on the sale of government securities. There were those who worked on the victory loan campaign, and there was the war savings organization. That was the condition up to some months ago, when they were merged into the national war finance committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the
time of the last loan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The national war
finance committee is now a continuing organization, and the workers are not war savings workers only. They are workers who are read3f to do anything in a campaign for the sale of bonds. It is all one organization. It will be understood, of course, that nearly all these people are voluntary workers; for the most part they are not paid. Only a very

small number were paid workers. In the victory loan campaign they were paid a commission.


Olof Hanson: Bond
dealers are all paid, are they not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
not a superintendent of each division, district or province?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In my own province there is a full-time man who operates on salary and expenses.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has now enlisted nearly all the bond dealers in this war savings certificate idea. They must receive commissions. Employers usually do it for nothing, and -many workers do not, I understand, ask for commissions. But I am wondering what the percentage of cost would be, in relation to the objective attained. When the minister gets $100,000,000, how much does it cost? Does it cost 2 per cent or 3 per cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
method has been set up to deal with deductions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I might point out that I had the figures as to the costs in connection with war savings certificates up to last fall. When I went to the western provinces to talk to war savings workers I had the figures, and they were surprisingly low. However, I do not remember those figures offhand, and they would be out of date to-day anyway.
I believe the plan for deduction at the source w-ould be more properly discussed under resolution 25.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly so. I withdraw my question at this time.


Mr. JACKMAN:: How -much does the minister expect to raise this year by way of war savings certificates? Could he give the committee a rough estimate?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not discussed the matter lately with the national war finance committee. Naturally plans change and estimates vaiy from day to day, Mr. Spinney is now in western Canada, and then of course the budget gave a bit of a jolt to the national war savings committee organization.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Naturally.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And that has to be overcome.

Income War Tax Act


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister has to raise SI ,800,000,000 on top of taxation to pay for war and ordinary costs. About how much does he think he can raise through the sale of war savings certificates during the year, in view of the present budget? The minister must have some estimate in mind as to how he is going to raise the SI,800,000,000 through various methods. The sale of war savings certificates is one method, although perhaps not the main one. Certainly it would be an important subsidiary method of raising revenue.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give any estimate
of that kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the
objective?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The roof is 31,800,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not in a position to state the objective. I have not taken that amount, broken it down and said, "We will get so much this way and so much that way."


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It might be well if you had.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a case of spending whatever the country is capable of spending on war, doing everything the country is capable of doing, and then of adopting some financial method or another to see that that cost is met. It is not a case of deciding how much we can afford to spend, or how many dollars we can raise, and then adapting our war effort to that number of dollars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would that not be a fairly wise thing to do?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what you have to do in private life.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is what is done in business, and what perhaps has been done by governments in former years. But from the very beginning our decision has been to do everything the country was capable of doing, no matter what the cost, and then finance it some way or another. We have been able to to do it so far.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I believe everyone agrees with the minister that so far as the war is concerned what is physically possible is financially possible. But when one gives consideration to that very general statement, a statement to which one happily subscribes, he becomes puzzled to know how, under our present financial system, we are going to carry it out. Has the minister consulted with any of his technical advisers as to just how we can carry out that principle of what is physically possible being financially possible under
our present system? Looking at this budget and the impositions that are being placed upon the people, it would seem to me that if we are going to maintain the integrity of our financial system and preserve it for the postwar period we are coming quite close to the end of our tether. There may be some other means of raising money or credit, and I should like to have enlightenment on that if the minister is prepared to give it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is an ambitious programme that the hon. gentleman has put before me, to outline the way of making the financial effort approximate the physical effort. This is a very general question, a question that has been discussed time and time again in the house. The hon. gentleman knows what we are doing; he knows how wTe are meeting the cost of the war. We have been able to do it to date and expect to continue to do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the same method?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Victor Quelch: It is reassuring to hear the words of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman). The practice of selling bonds to the chartered banks and war savings certificates to the government will probably increase, and I think the minister should do everything possible to stop this. One way for him to do it would be to make a broadcast emphasizing the importance, as he has done in this house, of these bonds and war certificates and emphasizing the fact that their sale is for the purpose of curtailing the spending money of the people. He should point out that when bonds or savings certificates are sold to the banks or the government that purpose is defeated and that if the people persist in the practice, the government will be forced to increase taxation. If the government could make that statement, it would go a long way toward preventing that practice, and at the same time it would not hurt the sale of bonds or certificates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we could do more along that line than we have, and I shall be glad to consider the suggestion. Two or three suggestions have been made to-night that we should appeal to the people not to dispose of their government securities. I never know just how effective appeals to the people are. Some of them are successful and some are not, but certainly I am in accord with these sentiments. I do not like to see those who buy our war savings certificates redeem them, and 1 do not like to see those who buy our bonds sell them to the banks. I think the people should understand that it
Income War Tax Act

is their duty in so far as they possibly can to keep the certificates that they have bought from the government until after the war.


Mr. GREEN:: A few moments ago the minister said that he was not declaring any objective in the sale of war savings certificates. Is he preparing to do away with objectives in the sale of victory bonds as well?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Howard Charles Green: Will objectives be set for each province and each community?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Our plans are somewhat unsettled at the moment and have been since the budget. I do not know just what our programme will be, and I cannot say when the next victory loan campaign will take place.


Howard Charles Green: It is a continuing campaign now, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but there may be special campaigns superimposed upon the continuing campaign. If there are, undoubtedly there will be objectives. When the hon. gentleman says that I said-


Howard Charles Green: I thought the minister said that; I do not want to put words in his mouth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said that at the moment I could not say what the objective would be for any particular period of months. We have to get this budget working, get squared away. It would be idle to deny that the institution of a system of compulsory savings and the fitting into that of a voluntary plan of savings is one of the biggest tasks that this or any other government has ever undertaken. I thought the institution of price control in Canada was the most difficult thing that we had undertaken up to the moment, and I think it was. I think that programme presented problems which seemed more impossible of accomplishment than anything we had ever undertaken. But this is almost as difficult. We are reaching the position where it will require intensive work by thousands and thousands of people in order to obtain a right frame of mind on the part of the men and women of the Dominion of Canada. If they think they cannot do these things; if they say they cannot do them often enough and spread that sort of thing, it will have a damaging effect upon morale. That can be counteracted by enthusiastic workers who are in the national war finance committee organization by the thousands. As I said before, my ambition is to have these people who have access to all factories, who are in all country districts, who are everywhere, explain [Mr. Ilsley.l
what the government has to do and to show the people why these heavy taxes have been imposed, to demonstrate that they are not as heavy as might be thought in a great many cases. I want them to sit down whenever possible with people and try to get them to lend their money to the government to the extent of their ability. If that is done in a thorough and enthusiastic way, in the spirit of a crusade across the country, we can get very large sums of money, and we can make a success of the tremendous job of financing that is ahead. That is what I have in mind, but it is going to be difficult and will require the cooperation of every person.


Douglas King Hazen: Reference has been made to the war savings certificates which the government has asked people with small incomes to buy, by means of extensive advertising, loan campaigns and, in other cases, I am sorry to say, by high pressure methods which I do not think can be justified. On the back of these certificates it is printed in small type that they are not transferable and that the government reserves the right to require ninety days' written'notice of any application for redemption before maturity.
It seems to me that these regulations should be modified. They discriminate, perhaps unintentionally, between the rich and the poor; they result in hardships, and in certain circumstances they open the door to abuses that should not be permitted. In addition, to my way of looking at the matter, they discourage the sale of these certificates.
I know of no better way of bringing this matter to the attention of the committee than to relate a personal incident. A young man, a labourer, came to my office when I was home some time ago and produced six of these war savings certificates and asked me if I would lend him some money on them. I told him that I was not a banker and that the best thing he could do would be to go to the bank and get a loan, depositing the certificates with the bank as security. He said that he had already gone to the bank and had been told that the bank was not in a position to lend him money on them, that the regulations printed on the back of the certificate prevented the banks from making such advances. He told me that he had to have the money, that he was in desperate circumstances. His baby had died; the funeral was to be that day, and he had to have funds. That was his position.
To my way of thinking that was a shocking situation brought about either by government cupidity or by lack of regard for the everyday men and women of this country to whom

Income War Tax Act
these certificates have been sold. The govern-fnent had taken this man's money and given him certificates which he thought were a gilt-edged security but which he found were absolutely useless-to him when he was in dire need. Had he been a rich man and bought a bond or two, he could have taken the bonds to the bank and deposited them, and would have received a loan immediately. But he was a poor man and had only war savings certificates. Consequently, when badly in need of money he was unable to get it.
This means that we have one law for the rich and another for the poor. It is class distinction by order in council and should not be permitted to go unchallenged. I protest against it. I wrote to the Minister of Finance about the harshness of this regulation and suggested to him that the regulation should be- amended to enable the banks to advance money on these certificates in case of necessity. I must confess that I was disappointed at his answer. He appeared to be perfectly satisfied with the regulation as it stood. In consequence, I am obliged to bring this matter to the attention of the committee this evening.
Not only is the regulation harsh; not only does it discriminate unfairly against the smaller investor, but it offers an opportunity to monejr-lenders and avaricious persons to take advantage of those in dire need, and I am informed that they are being taken advantage of. The man who brought these certificates to my office would have been glad to take half their value for them if the money were handed to him immediately. There are many holders of these war savings certificates who must find themselves in somewhat similar circumstances, desperately in need of money for some special purpose.
The regulation provides that these certificates are not transferable, but there are ways and means of getting round the regulation. I know of nothing to prevent the holder from selling these certificates at less than their value, signing his name in the space provided for that purpose on the back of the certificate in order to obtain payment at or prior to maturity, giving as his address the address of the purchaser, and then giving the purchaser a power of attorney to enable him to endorse his name to the cheque when received. The regulation should be amended so as to enable the holder of these certificates to obtain an advance on them at a chartered bank in case of necessity, and I hope that other members of this committee will support me in having this change made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has allowed one incident which has appealed to his sympathy to colour his
whole judgment of the matter. He has not shown any appreciation of the underlying principle here. He should remember that war savings certificates are the one form of security that I know of which is free from income tax, and therefore it is very important that there be no accumulation of those certificates in the hands of anyone, banks or otherwise, because they then would hold them free of income tax, and we would have the very evil against which members of this house have inveighed time after time, and properly so. It is for that reason that the purchase of war savings certificates by any one person is limited in any one year to $600 in face value, $480 cash value. If they were transferable, of course they would just be picked up and held in large blocks by persons in the higher-income groups, and then we would have the scandal of wealthy people evading income tax.


Douglas King Hazen: They can pick up bonds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The interest from bonds is subject to income tax.
Another reason why these war savings certificates are not transferable is that the government is most anxious that when persons buy these certificates they hold on to them. In fact, a member of this house who has a good understanding of these matters was speaking to me just a few nights ago and suggested that we issue bonds that could not be transferred until after the war. Otherwise he said the bonds would drift into the hands of the chartered banks, and that would be a bad thing because it -would be inflationary. I pointed out to him that the bond dealers and others selling the bonds always insisted that their transferability was one of the selling points and that if we wanted our victory loan campaigns to be successful those who were selling the bonds would have to be in a position to say to the prospective buyer, "If you get into a difficult situation you will be able to sell your bond and get your money." But that has never applied to war savings certificates for the reasons I have given, and I do not think it should apply to them. If they were transferable the result would be that they would be transferred. You would sell a lot of war savings certificates to workmen in the plants, and in many instances they would hold them for less than six months, sometimes for only a week, and then they would go out and sell them to somebody else and spend the money, which would be directly contrary to what we are trying to teach the people of Canada to do.
The hon. gentleman wrote me about this. I did not explain these considerations fully to him in reply because they had been fully
Income War Tax Act

explained publicly time and again. I would have thought that instead of raising issues between rich and poor here to-night and saying, "if you were a rich man you could have held a bond," he would have appreciated the fundamental principles underlying this matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think, having regard to the fact that this is going to be a long war-I do not think we need disguise that from ourselves-that we have now arrived at the peak of what we can take in taxation from the people of this country? I saw a chart prepared by his department the other day, and it would be illuminating to the membership of this house if that chart could be reproduced on a small scale, showing as it does in a graphic way what the taxation is, how the curve goes up from nothing. I hold the view that we have gone about as far as we can in the personal income tax field.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. gentleman
said that a year ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. I did not say that a year ago. I challenge the hon. member to find any words of mine that we had gone to the peak.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: "About" as far.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say even that. I knew we would have to go further. I said there was inequality in the tax a year ago. That is what I laid stress upon. I think some of the inequalities have been ironed out. That chart rather convinced me of that somewhat against my preconceived ideas. Yet a number of inequalities still exist. But that is not the point I want to make now. I think we have reached the peak of personal income tax in this country. I do not know how I am going to pay mine if I have to pay one-quarter on the 15th day of September.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are going to change that date.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should hope so. I am waiting for that resolution to come up. I have had difficulty enough to pay the tax in twelve monthly instalments. I still have two to pay on the 1941 tax, and by the way, I do not know whether I shall have it paid then, because I have not got my assessment.
I just complete paying my income tax for 1941 on August 31, and if on September 15, two weeks later, I have to pay one-quarter of my 1942 tax, I shall just be out of luck, I shall have to go to the bank'; and I cannot use my war savings certificates, of which I have tried to take the maximum every month since they started.

I wonder if the minister has not arrived at the time when he is asking the people to go as far as they can in the payment of personal income tax. I have received reams of letters of protest against the taxes under this budget. I have some of them here; I am not going to spread them on the record although I have authority to do so.
I received a letter from a young Anglican clergyman who has a parish in the province of Quebec. He receives a stipend of $1,500: he has a free rectory on which he is charged a rental valuation of $250 per annum. I doubt if it is worth that much, because it is in a small village; but he has to pay on $1,750. He has to keep a conveyance of some sort to meet his appointments-a horse in the winter, a car in the summer. He has to send his children away to school, because in his locality the schools are quite inadequate. I do not know whether the minister knows the situation in the province of Quebec, but in small communities there is quite a dearth of educational facilities under the Protestant school commisssion for children such as his.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How many children has he?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
he has two, if not three. I have not his letter with me; I wish I had; I could read it to the minister. On top of that, the clergyman of such a parish has repeated calls for a little charity. He is a "mark," if I may uSe that term of a man in his position. He has to give; he is handing out all the time. I told him I did not know what could be done for him. He is in the category of an artisan earning $150 a month, and if he is given consideration the other fellow has to be given consideration; yet he has-I say this not disparagingly toward anybody-undoubtedly a little higher standard to keep up. The only thing that I can suggest should be done for him is that he should have his rectory free of income tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would not do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know
the difficulties which that would create. The minister says that this budget is not increasing the burden; I submit that it has greatly increased the burden.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me tell you about this
man, when you get through.


An hon. MEMBER:: He gets no allowance for travelling expenses, either!


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I
understand the innuendo. There are only a few people in this country who get their travelling expenses free of taxation. I am not going to refer to that..

Income War Tax Act


An hon. MEMBER:: The dollar-a-year
men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
want to refer to them at all. Here is the position of a man who seems to me to be in a pretty tight corner, but I do not know what could be done for him without a reaction clear across the country. I suggest to the minister that as far as personal income taxes are concerned this country has reached the peak. People should not be asked to make further sacrifices. I have tried to examine the figures put on the record by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott), and I must confess that the result he has arrived at is contrary to what I understood or was told was the position. I have not made any computations myself; I did not feel capable of doing it; and I have not anybody to do it for me. I am not arguing the case for the rich, but I think I am voicing the sentiment of the many thousands of people in the lower tax groups who are called upon to pay personal income taxes when I say we have reached the pinnacle of what we should do. I will tell the minister what I think he should do. I do not think he can, pay so much of the cost of this war through the present taxpayers; that the future generations for whom we are fighting will have to assume their part of the burden as well, and a larger part than they are doiyg to-day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They will have plenty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are
paying a substantial part of the expenditure on this war. The minister made great claims in days gone by as to the percentage of war costs we were paying. They were large, but as the war bill increases those percentages will decrease; and I contend that future generations, if we are to have a future at all, must sustain their part of the burden of this war, and that too much of it should not be loaded upon this generation. Frankly, I cannot pay my income tax out of my current revenue and keep up anything like the position I have had throughout my life. I am willing to cut that down; I am cutting it down now in every way I can. But there are hundreds of people in my position, and what we have to do is resort to the savings made over a long time. Well, if it has to be that, it will have to be that. But I suggest that he and his experts should explore other avenues of raising money to pay the costs of this war than taking so much through income tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the first place I want to answer what the hon. gentleman has said about the Anglican clergyman, the young rector in

the province of Quebec. I am glad he brought that up, because it is an example of just what I am complaining about, and have been tonight, that people are afraid of this budget away beyond what is justified. That young man, if he has two children-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Three, I think.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can only go on the basis of two now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that will illustrate the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us assume he has two children and has an income of $1,750. For last year his tax was $48; for this year, under this budget, his tax is $53.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Plus his savings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; he is paying $5 more in taxes, but in addition to that he is being asked to save $52. If he has life insurance or anything of that kind-and the probability is that he has-he can deduct that up to $50. If he has not, it will be a surprising thing. Therefore that man has gone to all the trouble of writing to the leader of the opposition, and having his case brought forward in parliament as a typical case, because he is paying, if he has two children, $5 more under this budget than he paid last year. That is exactly what I have been talking about. I have received letters from persons who said that under this budget they were crushed and could not carry on, and we have worked it out and found that they do not pay any tax. The exemptions use up the whole thing. It must be borne in mind that in the initial stages those who have been paying national defence tax get credit for the tax paid from January 1 to September on the tax they pay from September 1, which relieves their burden very considerably.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Only for this year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I 'have not taken that into account in what I have said about the Anglican clergyman. He would have a credit. He will be paying less than he did last year. I think the hon. gentleman had better write and tell him to cheer up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will send him a copy of Hansard to-morrow.


Angus MacInnis: I am certainly amazed at the words of the leader of the opposition in the remarks he made-at least those that I heard. I shall refer in a moment to what he said, but as the matter of taxation appears
Income War Tax Act

co me we are in a war and that war has to be fought and paid for. Certain people are doing the fighting and certain people doing the paying, and the only way in which we can tell whether we who are doing the paying are doing much or little compared with those who are doing the fighting is to compare our respective positions. The leader of the opposition referred to the fact that he could not pay his taxes out of his present revenue and that he would have to draw on the savings of a lifetime. Do my hon. friends when they talk about this war understand that men are falling in flames from the sky every day- men whose lives have not yet really begun? What are my hon. friend's savings of a lifetime compared with that sort of thing? Those are the things that are important, and if we are sincere in our talk in this house we shall have to discuss matters from that point of view.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The two things are not comparable at all.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Of course they are not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why bring it up?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I say that my hon. friend's savings of a lifetime are not-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The two positions are not comparable at all, and you cannot make a comparison between them. I admit that the sacrifice of a soldier cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents, but if we are to have anything left in this country, then I say, do not tax us too heavily.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Can the young man who is taken into the army say, "If you are to have any people left in the country after the war. do not take us away"? Every word the leader of the opposition said is based on "our property"; "You are taking our property away." Not a word about the lives of the young men which are being taken away and which it is advocated should be taken away more completely-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny that. I will not let that go unchallenged. The minister has to have money, but I say he has gone the limit in one method he has devised and he must devise some other method. Page the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as to the other method.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But the leader of the opposition does not accept the ideas of the hon. member for Lethbridge. He says we should borrow money. Well, if we can borrow

money, surely the money must be here. Either that, or we are going to allow people to create money and then lend us that money at so much in interest. It is one of two things: either the money is here to be borrowed, or it is not here, but it can be created and we can borrow that created money. If we borrow created money, I submit that the government can create the money for itself at no or very little cost, and without paying interest. If the money has to be borrowed, we have to find it in one of two ways. As I say, either it is here and we borrow it from the people who have it. or it is not here and someone creates it. and for the privilege of creating it we pay them interest forever. That is the position we are in.
We are taxed heavily, but we have not begun to sacrifice in this country. Let us compare our sacrifices with what is going on in the desert in Egypt to-day, and we shall have some understanding of what we are paying and what others are paying. There is only one thing that is important in this matter of taxation, and that is that the burden should fall as equitably as possible on the whole population. In so far as I think the minister is taxing equitably I shall support him. When he is pressing too hard on people whose incomes are already too low I will protest, but only under those circumstances.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to follow up the case of the rector. By September 1 he will have paid $32 of the $53 tax in national defence tax since the beginning of the year. For the next twelve months his actual rate of taxation will be less than half the rate he has been paying on national defence tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only for this year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but just think of it.


Mr. BOUCHER:: If the minister checks
up he will find that clergymen in the last year have not been granted exemption for mileage in their travelling, whereas other professionals have been granted that exemption. There is a discrimination there. The doctor or the business man, the commercial traveller, is allowed exemption in that respect, but I do not believe the clergyman is receiving that exemption. The work of clergymen calls for a great deal of travelling in their cars if they are to render proper service to the community, and that is something that might be looked into by the minister.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When we are talking about the value of the rectory in relation to

Income War Tax Act
the rector's stipend, it does strike me that there may possibly be some discrimination between the Protestant religion and the Roman Catholic religion. In some ways the Roman Catholics may be more efficient in carrying on the work which they do, and I refer particularly to the fact that, owing to celibacy in the Catholic church and the fact that the priest probably does not have a private income, he is not a taxable person. How, therefore, does the department tax the dwelling in which he lives? On account of there not being celibacy among the Protestant clergy they have their own homes, either provided by the church or out of their stipends and they then have to pay a tax on the value of that house. Is there discrimination between the Roman Catholic religion and the Protestant religion with regard to the manse or rectory which the parson or the priest enjoys?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Rather than hold up the committee I think the answer will have to be given to-morrow or later, because it seems to be rather a long story.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is satisfactory.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Is it the definite intention and desire of the government to discourage individuals from purchasing dwellings? I raise that question because of the date fixed as to when a mortgage will entitle a person to exemption from the refundable portion of the tax. Is it the definite intention to discourage the purchase or building of dwellings?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see any objection to the purchase of dwellings. Building is different; that is using materials. The government does not desire to see any more of that than is absolutely necessary. It is not the definite objective of the government to discourage the transfer of property.


Ralph Maybank: It is rather difficult to accept that statement. Of course I am not suggesting that the minister is deliberately giving a wrong answer. But it is pretty nearly impossible for a person in the middle income brackets to be paying the amounts required under this refundable section, and also to commence the purchase of a home. I should think the great majority of people in the middle income brackets will be exempt from this clause, taking a certain percentage of their income, I think it is about $480 for the $5,000 man. I should think most people in that class would be exempt from that requirement; they have life insurance or are buying a home. But many people who were about to buy homes will not be able to pay the $480
to the treasury and also a similar amount on the purchase of a home. If this provision is left as it is, unquestionably, it will chill the alienation of property for the purchase of homes because the people in the middle income brackets or, indeed, in others, cannot do both. Therefore it does give rise to the thought that there is a definite intention to prevent it.
In the land titles office at Winnipeg in May there was a certain number of transfers of property registered, let us say one hundred. On examination of the transfers it was quite apparent that 90 per cent of them were for homes. In June that 100 will be 125, and in July more, possibly 150. In August, after this budget has become known, there will be practically none, because people will realize that they cannot meet the obligation of this budget and also buy that dwelling. By fixing a date as the last day upon which mortgage payments will mitigate the impost of this tax you practically tell the people, "You cannot buy a home; you may have intended to for some years, but now you cannot." I do not wish to be overemphatic about the matter, but I am quite sure that in every city in Canada there were a great many negative decisions made for the month of July and it will be the same for August. I do not think there will be a home purchased by people of the type of whom I have been speaking; I do not see how they can do so. I do not believe it is necessary to fix the date in the way that it has been done. If the desire is just to have the money saved, then whether a home is bought on June 14 or June 30 the money is still saved and it will also be available, although not in the same hands, for future loans. Many thousands of people who have been looking forward to the time when they could purchase a home will be able in spite of the budget to do so, and the government's plans will not be interfered with at all. It might even stimulate the buying of homes. Perhaps that is not desired by the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not.


Ralph Maybank: At any rate you cannot stimulate it to the point of doing any damage to the alienation of property, because this mitigation of the impost is only as a result of money payments on homes. It does not apply if I want to buy two or three houses as an investment. It applies only if I am buying a place for my own dwelling. Therefore I cannot see how the government policy
Income War Tax Act

can be injured by leaving it open to bave such payments apply on a home bought from now on equally as to a home already bought.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would give a very great
stimulus, an undesirable stimulus, to the sale of property for residential purposes.


Victor Quelch: The discussion during the past few days has taken an interesting turn as far as the subject of money is concerned. But I cannot understand the attitude of the leader of the opposition. He is apparently criticizing the heavy taxation under this budget, but in the past he has consistently attacked the idea of the creation of money, and there is no alternative. The only alternative you might say is borrowing money from the people who have it, but if any people during this war are making large amounts of money they are the people who should be taxed.
The pay-as-you-go policy is no easy way. If you are to have that, and that is what I believe the committee wants, there is no easy way to accomplish it. We have never at any time contended that the pay-as-you-go policy is easy. We have always emphasized the fact that during a war there is bound to be heavy taxation, and I am not criticizing this budget on account of its being heavy, although I think in some respects the burden should be more evenly distributed.
But the stand this group has taken is that after you have raised the taxation to as high a point as you can without endangering the efficiency of the people and after you have allowed the people to put aside a little for a rainy day, then to the extent that the revenue so derived fails to meet the government's expenditures the services of the Bank of Canada should be utilized. That is the time that you should have the creation of credit, but not until you have applied taxation in war time to a point at which any increase in taxation will endanger the efficiency of the people.
I do not wish anyone to suggest that this group is advocating an easy way of financing the war by the creation of credit without taxation, because at no time have we advocated that policy. I think that the trouble brought about by the people selling their bonds to the banks is a result of the ignorance that has been caused by the type of propaganda circulated by the orthodox press and by the banks. The banks and the orthodox press have continuously told the people that the

banks can lend only their depositors' money. The people therefore feel that if they go to the chartered banks and borrow money they are merely borrowing somebody else's money, and consequently not increasing the amount of money in circulation.
When the minister replies I suggest he should point out that when the people take their bonds to the bank they are not borrowing somebody else's money. They are borrowing newly created credit, or money that has been created by the chartered banks. Therefore, when they sell their bonds to the banks the amount of money in circulation will be expanded by the amount that the bank lends them. If the minister would explain that to the people he would remove a great amount of misunderstanding. I do not believe that the great majority of people in this country to-day realize that when they take their bonds to the banks and borrow money from the banks the amount of money in circulation is being increased by the amount they get. They have been told in the past that it is merely a question of making a loan of money already in existence. I suggest that the minister do a bit of educating in that regard, and probably through such action dissuade people from selling their bonds to the banks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask a question before this resolution carries.


Victor Quelch: Does the minister not agree with the accuracy of my statement in connection with the action of the banks in creating money?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look at the hon. member's statement. When he was speaking I did not think much exception could be taken to what he said, but I am careful in underwriting statements that are made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is there a limitation of $1,000 in resolution 6? Why has that maximum been fixed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just good judgment; that is all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is purely
arbitrary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Progress reported.

Public Expenditures
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
191. General administration, $1,019,035.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
mo. Departmental administration, $166,231.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 21, 1942