Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):

I draw the attention of the Prime

Minister to the following report from Ottawa in the press of Saturday, 27th March:

It was learned here to-day on the highest authority that the personnel of the commission to investigate conditions in the Maritime provinces would be as follows:

Mr. FORKE:

Speak louder please.

Mr. MacLAREN:

I continue quoting:

Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, Kent, England.

Dr. McGill, of Winnipeg.

Judge W. B. Wallace, of Halifax.

Hon. W. E. Foster, of Saint John.

Can the Prime Minister confirm this report given to the public?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

There has been no order

in council passed appointing a commission. I do not know from what source the information has come, but I can assure my hon. friend that up to the present time no appointments have been made.

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

Yesterday I put an inquiry to the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) with regard to the duty on dairy products now being imported into this country, particularly from Australia. I pointed out that the minister had stated on the 25th of February that butter imported into Canada from Australia will be subject to the provisions of the dumping clause. The minister said on that occasion:

The official in my department holds that there will be a dumping duty of approximately fifteen per cent on any butter that enjoys that privilege.

I desire to point out that upwards of one million pounds of butter have been imported from Australia during March of this year, and

I should like to ask what duty is being collected on these imports. I understand from the Department of Customs that it is the duty of one cent per pound provided for in the trade treaty which has been and is being collected.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

If my hon. friend will place his question on the order paper I will give him a correct answer.

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

I

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

Mr. HANNESSON:

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

Soldier Settlement Act

actuated the returned soldiers largely in going on the land were chiefly these: In the first

place, during the war high prices for agricultural products had prevailed; and in the next place, unless the soldiers had occupations in the professions or in industry to return to they had no alternative open to them. What I want to point out here is that although the soldier settlement scheme primarily was for the purpose of assisting the soldiers during the period of demobilization and reconstruction, other people in Canada received direct and immediate benefit from it. In the first place it lessened the competition for employment; in the next place it largely solved the unemployment question in Canada and in the third place it gave to people that had land holdings in the Dominion immediate cash for lands that in former years they had not been able to sell. What is now asked for is not a further bonus or relief for soldiers, but a recognition of the fact that so many of them were charged prices for land bought on their account by the government far beyond their actual value. It is not a bonus, but a recognition of a wrong done to them, and remember that many of the men who received those prices are the men who to-day complain that they are paying too much in the way of taxes in Canada. That money was not lost to Canada. It was largely paid out to people in Canada.

Another phase of the matter to which I wish to refer is that the soldier settlement scheme was of immense value to the Dominion of Canada. As the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the other day, with his customary fair-mindedness, the soldier settlement scheme increased the value of lands in Canada above what it would otherwise have been and added to the present wealth and productive power of Canada. Some of the lands had been used at a prior time by farmers who had actually tilled them, but a large portion was new, virgin soil. These lands were brought into production but they would not have become productive had it not been for this scheme. For seven or eight years, these soldier settlers have been adding largely to the wealth of Canada. I desire to point out to this House that year after year, government after government have spent large sums of money for immigration, the expenditure having been principally outside of Canada. They are today adopting other schemes for settlement in Canada which involves the outlay of money. I maintain that even if the treasury takes a loss with respect to part of the price paid for the land. Canada still will have a bigger

return than she has received from the money spent on immigration or will receive from the proposed expenditure for securing settlers on the land.

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

From the foregoing several things are quite evident. Every time a unit was taken back from a returned soldier as a result of abandonment, or by foreclosure, there was a direct loss of productive power in Canada to the-extent of that unit. In the next place there was a loss in the value of that unit. As soon as the land was abandoned or left, it reverted and became wild land again. Last year I understand some effort was being made to-lease some of these lands. The next best.

Soldier Settlement Act

lands to those sold before have been taken under the empire settlement scheme or reserved for it, and we have in addition almost half of these foreclosed lands, which undoubtedly are the poorest, on which Canada will suffer a further loss. If Canada can afford to take a loss in the manner I have described, to give a rebate to the empire settlers, surely she can afford to re-value the land and give some consideration to the men who have been on it seven or eight years, giving of their best, paying 10 per cent to begin with, and brushing, breaking, fencing, building and struggling. A new man, with no knowledge of conditions in this country is almost sure to make some losses for the government under the empire settlement scheme. Surely Canada can afford to do the right thing with regard to the men who were unfairly treated when the purchases were made.

I realize that in some cases there may not be a loss and revaluation is not necessary, but I desire to bring to the attention of the House some cases where there is a crying injustice. Two of these cases occurred near Teulon. In one case within my knowledge- the Soldier Settlement Board have the record of it-the man never went on the farm. He was a clerk in one of the offices engaged in selling lands to the Soldier Settlement Board. There was another case where a man made merely a pretence of going on. That land was taken back. In several cases the price fixed was two, three and four times the actual selling value at the time. Another soldier settler from the Petersfield district, came to me and told me about the course that was being followed by the Soldier Settlement Board; and he told me about men being driven off the farm and asked me to go and meet the soldier settlers who occupy the territory between Teulon and Winnipeg Beach. I attended the meeting and at that meeting these men drew attention to several things. The lands in that district were bought at from $15 to $31 per acre. Last year I sold a half section of land of the same character and was glad to get $5.50 per acre for it. I know of other lands in that district and very similarly located that were sold for $3.50 per acre. These soldier settlers paid tremendous prices. It is too late to criticize this feature now, but there is not the slightest doubt that they were induced to go on that land as the result of incompetence or something worse on the part of those who certified to these values. The land was practically all brush land, and wet, which meant an immense amount of work before they could begin to

produce anything on it. They have gravel roads in the neighbourhood now which have ditches draining the lands, but when the men were put on those lands they were valued at a figure that they could not for a long time approximate. The men had to clear practically every foot of the land. It was at least two years before they could make any headway. The maximum improvement loans advanced amounted to one thousand dollars each and they were wholly inadequate to enable these men to get a start at all. I have seen some of these lands and I visited one location in particular that I propose speaking about. The least brushing done by any man on his unit is about a hundred acres, and brushing costs about five dollars an acre although the man does the work himself. Breaking cost at that time from twelve to fourteen dollars an acre, although the cost at the present time is only seven dollars an acre. None of the men to whom I have reference has done less than $2,000 to $3,000 worth of improvements on his land.

In 1923 when they were just beginning to get a start they were unfortunate enough to meet with rust following floods in the spring, and in 1924 that the crop of the whole district was frozen. The wheat was frosted in the blossom as Mr. Freer, superintendent and expert who was brought out from the Manitoba Agricultural College, stated. The result was that these men were left with absolutely nothing in the fall of 1924. They asked the Soldier Settlement Board for assistance in the way of seed grain in the spring of 1925 and they were informed that there was no provision for further advances in the way of seed grain. Some of the men were forced to leave their farms in order to go out and work as they had only a few cattle and they could not grow any grain that year. Others stayed on because they were fortunate enough to get advances from private sources. The credit of a soldier settler is not very high, because everything is tied up to the Soldier Settlement Board which has a preference over all claims if it desires to exercise it.

In the fall of 1925 the board told these soldier settlers that they would have to pay up their arrears or the board would seize the whole crop. Some of the men refused to do this because, as they said, they had to pay their seed grain advances and their store bill, and after going through the formality of making seizures and endeavouring to get the surrenders from the soldier settlers, the board said: We will pay the seed grain and the store bills if you will give the crop to us. This has been very discouraging to these men

Soldier Settlement Act

and I want briefly to make some reference to what happened at the meeting which I attended and to certain letters which I have since received. At a meeting at which some forty-five settlers who are still indebted to the board were present, a resolution was passed. It was signed by some twenty-six settlers-I could not wait for any more signatures at that time. This resolution was as follows:

We the undersigned having met at a public meeting at Petersfield, Manitoba, to discuss the problems of the soldier settlers, have passed the following resolution :

Resolved that we ask parliament of Canada to revalue all soldier settlers loans to the extent of fifty per cent with no discrimination as to what year he settled on the land.

One point which they brought out at the meeting was that the value of the land must be reduced to an extent where they could carry on. Next year they will have to pay interest although that has been waived for a number of years. They also maintained that having spent seven years on the land and having made considerable improvements and gained experience, they should be given a preference in regard to reductions over the British Empire settlers. They further urged that no more soldiers should be put off the land till something definite has been done in regard to revaluation. During the last year several of these men have been put off their land, although last session this House was considering revaluation which was also promised in the last election. They further urged that the board must help the soldier with seed grain where help is needed, as their outside credit is impaired. That is a problem which we must face because, in case of hardship, the settler has no credit that will enable him to go to a bank or even to a private individual in view of the way in which all assets are tied up to the board.

I have several letters from settlers giving further particulars, one from two Hermanson brothers who claim that after they had struggled along for seven years, an endeavour was made last year to put them off their land. They state that they cannot carry on with their present indebtedness. They have families; one of the boys is suffering under a disability, and yet threats are being made to put them off for empire settlers.

I have a letter from another man named Oliver, also at Petersfield, who claims that last fall after he had borrowed money in order to be reinstated, they came to him again and said that he must pay S500 or sign a surrender which, however, could be revoked later on. They called it a readjustment, and so as to have some control of his crop and to

be able to pay his store bills and that kind of thing, he signed it. He is a man who has 150 acres broken and more improvements made than have been paid for by advances from the board. He has a large family and last year after paying the thresher and his store bill he had $267 left.

A man named G. A. Willis in that district who has 220 acres broken had a notice served on him last fall because he wanted to pay his seed grain and store bill. The same was the case with a man named Smallwood who had 160 acres broken. These men all have large families and are men who served throughout the war. I come now to a man named Mackenzie who could not borrow money in 1925 to do his seeding. His brother lives on the next farm. He had fall ploughed his land; he left his brother to look after the farm and the cattle; he left his furniture in the house and he went out to look for employment elsewhere. The board has seized that farm although that man had lived on it for seven years. I visited that farm and over 100 acres had been brushed and ninety acres broken and fall ploughed by his brother last fall. This winter under the empire settlement scheme, although his furniture was still there, they entered the house and put in new beaverboard walls which they painted. They say they are going to paint the house this spring and they are putting an empire settler on the land at exactly half the price that Mackenzie was charged. That in spite of the fact that last fall he offered to give them $175 in cash and 400 bushels of wheat. I might also cite the case of a man named Schofield whose land was bought by the board at $3125 per acre and sold to empire settlers at $15 per acre.

That is all I propose saying with regard to the general merits of the matter, but I wish to point out two things in connection with this resolution. According to the first clause of the resolution the revaluation proposed is only for those who have not abandoned their land. That, I take it, would include those who have been driven off the land. I suggest that an amendment must be made to that provision so that any man who has been on the land for four or five years, who has done a certain amount of improvement that may be stated in the act, who for instance has broken fifty or sixty acres and who has made permanent improvements of a value of not less than $1,000, should have the right to go back and redeem on the same terms as an empire settler could buy. A provision of that sort should be in this measure.

Soldier Settlement Act

I may point out that the Soldier Settlement Board in their report issued on 31st December recommended revaluation and I would suggest that it should be carried out in this way. The board themselves should do the revaluing because I think any other method would take too long and there is urgent need of this being carried out as expeditiously as possible. I then suggest an appeal to a county court judge before whom shall be the complete file of the Soldier Settlement Board and before whom shall be taken into consideration the value fixed by the board on any land in the same neighbourhood. I suggest the appeal to the county court judge so as to remove all suspicion of unfairness or partisanship. My hon. friends to the left objected to a county court judge primarily because he was a lawyer. Let me point out that they are almost the first people to seek the advice and assistance of lawyers. Indeed, one member of their body, when he was one of the commissioners appointed by this House to investigate the customs charges, sought the appointment of special counsel for himself. Now this matter would come up before the local county court judge, and as he is trained to weigh evidence and is removed from all suggestion of bias or partisanship, I do not know of anyone who would be better fitted to deal with cases of this kind. Furthermore, all assessments in Manitoba and, I believe, elsewhere in western Canada are revised before the county court judge, which would indicate that he is probably more intimately acquainted with the actual values of lands and with all the local circumstances than anybody else would likely be. A county court judge would be better qualified than almost any farmer who could be selected either from the Progressive group in this House or in the country.

In connection with the appeal before the county court judge, I suggest that the soldiers should have a special representative of their own, paid by the government. The question of cost has been referred to, but we must remember that the returned soldiers who are up against it now cannot afford to engage counsel. All the circumstances should be gone into exhaustively, and to this end it is imperative that counsel should be provided to act on behalf of the men for the purpose of presenting their cases before the judge. I trust there will be no division in the House on the question of revaluation; Canada as a whole has received large value from the services of these men. It is not a matter of giving the returned soldiers a bonus or a grant; what is needed is to remedy an evil

from which they are at present suffering. For seven or eight years these men have shown their confidence in the country, and I believe that if a favourable opportunity were afforded them they could successfully carry on. As things are to-day they are labouring under adverse conditions that are almost unbelievable. In very many instances the wife is obliged to go out and work in order to secure the necessary groceries and other provisions for the family. It would be far better, in my judgment, to make it possible for these men to stay on the land than it would be to get new settlers to come into the country to displace them. Those returned soldiers who have put in four or five or six years and have made substantial improvements on the land have shown that they are fitted for farming and they should be given an equal opportunity to come in under this scheme.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

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

Mr. HANNESSON:

I am always reluctant to have the majority of a board make the decision if there is no review of the matter.

I think it would be satisfactory to take the board's valuation, which could be quickly made by the district supervisor or the superintendent of the board, provided there is to be a review by someone who is above suspicion of partisanship or as having any special interest in the matter.