THE JUVENILE DELINQUENTS' ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):: I desire to ask the Acting Minister of Justice when Bill No. 40, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents' Act, will be brought on, as there are a great many members very much interested in it.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) :: Bill No. 40 when it was introduced in this House had already been passed by the Senate. As I understood, the Bill had been requested by the Greek Catholic Church, as they wished their children to be disposed of under the Juvenile Delinquents' Act in the same way as Roman Catholic children. I have since found that the Bill did not originate with and was not asked for by that body, but was requested by the Associated Children's Aid Societies of Canada. The representations from the former body were that they did not wish to recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic church, but rather the authority of the Holy Roman See. On that being explained to me by Mr. Gisborne, I immediately took steps to ascertain the attitude of the Greek Catholic church, but .so far I have had nothing come before me to convince me that the people of that church are anxious for the measure. Unless I do hear from them to that effect, I do not propose proceeding further.


Samuel Hughes: In case the hon. minister should receive any such intimation from the Ukranian organizations, will he be good enough to notify those who have expressed an interest in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: There is no reason why notice should not be given.



INDUSTRIAL UNREST IN CANADA.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: In view of the appalling reports that we get from Winnipeg, is the Acting Minister of Justice able
to tell us anything about the circumstances prevailing there at present?


Arthur Meighen: Matters in Winnipeg have been principally dealt with by the Royal North West Mounted Police. The President of the Privy Council will accordingly make a statement.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL: Mr. Speaker, the position of affairs in Winnipeg, particularly as it relates to the part taken by the Royal North West Mounted Police in the incidents of Saturday, is briefly as follows: In the month of May J received a telegram from the Attorney General of Manitoba asking if (the Mounted Police could act in co-operation with the provincial authorities for the preservation of law and order in Winnipeg, in case such action should be necessary owing to the disturbed conditions prevailing there. I thereupon caused instructions to be given to the Commissioner of the Mounted Police in the following terms:
Attorney General of Manitoba has requested that force should assist in maintaining law and order in Winnipeg' if required. Therefore kindly instruct local officer Mounted Police to co-operate with Attorney General if required by him.
At the same time I sent a letter to the Attorney General of Manitoba, and, in fact, a similar letter to the Attorney General of each of the Western provinces, to this effect:
The Government here is anxious to render every assistance in its power to the provincial and municipal authorities in maintaining law and order, and protecting the lives and property of citizens from mob or revolutionary violence.
We, of course, fully recognize that the initiative and responsibility in connection with the maintenance of law and order in each province rest with the Provincial Government, and with the municipal authorities, and that any action we might take should be in co-operation with, and at the request of. the provincial authorities. I write this to assure you that anything the Federal Government can do to assist in maintaining law and order in your province will he most cheerfully done, both from the standpoint of the military authorities and of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.
It was with the full concurrence of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Mewburn) that I stated in that letter [DOT] that the military authorities would cooperate with the provincial and municipal authorities in maintaining law and order.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has no authority in the premises. These troops must go out if they arc called out by the provincial authorities, must they not?


Mr. N. W. ROWELL:: I have just intimated that I wrote that letter with the full authority and co-operation of the Minister of Militia and Defence in advising that the Federal Government, through the Military and through the Mounted Police, would cooperate with the provincial and municipal authorities in maintaining law and order. Any action, of course, would have to be taken under the provisions of the law which defines the conditions under which the militia may co-operate.


Samuel Hughes: Whether the Government is willing or not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. The militia could he called out at the request of the municipal authorities; but this was simply to indicate the attitude of the Government in reference to these matters.
I understand that on Friday evening last a mass meeting of strikers, in which there were some five hundred or more returned soldiers, decided that they would on Saturday parade the streets of Winnipeg, notwithstanding the proclamation of the mayor that no parades should be permitted. They sent word to the Minister of Labour (Hon. G. D. Robertson) that they intended to meet in Victoria Park at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday, and that they would parade from there to the Royal Alexandria Hotel, where the minister was staying, and that the minister would there address them, on .pain of violence if he refused. The Minister of Labour, desiring to avoid any possibility of a conflict with returned soldiers, or any possibility of a violation of the mayor's proclamation, sent word to the strikers, through the solicitor for the strike committee, that he himself would go to Victoria Park on Saturday at 2.30, and there address the strikers. That, however, apparently was not satisfactory to them, and the committee requested a meeting on Saturday morning which was duly held, and at which the Minister of Labour, Commissioner Perry of the Mounted Police, and Mr. Andrews, representing the Department of Justice, were present. The committee insisted that the parade would go on unless the strike were settled before 2 o'clock; the street railways, which had been operating for several days, were stopped, and the minister and others should address them, on 'Saturday afternoon at the Industrial Bureau, of which they would take possession. The mayor intimated that under no conditions would the proclamation against parades be withdrawn; that it must be strictly observed, and that he would not discontinue the street car service. The

Minister of Labour intimated that it would not be possible to secure a settlement of the strike within the time limited, namely, 2 o'clock that afternoon; but he promised if the mayor's proclamation was respected and the parade cancelled that he would endeavour to secure for them the Industrial Bureau, in which to hold their meeting; and said that he would be prepared to address them there. Mr. Andrews left the conference for the purpose of securing the Industrial Bureau for the committee, and succeeded in doing so; hut before he got back the trouble had commenced. The strikers- at least a group of them-insisted that the parade should go on. The mayor, with the approval of the Attorney General and in his presence, went to the headquarters of the Mounted Police and asked their co-operation in preserving law and order. That was the joint request of the mayor of the city, representing the municipal authority, and the Attorney General of the province, representing the provincial authority.


Samuel Hughes: It was done in legr.l form?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was done in proper form, yes. The Mounted Police were thereupon called out, and, as has already been stated in the press, moved down Main street, endeavouring to disperse the crowd. There was evidence of violence almost at once-so much so that the mayor read the Riot Act and then proceeded to militia headquarters and asked that the militia be called out. As I say, there were acts of violence; a street car which was passing down the track was seriously broken up; bricks, stones, and other missiles were thrown at the Mounted Police, and shots were fired from the mob. As a result, there were several casualties, and the condition was such that the officer in command of the police felt it absolutely necessary, as a matter of self-defence, that the police should fire. This they did, with the result that there were a number of casualties. The latest report is that the total number of casualties was thirty-four, of which sixteen were in the Mounted Police; that would make eighteen casualties in the mob. I am glad to say that the casualties among the police, though at first some were considered serious, have proved not to be so serious. All the police are out of the hospital now with the exception of one, who was more seriously injured than the others. Of the men in the crowd who .suffered casualties, one was killed and one or two were probably seriously injured; as to the condition of the others, we have no specific

information. I should add that the militia came immediately to the assistance of the Mounted Police and the mob was dispersed in the course of half an hour or a little more. Since that time the city has been quiet; there has been no trouble since the dispersal of the mob.
Let me repeat that the first shots were fired by the paraders or those associated . with them, and that Mounted Police fired only in self-defence. The information that we have is that the police acted with great coolness, great courage and great patience, as is characteristic of men of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. What is true of the police, is equally true of the militia. As a matter of fact, I believe that the majority of the police were returned men, as were large numbers of the militia who were called out. Up to 7.30 p.m. last evening some 80 arrests had been made by the police.
Every one must regret that life has been lost on this occasion. Every one must regret that serious casualties have been sustained, but 'I am sure that members of the House and the sane and thoughtful people of the country will agree that law and order in Canada must be maintained. The sooner all classes fully recognize that it is the intention of the Federal Government and of the provincial and various municipal governments in Canada to maintain law and order and to protect life and property, the more speedily we shall reach a common understanding in relation to all matters affecting the public interest.


Mr. CAHILL:: It is reported in the
Ottawa Citizen this morning that returned soldiers in favour of the strikers started the parade; that crowds joined and a clash ensued. Ts there any truth in the report that the parade was led by returned soldiers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As I have already intimated, the group that presented the request to the minister was composed largely of returned soldiers, who, however, constitute only a small section of the returned soldiers in Winnipeg, the great majority of whom are entirely out of sympathy with the action of this group in starting the trouble.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: Is the strike in Winnipeg being continued on a demand for centralized power for collective bargaining?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Labour):: The demand for collective bargaining is still dominant, I would imagine, in the minds of the strikers; they are still
insisting upon it as one of the terms of settlement. The Minister of Labour, who is still in Winnipeg is in constant negotiation with representatives of employers and employees endeavouring to reach a settlement of the main issues which were the original cause of the strike.


Mr. M. CLARK (Red Deer):: Can the minister give us any information as to how far it is true that three firms of employers are now prepared to concede what they at first refused?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My colleague has asked me to reply. I presume my hon. friend refers to the statement which was issued by the three employing firms on Monday last I think, as a result of a conference between them and representatives of the railway organizations. I am sorry I have not with me a copy of the statement, which has already appeared in the press. That statement recognized the principle of collective bargaining as defined in the statement. The representatives of the various railway organizations issued a statement endorsing and approving that definition of collective bargaining, and the railways themselves and Senator Robertson also approved that statement. It was a statement issued by the employers and approved by the Minister of Labour, the various railway employees' organizations, and the railways themselves, and it defined collective bargaining, as I understand, substantially in the same terms as it is now in use in the various railway organizations in dealing with the railways. As to how far that goes beyond what the employers were prepared to concede, I am not in a position to say.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has a date been set for the trial of the strike leaders who were arrested the other day?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No date has yet been fixed.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Is it the intention of the Government to give these men a speedy trial? It would appear in the public interest to do so.


Arthur Meighen: The Government does not decide on questions of that sort. The matter of the administration of justice is, of course, provincial, and undeT the Act any one accused of an offence can elect within a certain period whether he will take a speedy trial or not, that is under a certain section of the Code. I am not sure whether that section applies to charges of seditious conspiracy, but even if it does not, this Government has no say

whether the men shall take speedy trial; that is for the men to elect. If they do not apply for it, the Government cannot give it to them. It is a question of law, not a question of authority.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 147 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Miville-Mr. Mowat.

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

Mr. MYERS:: 1.	Has the Government taken any steps, or does it purpose taking any, relative to the disposal of the wheat crop of 1919?
2.	Have any financial credits been arranged
for?	_
'	3. Have arrangements been made for sufficient transportation facilities for the marketing of this year's crop?
4.	Are there any negotiations pending with the' United States Government regarding the using of the United States ports for shipment of wheat as in former years?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: l: The matter of the marketing of the wheat crop, 1919, has been receiving the continuous attention of the Government. The Governments of the Allied European countries have not apparently yet determined whether their wheat supplies for this year shall be purchased and controlled wholly or partially by the said Government or whether normal trade conditions shall prevail in respect of wheat and flour importations. Until these matters have been definitely determined it is difficult to forecast with exactness the manner in which the Canadian wheat crop for this year will principally be marketed. The Canadian Government have representatives in the United Kingdom and Europe observing very carefully the probable wheat market conditions, the development of public policy in respect of this matter, and are closely in touch with Allied governments and governmental agencies dealing with this maitfer.
2.	By reason of the facts set forth in the answer to question No. 1, the necessity of providing financial credits has not yet arisen.
3.	The matter of the transportation of the wheat crop for 1919, both rail and water, in so far as possible is receiving the attention of the Government. It has been impossible to make arrangements in advance for ocean tonnage required for the

unsold exportable wheat surplus, but it is believed that the Canadian wheat export trade will not suffer for lack of ocean tonnage during this year.
4.	Informal negotiations have taken place with appropriate persons in the United States in reference to this matter. An abnormal wheat crop is anticipated in the United States this year, which will probably heavily tax the elevator storage capacity of that country for its own grain productions and thus render the same less available than usual for the export of Canadian wheat. It is expected that the port of Portland will as usual be available for the export of Canadian wheat, together with the elevator facilities there located. It is expected that the facilities of United States ports, outside of elevator storage, usually available to Canadian exports, shall continue to be available to Canadian wheat exporters during the present year.


RELEASE OF NAVAL RATINGS' PROM ROCKHEAD PRISON.
Mr. DUFF:: [DOT]
1.	Are the six naval ratings from T.R. No. 30, who were last year sentenced toy court-martial to Eighteen months' imprisonment in Rockhead Prison, still incarcerated in said1 prison?
2.	If so, is the Government taking any steps to have the sentences of these young men commuted?
3.	What steps, if any, are being taken to have them released?
4.	When will these young men toe released from custody?
(Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Minister of the Naval Service issued orders for their release as from 14th June, 1919.
4.	Answered by No 1.


ENEMY ALIEN PATENTS.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	What action has been taken toy the Government regarding patents from enemy alien countries or enemy aliens in Canada?
2.	Has the Government taken any of these patents over, as was done in the United States?
3.	Are licenses for use of these patents granted to Canadians or others in Canada?
4.	Will the Government publish a complete list of such patents now held toy enemy firms or alien enemies resident in Canada?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Under the War Measures Act, 1914, orders and regulations were made by the Governor in Council on the 2nd of October, 1914, enabling the Commissioner of Patents to grant licenses for the use of patents held by subjects of states at war with His

Majesty, and preventing the assignment of such patents.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The matter is receiving the Government's consideration.


MR. B. L. WARREN.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Referring to the answers in Hansard, that B. L,. Warren, Sub-Collector of Customs, Bear River, N.S., also occupies the position of shipping master, harbour master and preventive officer at said port, is the said: B. L. Warren receiving remuneration from the Government for filling these various positions? If so, how much?
2.	What was the gross amount paid by the Government, or out of any funds under Government control, to the said B. L. Warren for bis services for the calendar year, 1918?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Nil, so far as the positions of shipping master and harbour master are concerned. Salary as Customs officer, $850.
2.	Amount received from Customs Department: salary, $850; war bonus, $187.50; total, $1,037.50.


DALTON SANITARIUM, P.E.I.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: 1.	Has the Federal Government taken over the Dalton Sanitarium in Prince Edward Island, by purchase or by lease?
2.	If by purchase, how much was paid for the said sanitarium, and to whom was it paid?
3.	If by lease, what amount of rental is paid, when does the lease expire and to whom does the property belong?
4.	How much does the said sanitarium cost per year for upkeep and maintenance?
5.	How many patients would it accommodate when it was taken over?
6.	How many patients will it accommodate now?
7.	What did the new buildings, furnishings and equipment, etc., erected and installed by the Federal Government, to the said sanitarium, cost to date?
8.	Were the contracts for the said new buildings, furnishings and equipments let by tender? If not, how were they let?
9.	If by tender, what were the names of the tenderers, the respective amount of each tender, and the name of the accepted tenderer in each case?
10.	Was the money paid direct to the contractors in each case? If not, how was it paid?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	By agreement.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	(a) Rent free; (b) One year after peace is restored; (c) Board of Commissioners, Charles Dalton Sanitarium, North Wiltshire, P.E.I.
4.	As the extensions and alterations to the sanitarium are not yet completed, it is
impossible to state what will be the cost per year for upkeep and maintenance.
5.	27.
6.	75.
7.	$139,574.55.
8.	By tender. (Separate tender): H. & S.
Lowe, septic tank, $2,375.78; H. & S. Lowe, alterations to buildings, $2,432.50; H. & S. Lowe, sash, $888; H. & S. Lowe,.floors, etc., $900; H. & S. Lowe, various small items, $1,532.50; E. Parkman & Co.,ventilator, $35; E. Parkman, frost proof (pipes, $262.50; McRory & Son, painting sash, $550; Bruce Stewart, fittings for pumps, etc., $255. (Public tenders): XI. Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, plumbing, $590; X2. Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, heating, $1,900; X3. W. F. Douall, wiring, $4,320;	X4. Phillips &
Mutch, power-house and laundry, $68,250; X5. Brantford Oven & Rack Co., bake oven, $270; X6. Renfrew Refrigerator Co., refrigerator, $115; X7. McClary Mfg. Co., steam table, $193.71; X8. Geo. Sparrow & Co., battery of urns, $400; X9. Can. Chicago Bridges & Iron Co., water tower, $5 -510.
9.	Xl. Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, plumbing, accepted, $590; Currie & Murnaghan, plumbing, $625; X2. Stanley, Shaw and Peardon, heating, accepted, $1,900; Currie and Murnaghan, heating, $,600; X3. W. P. Douall, wiring, accepted, $4,320; Maritime Electric Company, wiring, $4,750; X4. Phillips & Mutch, power house and laundry, accepted, $68,250; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, power house and laundry, $73,000; Russell & McAuley, power house and laundry, $69,568; H. & S. Lowe, power house and laundry, $75,000; X5. Brantford Oven & Rack Co., bake oven, accepted, $270; Montreal Metal Works, bake oven (not heavy enough), $125; Gurney-Massey Co., bake oven (not heavy enough), $208; McClary Manufacturing Company, bake oven, $352; Wrought Iron Range Company, bake oven, $279.50; X6. Renfrew Refrigerator Co., refrigerator, accepted, $115; Eureka Ref. Co., refrigerator, $175; Thos. Davidson Co., refrigerator (too small, not up to specification), $52.50;	X7. MoClary Mfg.
Co., steam table, accepted, $193.71; Wrought Iron Range Co., steam table, $213.50; Geo. Sparrow Co., steam table, $225; Geo. Prowse Range Company, steam table, $229; Gurney-Massey Company, steam table, $266.95; Montreal Metal Works, steam table, $300.	X8. Geo. Sparrow and Company,
battery of urns, accepted, $400; Geo. Prowse Range Co., battery of urns, $455; Wrought Iron Range Co., battery of urns, $477; McClary Mfg.Co. battery of urns, $516; Gurney-

Massey Co., battery of urns, $507.30; Hamilton Brass Co., battery of urns, $5X0; Montreal Metal Works, battery or urns, $600. X9. Canadian Chicago Bridges, Steel Tank and Water Tower & Iron Co., lowest tender, $4,685, (additional capacity in tank and heating pipes), accepted, $5,510; Canadian DesMoines Steel Co., steel tank and water tower, $5,317; Ontario Wind, Engine and Pump Co., water tank, $5,200; H. S. Lowe, water tank, $6,100; Stanley, Shaw & Pear-don, water tank, $6,765; Bruce Stewart & Co., water tank, $7,000.
10.	Direct to contractors through their bankers.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

["I did not know that, but that makes it so much worse. It seems to me most unreasonable to ask the provincial governments to accept this regulation, and I do not think that many of them will do so. Let the minister give us the information he has secured from the governments as to what they will do. If he is prepared to tell me that the government of my province will allow the Dominion Government to have complete control in the matter I shall immediately withdraw my objection, for that is the provincial government's business, and his assurance to that effect will relieve me of responsibility. But in the absence of that, and speaking, as I think I am, for the people of my province, I am opposed to the methods proposed. This was the attitude of the people of my province some years ago and I do not think they have altered their opinions much in this respect. We believe in provincial autonomy and although we were not accorded the-fullest measure of it, still we got a fair degree of autonomy and are anxious to retain it and if possible have it extended. To permit the Dominion Government to interfere with the internal affairs of a province is entirely wrong. We have heard a good deal about the United States methods. I am not familiar with many states, but I am fairly well acquainted with the good roads scheme in Michigan, as I have a brother there who is connected with municipal works. There the state hands the money to the county and an", "arrangement is entered into between tbem. The county lays down the plan of the road and the Federal Government has nothing whatever to do with the work. If this Government is prepared to hand the money to the provinces and let them and the municipalities work out their own salvation I will withdraw 'my objection now and when the Bill comes before the Committee. Otherwise, I shall have to oppose it in Committee as strenuously as possible. I am not opposed to good roads, but I want the Provincial Government and the people of the province to say where those roads shall be built. In our own province they get away as far as they can from roads as such. They only undertake now large contracts, such as heavy fills or bridges. A member of the Government was Minister of Highways there for several years, and he will tell you they have been getting away from that system as much as possible. It was a continual source of trouble, getting the minister into difficulties through no fault of his own. This is a re-introduction of the system in an intensified form. It is entirely unwarranted and should not be supported. There are other matters I would like to touch upon and I should like to say a word or two to our British Columbia friends, but as the hour is late I will refrain from further remarks.\nResolution reported and concurred in.\nHon. Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 152 founded on the resolution.\nMotion agreed to -and Bill read the first time.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m.\nTuesday, June 24, 1919."]
Mr. BUREAU:: What are the names and addresses of all those who have been connected with or who have formed part of the 22nd Battalion?



William Duff: For a copy of all reports, Orders in Council, and all other papers in connection with the Halifax Relief Commission, including a statement of all receipts and expenditures in this connection up to May 31st, 1919?


INTERNMENT CAMP, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, findings and other papers connected with an application for a pension made by Charles Walker, a Guard in the Detention Camp at Amherst, N.S.


Arthur Meighen: Should not "detention camp" referred to in this motion be "internment camp" ?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, it should be.
[Mr. Burrell. 1


Arthur Meighen: Then, should not question 21 be also changed accordingly?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes. I move that the change be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 95, to assist returned soldiers in settling upon the land, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.	-
Frank S. Cahill: I would ask the Government to lay copies of Bills on the Table. Many members have no desks, and it is impossible for them to carry around their files with them. The result is that we have to hunt around for Bills. The Government knows what Bills are to be presented and might have copies ready to be distributed among the members.


Arthur Meighen: Copies of the Bill have been sent for. The field of administration covered by this measure has been entered upon now for some considerable time and a very substantial amount of work has been performed, and the Committee is entitled, I think, to some account of the achievements in that field and the policies that have been followed, as well as to an explanation of the more ample powers which we are asking for by this Bill. The obligation of meeting the special requirements of returned men in connection with land settlement has been from the first partially, although not wholly, assumed by the federal authorities. Land settlement has been a federal administrative responsibility, at all events in connection with returned men from the South African war, and it has been so particularly for the reason that the Dominion was in possession, as owners, of the lands in the three western provinces upon which such settlement would most likely take place. In 1917, assuming that responsibility in that partial sense, a Soldiers' Settlement Act was passed, under the provisions of which the returned soldier was entitled to an entry for Dominion lands of 160 acres in addition to his ordinary homestead right. That Act of 1917 went beyond the previous legislation in providing as well for a loan to the settler not exceeding $2,500 upon his land. That was the first time that the Dominion Parliament ever ventured into the loaning field; a new

sphere of encouragement of settlement. That Act has now been in operation for something like twenty months. Naturally at first those taking advantage of it were few, but as time went on a considerable number have come under its provisions, until at the present time the exact figures total 2,156, of whom only 90 have abandoned the land. To some of those-by no means to all-loans have been advanced, and as time went on it became apparent that the area of available land suitable for agriculture still left unhomesteaded in the western country was going to be insufficient to permit the Soldier Settlement Board, established under that Act, to meet the demand or, indeed, to engage on any very extensive settlement afterwards.
As a consequence, the necessity arose of launching upon some scheme whereby lands that had been already alienated from the Crown and were lying unused in the various districts of the country in all the provinces should be acquired and made available for entry by. these returned men. It was necessary that some such scheme should be devised, and we were then confronted with the question as to whether or not the Dominion Government should assume the responsibility of administering such duties as the acquirement of private land and the supervision of it within the boundaries of the provinces. That was a question fraught with very considerable difficulty. It would appear to many, and did appear-indeed, we were urged by many-^that as the lands were private lands and as civil rights and the administration of matters' connected with civil rights were by constitution a provincial responsibility, and, indeed, could be better handled by the provinces which were nearer to the scene of activities, we should enter into some co-operative scheme with the provinces whereby on the receipt of Dominion assistance actual administrative duties would be performed provincially. We were encountered, however, by a determined attitude on the part of the provincial governments, particularly in 'the West, against the assumption of any responsibility for settlement by returned soldiers, they taking the ground that in so far as soldiers were concerned the original line of demarcation between provincial and Dominion duties should be altered, and that as to soldiers the entire responsibility should be federally assumed.
That was, more determinedly, the 'attitude of the provinces; their attitude being explained, on their part at all events, by the fact that the federal lands were still
held by the Federal Government. However, all argued that in so far as the soldier was concerned, the Dominion should assume the responsibility.
Under those conditions there seemed no course open to us but to venture upon a very much wider field and to launch upon a great scheme of settlement such as I think no federal authority had ever launched upon before. Accordingly, on the 11th day of February last, an Order in Council was passed under the War Measures Act, the necessity being upon us, in view of the earlier armistice that had been declared and the fast returning men. An Order in Council was passed whereby the Minister of the Interior, or, rather, the board under the Minister of the Interior, was given authority to acquire privately owned lands and to sell these privately owned lands to settlers as defined by the Soldiers' Settlement Act, 1917.
In Australia, where they have conditions paralleling ours in many respects, these duties have been undertaken by the state authorities and a system of co-operation has been worked out, complicated in many ways; but this was the system adopted there for the reason that they did not feel that the fact that the men were soldiers altered in any degree the division of constitutional duties that had been outlined in the Imperial Act creating the Commonwealth of Australia.
In Canada, however, we have, as I say, under all the circumstances, decided that it was the duty of the federal authorities. Indeed, it was imperative that this great task be not receded from, that some one undertake it; consequently we undertook it and our first step was the passing of the Order in Council of the 11th February last. Under the terms of that Order in Council the Soldier Settlement Board was empowdered to acquire in any province of the Dominion privately owned lands and to sell to any individual returned man as defined by the Soldiers' Settlement Act, a not greater acreage than 320 acres, with the provision that the land should be sold at the price at which it had been acquired, and that the amount owed by the returned man on the land should not exceed $4,509, he paying 10 per cent, as the minimum percentage, of the cost. It was also provided that the board should have power to acquire stock and implements and to sell the stock and implements also at cost to these men, $2,000 being the maximum allowed to each, and to loan to a man upon his improvements, or upon improvements, to be made, a sum not ex-



ceeding $1,000. In this connection it must be remembered that under the old Act of 1917 power was given to loan not only upon the homesteads of soldiers, but as well to men who owned their land, a sum not exceeding $2,500.


Mr. MORPHY:: Do I understand that
power was taken in the Order in Council to lend to a soldier on his implements $2,000 and on the stock also another $2,000?


Arthur Meighen: No, on stock and implements to loan a maximum of $2,000. By the terms of the Order in Council of the 11th February Idst such land as was acquired by the board must be resold to the soldier and the unpaid balance of the sale price should be repayable in twenty-five annual instalments including interest and amortisation, the interest being at the rate of 5 per cent. The $1,000 maximum loan for improvement was to be repayable on the same terms but the stock and equipment loan, as it was made on perishable articles, was to be repayable in four instalments, commencing in the third year and the settler was to be relieved entirely of any obligation in respect to it for the first two years. No interest accrued upon his stock loan for the first two years at all and he commenced to pay in the third year.
Provision was made in the Order for the protection of the settler against executions which might interfere with the ^Dominion security and also other safeguards were thrown around the investment which we undertook by that Order to make. Subsequently -on the 20th March of this year-it was provided that the loan upon the stock and equipment, which we were authorized to make to the man who purchased land, might also be made to the man who had home-feteaded under the Act of 1917. From that date onward he became entitled, if classed as qualified, to a loan of $2,000 in addition to the $2,500 loan which he was entitled to by the previous law.	.
Under that condition, in the main, we come up to the present time. Other legislation was passed but it is of a character that can best be dealt with as I proceed subsequently to describe the work of the board. I should have said that under the Act of 1917 a board composed of Mr. Samuel Maber, who has been an official of the department for many years previously, Major Ashton, D.S.O., and Mr. Charles F. Roland, was constituted to carry out the provisions of the Act, Mr. Roland resigned his position in the fall of last year and shortly after his resignation, Mr. W. J. Black who had up to that time been Commissioner of

Agriculture in the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion, was appointed permanent Chairman of the Board. As to these officials, they have worked with devotion and unsparing energy in the performance of their duties and I want to say that particularly to the conspicuous ability and application of the present chairman, the marked success, as I venture to describe it, of the board, is largely due. Under these Orders we have done considerable work up to the present time. Immediately the Order of the 11th February was passed, we deemed it our duty to address ourselves first to that considerable class of men who were in possession of their lands having returned from the front and who were facing seeding operations but were not in a position financially to undertake them. These men had their lands and seeding time was upon them but they were not able to get the seed in for that spring. Consequently an emergency organization was put on to take care of these men and it achieved its end.
After the land and loan regulations had been passed, we proceeded to the work of establishing the necessary organization to take in hand the far greater part of the task of acquiring suitable farm land and selling suitable farm land to suitable men. The line of policy to be pursued was not easy of determination. We were anxious to prevent too large and heavy an organization, and at the same time we were aware of the difficulties we were bound to encounter both in acquiring land of a proper quality and at a fair price, and in selecting the men to go on that land who had a reasonable chance of success.
We first of all took the ground that the principle that should govern us throughout was the welfare of the soldiers. First, we held that it was no assistance to a soldier to place him upon land upon which he was not likely to succeed, and no assistance to place him on good land at a reasonable price unless he were a man who was likely to succeed at that occupation. We therefore decided to appoint in the various districts, loan advisory committees, advisory [DOT]councils and qualification boards composed of men of high standing in the community who would determine respectively the following questions (the loan advisory com-mitees being bodies composed of three men, one in each district to determine the quality of the land, and the amount of loan that could be advanced upon it) viz: the qualification of the soldier applicant as to whether or not he ought to be admitted to the benefits of the Act; and, if admitted-,

in what category he should be classified to guide the operations1 of the supervisor in the subsequent supervision of his work. We have established accordingly qualification boards-some of which have been in operation for three or four months, and others for a lesser period, at the following points: At Victoria, and Vancouver in British Columbia; Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta; Regina, Saskatoon and^Prince Albert in Saskatchewan; Winnipeg in Manitoba; Toronto in Ontario; Montreal, Sherbrooke, and the city of Quebec in Quebec; and one in each of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Besides these, however, and for their assistance, there is a suboffice for determining the qualifications of soldiers at Nelson in British Cblumbia; in the Peace River district in the province of Alberta; and in the province of Ontario we just have one qualification board. We are enabled to confine ourselves to that number in Ontario by reason of the Provincial Department of Agriculture having representatives in many counties in Ontario which representatives act as sub-officers for the qualification board at Toronto; and every man in that province who desires to apply to be admitted under the provisions of that Act goes first to the local provincial agricultural representative. His experience and his general make-up and prospects are noted there and, unless it is a case of doubt, he is there passed upon, is admitted, and then goes down to the central qualification board at Toronto and they determine the question.


Peter McGibbon: Is there any age limit for applicants?


Arthur Meighen: There is no fixed age limit, but the man's age is, of course, considered, along with other questions, in determining his qualifications.


Jacques Bureau: Am I right in understanding the minister to say there is an officer to whom application is first made and that he decides whether or not the man shall be referred to some other tribunal?


Arthur Meighen: That is in Ontario. We utilize the provincial agricultural representatives in the various counties, and in that way we are able to get along in Ontario with only one qualification board. In the province of Quebec there are three qualification boards-one each at Montreal, Sherbrooke, and the city of Quebec.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there any provision
made for a county in the province of Ontario which has no agricultural representative?


Arthur Meighen: Not that I know of. The applicant in that case would have to go to the nearest agricultural representative. In this connection let me say that we have arranged transportation with all the railroads whereby any soldier who desires to be "tested for his qualifications to be admitted under the Act will be given a rate of one cent per mile going and' coming, and as well a rate in these ways for every soldier who goes to settle upon the land; he gets a one-cent rate going to select his land and a one-cent rate returning; he gets another cent rate returning for his family, and another one-cent rate in actually going to reside permanently upon the land.


Mr. MAHARG:: Does that reduced rate apply to the members of his family?


Arthur Meighen: I think it does, but il the hon. member will repeat the question later in the day, I will give him a more definite answer.
Our advisory councils are sitting at each point where the qualification boards are sitting. The advisory councils are composed of what we believe to be expert and fair-minded men, whose experience and qualifications enable them to determine the value of land and the amount of loan that should be made thereon. I might say in this connection that we do not follow particularly the loan company's rules in determining the maximum that can be loaned upon land. We follow a much more liberal scale, because in our operations we select our men, we believe, more carefully than they are selected if there is no organization for the purpose. Because of that the soldier who goes upon the land under the terms of the Act has "a much better chance to succeed (for reasons that I will dilate upon fully at a later period) than has the ordinary settler, and for the reason as well that we have now installed, and purpose continuing, a system of supervision and assistance whereby his. chances of success will be very much improved. That, however, is the function performed by our advisory council. Then we have in each district a superintendent, and in the larger districts where a greater amount of work is done an assistant superintendent, and then such clerks as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the work. We have had to expand our organization with marked rapidity, with much greater rapidity than we ever imagined, because

the rush of settlers to the offices of the board has passed all anticipation and continues still with unabated vigour. In every office in Western Canada the officials are working day and night, and in one office alone the number of callers in a single day was 800.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: To what does the minister attribute the fact that ninety of the returned soldiers have abandoned the land.


Arthur Meighen: The percentage is a very small one and it shows that in the main when these men visited the land they found it was not such as they had expected. Possibly their first inspection of the land when they entered for it was too hurried; and more likely the men who abandoned entered by proxy-some one entered for them, as can be done under the Dominion Lands Act. Then when the actual settler went there he found that the land did not suit him. A third explanation would be that in the meantime he found some other land suited him better and he decided to take it instead. In that connection we have arranged that where a soldier, who has previously made a homestead entry, makes a soldier entry, he is at liberty to abandon his homestead and get credit for the duties he has already performed upon it, and take up a homestead near his soldier entry and be, as regards the new homestead, in the same position in which he was when he left the old one. Under the various district superintendents, there are expert inspectors and valuators of land. These men have been selected with the greatest care we could exercise, and their duty is one of the most responsible that falls to the lot of any of our officials.
It is their business to inspect and value the land, and wherever they find that the soldier has elected to purchase land at a certain price, they, after examination, determine whether the land is fit for the purpose, that is, is good agricultural land, and the price is not unreasonable. If they deem the price unreasonable, it is their *"business to advise the soldier that he will not be recommended for the assistance that the Act provides, unless that land is sold to him at a less figure. As a consequence- and the statistics that can be placed upon Hansard if it is desired-very large sums indeed have been saved to soldiers from the prices at which they were ready to buy their land-amounts running all the way from $100 to $2,000, and even above that sum.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Must every purchase come before the advisory board before the soldier can complete the transaction?
['Mr. Meighen.]


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Of course, we do not say to a soldier: You cannot buy the land yourself if you wish. He is a citizen with the same rights as other citizens. But we warn him that in buying without the approval of the advisory council he is not certain ito obtain the assistance that the Act provides, because the money will not be advanced against his purchase except on their approval. This is the routine followed. The soldier selects his land. That land is then inspected by one of our appraisers, and *after the price is brought to a level that is deemed to be fair and just,-at a level that, having regard to the value, the soldier can earn a living upon the land by reasonable application, the board buys the land and takes title to it, and then enters into an agreement for sale to the soldier, who pays down at least 10 per cent of the price,-sufficient in any event to reduce the balance owing to a maximum of $4,500.
It is somewhat difficult to decide what is the best order in which to take this up, but I think I had now better state the number of entries that have been 'made, the commitments, the Government supervision throughout, and the conditions in which the work now .is. Up ito the 14th of this month the number of applications before our qualification committees by returned soldiers for the benefits of the Act was 17,450. The number that had actually been passed upon was 14,726. The number that had actually been passed as qualified was 12,594. The classification is in three divisions. Class A are the mqn who have done nothing but farm most of their lives,-perhaps hired on farms, but at all events have done nothing but farm, and who from all that can be learned from the record of their habits and character are men who in all reasonable certainty are going to succeed as farmers. Of those 12,594, 6,176 are in class A; 3,494 are in class B, rwho also have had experience in farming, although that has not been their sole occupation; 2,924 are in class C, which comprises those who are on a lower scale and are recommended for the special care and supervision of the supervisors under the board after they get on the land.
Coming to the financial aspect of the work-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
leaves that, could he give us information as to where those men are located in the different provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I can give it province by province. British Columbia, 1,894; Alberta, 3,438; Saskatchewan, 2,025; Mani-

toba, 2,349; Ontario, 723; Quebec, 261; New Brunswick, 366; Nova Scotia, 269; Prince Edward Island, 193. Alberta shows the . largest figure. That is owing to the Peace River district, and to the fact that Alberta has much the largest area of any of the western provinces of available Dominion lands suitable for agriculture.


Peter McGibbon: How many applications have been refused?


Arthur Meighen: The number of applications is 17,450; the number disposed of is 14,726. The difference between those totals represents the applications not disposed of at all by the qualification boards. The number passed upon favourably in all three classes is 12,594. So that the total number refused is 2,132.


Mr. PECK:: When is a man passed as qualified?


Arthur Meighen: No man is passed as qualified who is recommended for training. This will ibe a suitable time to treat of that phase of the work. We established in each of the provinces in the agricultural institutions already there courses of study, or rather of hard work, of about three months' duration, of the most practical character, designed to fit the men- not to be experts in agriculture, that is the work of the agricultural college proper- but to fit them to be useful men on the land, to be able to take care of horses and stock, to understand implements, and to be familiar with the general rudiments of farming. That three months' course is given, and as well we have a system whereby selected farmers are listed! who will undertake to give special attention to men who come to work for them as a special preparation for actual farming. The qualification boards dispose of many cases by advising the men to take courses in these institutions or to hire out with a farmer and learn the practical work in that way. By far the greater number are recommended to take the latter course. Those who take either course are not passed as qualified until they again appear before the board and a report is obtained of their progress at the institution or on the farm. The number attending institutions is 273, and the number on the land is 1,174.
We have also established a system of sustenance both for those at the agricultural colleges and for those on the land. The rates allowed, I am afraid, I do not carry in my head. They are on a scale considerably lower than the scale of rates allowed
to disabled men for sustenance under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, but they are such that the man will not, while he is attending the institution or while he is on the farm, be dissipating his own money, with which he hopes to buy land later. For example, the married man who is recommended by the board to go on the farm is entitled to $20 a month from the board in addition to the wages that he gets on the farm, and he is entitled also to a certain amount for each child- $6 a month, I think-up to a maximum oi $25. Corresponding rates, perhaps somewhat more liberal than those which I have mentioned, are allowed in respect of men who are attending the agricultural colleges and taking these courses. The purpose of all this is to enable the man to conserve what money he has been able to save and have it at his disposal when he becomes qualified and wants to buy land for himself. Of course, all this agricultural training is free, and those who take advantage of it have their board paid.


Peter McGibbon: What is the policy of the department with regard to boys of sixteen or seventeen who were turned down because they were too young?
Mr. MEIGHEN; I have not made special inquiry into those cases, but I imagine that there must be very few of them. I was asked by the board to give this general instruction: That boys who were turned down because they were too young should be advised to hire out and learn farming, because a boy of sixteen or seventeen can hardly be a competent farmer. I would judge that the board might deem him too young.


Peter McGibbon: But many such young men have been passed by representatives of the department as having sufficient knowledge.


Arthur Meighen: They might be passed as having sufficient knowledge, but they would scarcely be qualified; they would be too immature in years to be held to the provisions of the Act. But as I say, there will be very few of that class.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: What is the age at which returned men may qualify?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think any age has been fixed. The board simply size the boy up. Many boys are more immature at eighteen than others are at twenty-one; the age is taken into account, along with the man's experience and general get-up.
In Manitoba, the board consists of the following men: Professor C. H. Lee, of the


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How is that organization distributed?


Arthur Meighen: The distribution of the organization is as follows: The total for Prince Edward Island is 7, of whom (4 are males, 3 of whom are returned soldiers. The man who is not a returned soldier is the agricultural expert whose business it is to watch, assist and supervise the men actually working on the land. We could not get a returned soldier to qualify for that position. Nova Scotia has a total of 9, 8 males, 3 of whom are returned soldiers, or 38 per cent. That is the smallest percentage of any province. For the other provinces the figures respectively are: New Brunswick, 12, 9, 8 or 89 per cent; Montreal, 14, 10, 8 or 80 per cent; Quebec, 3, 2, 2; Otta-wa, -128, 66, 52. These 52 returned soldiers are in the head office here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these men under the department or do they come under a separate organization?


Arthur Meighen: THE Soldier Settlement Board is a separate organization under the Minister of the Interior. It does not report through the Deputy Minister of the Interior, but through the chairman of the board direct to myself. The figures for Winnipeg are respectively, 55, 37, 28, or 76 per cent; Calgary, 41, 34, 30 or 88 per cent. I may say, with Calgary in mind, that among the best class of returned soldier we have been able to get is the private. We find that if we can get the private returned soldier with the necessary ability-and we have certainly succeeded in some cases in getting men with the necessary ability in a conspicious degree-his influence and his acceptability with the men generally is even greater than that of the returned soldier officer. Such a man we have in Calgary-a Mr. Thomas Smith, a returned soldier with one arm. The figures for Edmonton are: Total, 37, 28 males, 23 of whom are returned soldiers, or 82 per cent. Regina 40, 24, 20 or 83 per cent. Prince Albert 23, 16, 13 or 81 per cent; Saskatoon 19, 13, 11 or g5 per cent; Vancouver 35, 24, 19 or 79 per cent; Victoria 20, 10, 8 or 80 per cent. That is the distribution of the organization throughout the Dominion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the duty of these groups to operate exclusively in a certain province, or are their duties of an interprovincial character?


Arthur Meighen: There are provincial divisions. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island each organization operates for its own province. The same is true of Ontario, where we have a somewhat different system by reason of the provincial organization fitting in and being used as an auxiliary. In Saskatoon we have three head offices-at Regina, Saskatoon, and Prince Albert. In Alberta two-at Calgary and Edmonton. In Manitoba one. In British Columbia two-at Victoria and Vancouver. In Alberta and British Columbia we have also a suboffice in the most active outlying points.
Mr. iM. CLARK: Will the Committee be right in assuming that most of these male employees have had previous experience of farming?


Arthur Meighen: I think I am safe in
saying they have all had experience of farming without a single exception. In fact, in all positions of any responsibility the man is an expert, in a greater or less degree; he is the best expert we can get. For example, Colonel Innes is the head of the agricultural traihing work. He has done academic work as well as practical farming all his life, and is a very distinguished graduate of an agricultural college. It is men of that type we have sought and have succeeded, I think, in securing.
I was about to enter upon a discussion of the stock and equipment sphere of our operations. The board lends money at 5 per cent on the land. That, of course, is one-half of one per cent less than the Dominion Government can secure the money for,'and taking into account the length of time given for payment the saving to the soldier over what another man starting farming has to surmount is a very substantial sum indeed, to say nothing at all of the total remission of interest on his stock and equipment loan for two years. Not second in any way to that important consideration is the advantage he gets in the purchase of his stock and equipment out of the proceeds of his loan.
.Having decided that we ought to address ourselves to the task of getting the soldier a better price in the purchase of all these articles than the ordinary retail price, we entered into arrangements with the manufacturers of every article that the soldier desires-that is, everything he is entitled to buy out of the Government loan. The Government, as is manifestly necessary, supervises every purchase. Not a single dollar of the money we loan to the soldier is spent except under the specific supervision, as to every article, of the board itself, and in the determination of what he is allowed to purchase and the [DOT]payment, care is exercised and definite and irresistible rules are followed. For example, the board has determined that a man shall not be permitted to purchase a tractor. We did not think he should enter upon that phase of farming, as it is based upon a scale of operations that is beyond the capacity of a man starting out as a pioneer to be made a settler of. 'That is something which he could reach later on. If we permitted any infraction of that rule we would be engaging upon payment and launching men upon work that perhaps they could not cope with, and so we do not permit it. Limits are also placed upon the price that can be paid for horses, and so on.
We have managed to succeed in effecting arrangements with the producers of all the goods that the soldier will require and pay for, out of his own money which redound to the very great advantage of the soldier settlers. In the first place, we have effected

arrangements with all, or at least all the principal manufacturers of agricultural implements, whereby the manufacturers of implements use their organization for the delivery of the implements the soldier may choose, and they get those implements to the soldier at the wholesale factory price, and the wholesale cash price at that, without any further charge whatever. In addition to that, the manufacturers pay the cost of distribution. They pay the agent's commission for handling the implements. The soldier pays nothing at all except the ordinary bulk freight rate on his implements, and the wholesale cash price.
As regards harness, a still better arrangement has been made. The general saving which he makes on harness is 30 per cent of the retail price. It is even less than the wholesale price, and he gets his choice. Our arrangement is such that the payment is made through the board. The manufacturer of harness has no difficulty whatever. Shortly after the harness is delivered he gets his pay. Owing to the fact that there were considerable stocks on hand, we made an especially advantageous arrangement as regards that commodity. An arrangement is made as well whereby the wholesale price is secured for the soldier for his hardware. He can get it where he likes and pays the wholesale cash price and no more. He pays the wholesale cash price also for his lumber. They do not generally buy in less than car-^ loads, in which case they get the mill price, but if they do not all they pay is the actual disbursement in handling. The same arrangements have been effected as to the other commodities he buys, and I have here tables to show what the soldier settler saves at each point and what he would have to pay if he were buying, as an ordinary purchaser. The total he saves is a most substantial sum. I do hot think I should delay the committee or burden Hansard with a recital of the various advantages he enjoys.
Mr. 'QAHILL: If it is not too long I think it should go on Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: It is rather long, but I can give some instances. I suppose it should be put on Hansard. The first point I have is Calgary. The average saving that he has from the United Grain Growers' ordinary price-and they have an especial arrangement for distribution at the lowest prices- is 13 per cent; 15 per cent, John Deere Company; 9 per cent, Massey-Harris; 18 per cent, Coekshutt Company; 19 per cent, International Harvester Company. He saves

30 per cent from all manufacturers of harness at Calgary; 20 per cent off the cash price for all lumber used. At Edmonton the rates on implements run as follows: 18 per cent, 14 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent, 16 per cent, an average of 16 per cent better than the ordinary purchaser of implements; and on harness the saving is 30 per cent. It runs that way throughout, except that at one point he saves actually 40 per cent on the purchase of harness. The board undertook some months ago to purchase stock, including horses.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will these rates and arrangements apply in the older provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the arrangements as to stock and implements apply to every province.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will these figures be placed on record?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. At Vancouver the average rate saved on implements is 14 per cent, harness 30 per cent, lumber 20 per cent. At Victoria, implements 13 per cent, harness 30 per cent, lumber 30 per cent. At Saskatoon, 15 and 11 f5er cent on implements from different manufacturers and 30 per cent on harness. There is no figure for lumber there, but it would be 20 per cent. At Regina the rates are 14 and 11 per cent on implements from the United Grain Growers' and John Deere Company respectively; 30 per cent on harness and 20 per cent on lumber. At Winnipeg, the United Grain Growers, 14 per cent; Massey-Harris, 9 per cent; International Harvester Company, 17 per cent; Coekshutt Plough Company, 13 per cent; John Deere, 15 per cent; Canadian Fairbanks-Morse, 15 per cent; on harness from 27 per cent to 40 per cent. In lumber the reduction in price at Winnipeg is 19 per cent. At Toronto on implements, the Massey-Harris, 15 per cent, the International Harvester 20 per cent. Harness, 26 per cent and lumber 20 per cent.


Mr. COPP:: Are those reductions on the retail prices?


Arthur Meighen: The retail cash prices.
I have not the figures for Montreal. In Halifax the rate is 14 per cent on implements. I have not the figures for harness there but I presume the same arrangements obtain. At Charlottetown the rates are 20 per cent on lumber and 20 per cent on implements.
We ventured upon the rather perilous enterprise of purchasing horses and cattle.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Do these prices apply to purchases hy soldiers who are not taking advantage of the Soldier Settlement Act?


Arthur Meighen: All that a soldier has to do who is buying his own land is to go before a qualification board and he is passed and entered upon our list and is then entitled to all these advantages.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would that apply to a soldier at home with his father?


Arthur Meighen: No, the soldier has to be a settler. I shall conclude what I was dealing with and come back to that. We purchase, 'through the best experts we can obtain at each point, horses and stock, each animal being examined and passed as sound and fitted for the purpose for which it is required. It is then sold to the settler at the price of purchase. The Board believe they have extraordinarily efficient means for purchasing this class of stock. Indeed, that has been proved. The purpose is to guard the returned man against any possibility of imposition at the hands of shrewder men than himself. We do not prevent a man from buying his own but the soldiers are coming more and more to buy through the Board and that fact indicates their belief that they get better results.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Have you a maximum price for horses?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the maximum I think is $200. The average prices that have been paid for horses in each province are very interesting. In Calgary in the month of April the number of horses purchased and sold to settlers is 118; milch cows, 39; cattle, 60; swine, 9; poultry, 79. The average cost per head of horses is $145.79. In Saskatchewan, where a great deal more has been done in the way of stock and equipment, particularly in stock purchases, the average price for horses is $133.82; milch cows, $108.62; and for other cattle, $49.58. The average for horses in Vancouver has been $180; the average at Victoria office, $174; the average at the Saskatoon office, $177.51; at the Regina office, $160.73; at the Winnipeg office, $179.86; at Halifax, $161.43.
We did the same to all classes of stock as we did in regard to horses. There is a point that I omitted 'to note as I went hurriedly past. While our maximum of $7,500 is the total liability as respects the individual soldier-a high maximum indeed-we have a special provision whereby men who have had adequate and successful farm experience in Canada and are qualified by
the possession of equipment, or other special qualifications-we have always so far required them to be married-may acquire land without paying the ten per cent, and may secure a loan up to a maximum, in those special cases, of $8,000. While the maximum in general is $7,500 and in special cases $8,000 the adtual fact is that the average loan is $3,394.


Frank S. Cahill: And (the average acreage?


Arthur Meighen: I have not the average acreage. The average loan to 4,262 men is $3,394. As a man's security gets better and he demonstrates the fact that he is succeeding, he can come back and his application for a further loan will be considered.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Wha't is the limit of the loan?


Arthur Meighen: On improvements, stock and equipment the limit in general is $7,500, but in the special cases that I have described, of which there are very few, the limit is $8,000. Such has been the operation of the board up to this time. I think I have covered the major part of the work.
I should have said, however, that we have been assisting the soldier in the building of bis-house. We have provided him with suitable plans free and information which will enable him to build his house at the price fixed in the plan. We have had plans of two or three types of houses prepared and we give such information along with the plan as will enaible the soldier to erect the building within the limits fixed thereby. However, we are expanding that branch of the service and,, under the direction of Colonel Foster of British Columbia, a returned man, we are arranging to assist the returned soldier in the erection of his house by eo-operation with firms engaged in the actual work. We believe that in doing that we can still further reduce the cost to the soldier of building his home.
That covers, in the main, the activities of the board. From this on we will engage more largely than we have in the past in encouraging the small holding farm because we feel that we have now got to the stage where we have sufficient information to enable us, without too great risk, to launch upon this phase of our work.


Mr. FRIPP:: Before the minister takes his seat, would he be kind enough to tell us what the Government propose to do for

the men who are not farmers, what assistance is to he rendered to the mechanic, and wage earner, who has served at the front, to rehabilitate and re-establish him in his profession or calling? Is any provision to be made or is ithere to be class legislation entirely for those who wish to take up land?


Arthur Meighen: The question naturally has received some thought. This is settlement legislation. I explained at the beginning that the Government, in addressing itself to this work, in venturing to attack it, had overstepped the usual line of the division of responsibility that had been observed up to this time when we got beyond the stage of settlement on Dominion lands. So long as we were within that end of it, we of course were doing nothing beyond what had always been recognized as the duty of the Dominion. When we get on private lands we are going beyond that; not that we are going beyond our constitutional powers, because we cannot do that, but we are assuming a responsibility that ordinarily devolves upon the provincial authority and not upon us. However we felt, under all the circumstances, that it was our duty to do it and inasmuch as the settlement of Dominion lands have been under the Department of the Interior, because those lands were administered by the Department of the Interior, soldier settlement on these lands necessarily came under that department as well. Ordinarily speaking this much more extended sphere of work that we have now launched upon is agricultural and pertains to the Department of Agriculture more properly than it does to the Department of the Interior. It would not be practicable-at least it would be very difficult- to administer Dominion land settlement under the Department of the Interior and have private agricultural lands administered by another department. But what I am trying to point out to ,the hon. member (Mr. Fripp) is that in so far as I, the Minister of the Interior, am concerned, I am certainly at the limit of my powers in venturing to administer such an extensive scheme of land settlement as this. If assistance is to be given to soldiers who wish to follow their avocation it would not come under me. It would be a general question which would be taken up by the Government as a whole and the inquiry should be addressed to the Government as a whole rather than to myself as administering that phase of the work. But in the consideration of the question the House should keep

in mind that in taking care of land settlement in general on private lands, as well as on federal lands, we are already carrying the Dominion responsibility to a very great length indeed. Of course, the policy of the Government as regards housing, has special application to returned men and that is the policy of assistance to the provinces by way of loan for that purpose. It is very difficult indeed to venture upon any scheme of assistance, particularly one administered centrally and extending over the tremendous area of the Dominion, where the security is anything else than land. Whether it will be or not, it might be better administered under local authority and local control.


Mr. McQUABRIE:: Does the Government contemplate any assistance towards clearing land? In my own province, as the minister knows, a great part of the lands which would be available for settlement are covered with numerous large stumps. Of course, it is impossible to ask the returned soldier to go on land of that kind without first taking the stumps out. I was wondering if it would not be possible for the Government to make some kind of an investigation with a view to assisting in the removal of these stumps. This is a very important question and I can inform the House and the minister that it requires consideration if we are to make a success of land settlement in British Columbia.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman must remember that this is a settlement scheme, not a clearing or improvement enterprise. Consequently, it is a basic principle that before the Soldier Settlement Board takes hold of land it must be fit for settlement, it must be land upon which the soldier can go and make a living. It may be that much obit will require clearing, but so long as he can make a living on the land that is cleared, or make a living in the process of clearing it, then he is encouraged, if he desires to go on it; but we do not, as a board, take hold of land of that kind and endeavour to make settlement land of it. That question came up in connection with the handling of provincial crown lands, the great bulk of which are of the type described by the hon. gentleman-not necessarily stump land, but something a lot harder, and very often land that would cost more, or as much, to clear than the soldier could afford to pay for it if he intended to meet his interest, discharge his obligation, and make provision for himself and family. So we came to this general

conclusion: That before the Dominion could interest itself in private lands, or in provincial crown lands, those lands must be brought >to such a state of clearing; to such a state of suitability for agriculture from the ppint of view of roads, of even schools, and ordinary settlement advantages as *would put them on a parity with the Dominion crown lands of the West upon which we loan. If they were brought -to such a stage that a man could go on that land, and do as the farmer does upon ordinary land,- use his lumber and the like, and by living on it make a livelihood-then we offer no discouragement at all, we help him all we can; but we do not set ourselves up as an institution, using for the purpose the capital of Canada, to bring stump land, or any other land, into ordinary settlement conditions.


Henry Arthur Mackie: What is this Government going to do for the returned soldier in the case of Alberta where the provincial government refuses .to take advantage of a federal loan in connection with the housing problem?


Arthur Meighen: One course would be to wait until the provincial government has changed its mind. I do not think we can have a separate policy in that regard.


Henry Arthur Mackie: My information is that the Alberta Government has declined to take advantage of the loan. In that event, iwhat is the policy of the Dominion Government on the housing problem in the interest of the returned soldier in AlbertatL.


Arthur Meighen: My answer still stands. No other course has been decided upon, or is open to us, except that of treating all the provinces alike.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the House rose we had reached clause 2, definitions. Shall clause 2 carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister had not quite finished his -statement at one o'clock. I intended asking him a few questions before he goes into the further details of the Bill. Could he tell us, first, what land owned by the Government, they intend to utilize in connection with this soldier settlement, stating the area in each province; and also what land, if any, the Government has purchased, its location, and the price per acre.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's question has to do with the purchase of land, and intimates an assumption that we buy land and then hold it for sale to the soldiers. That is not the principle followed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood the minister to say that that was done.


Arthur Meighen: I will explain. We do buy land and resell it to soldiers, but the ^plan of operation is to allow the soldier to select his land first-not from the land we own, but wherever he wants it. He selects his farm, he comes to an arrangement as to what he is prepared to pay, and then the office of the board is, through its inspector, to see that he is not paying too much and, if necessary, to have the price reduced before the board will itself purchase the land. The price having been brought down to a satisfactory basis, the board buys the land for the soldier and accompanies the purchase by a resale agreement to him. We do not buy areas of land and trust to its being suitable for soldiers. It may be that we have on hand some areas that we bought, but I do not think we have. I do not think the board is to-day the owner of any land that has not been selected and already purchased by soldiers.
Of course, it would be incorrect to say that we have now no land for soldiers, for we have Crown lands of various kinds. Throughout the Prairie Provinces, of course, all the homestead land is available for them, and that still runs into many millions of acres, but it is not to any extent close to railways and at the same time suitable for agriculture. But, over a year ago, we reserved from homestead settlement all land within fifteen miles of a railway, and it is on that land that the soldier alone has been able to settle since. We reserve other parcels of land, wherever asked for, for .special disposition to soldiers. Where a number oi soldiers want to settle together, while we cannot hinder them, yet we do not offer them any help if they are going to settle on the community system and all assume the burden of the conditions. We do not encourage that system and have nothing to do with any such community. We do, however, permit them to gather in communities if they wish to work together and buy and sell together on the co-operative plan, but vve insist in every case on individual responsibility to the board itself, and we see that every individual soldier gets the full value of his money so far as that, money is supplied by the board. !

In addition to the fifteen-mile strip in proximity to each railroad we have reserved many special areas for returned soldiers. For example, last year it seemed to me that the time had come tc finally clear up the many complicated questions that had arisen with respect to the Doukho-hor community in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not mean to recite the long history of that community and the various attempts that were made to have the Doukhohors comply with the law. Many of them complied, resulting in a rather complicated condition of affairs as to the holding of the different sets of land in the community. But after inspections and. negotiations we finally succeeded in clearing up the whole district, so that now there is nothing in the way of a Doukho-bor community, as a community; that is a thing of the past in the province of Saskatchewan so far as Dominion lands are concerned. Wherever the lands were reserved for Doukhohors, and they were still doing in a measure, but not wholly, the homestead duties, we cleaned up the whole thing, and we sold to the heads of families their fair proportion of that land at an unimproved valuation of, I think, $10 per acre. They paid for that and we took the individual responsibility of the head of each family. After determining what they all were entitled to, there was finally left an area of about 64 quarter-sections of land, which were taken out of the reserve once and for all, and uiose 64 quarter-sections we have made available for returned soldiers. That land of course is away above the ordinary homestead land in value, and as a consequence it would not have been fair to the soldiers generally to have opened it for entry, and in the meantime it was too soon to deal with it otherwise in view of the large number of soldiers still overseas. So wre leased the land, chiefly to returned soldiers, for this-year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it broken land?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and much of it is improved. Some of it is worth $40 or $50 an acre. What I contemplate as the fairest method of dealing with that land is to put a fair valuation on it, not the outside limit, and to sell it under the ordinary terms, because I think it is only just that some attempt should be made to build up an insurance fund to take care of what will necessarily follow-a certain amount of loss in connection with this phase of the enterprise. Therefore, in dealing with lands of an ex-

ceptional value, such as those, it seemed to me that the sale price should be paid.
It will also be noted that some days ago we took considerable areas for this purpose out of the forest reserves. That class of land is not by any means as valuable as the 64 quarter-sections taken from the Doukhobor reserve. I may say that that plan of dealing with the Doukhobor reserve in Saskatchewan, as it finally eventuated, met with the satisfaction not only of the community, but of the other people of the district, including the returned soldiers' organization. They felt that they had been fairly dealt with and expressed their satisfaction with the course taken.
As regards land taken from the forest reserves, the principal reservation is in the Porcupine reserve. That is being opened up for entry on July 2. But we do not propose to allow homestead entry there, but only entry by returned men. A special survey has been made of the land and the idea is that there will be 240 acres available for each man. It is mixed farming land, leaning to stock raising rather than to grain farming land, although undoubtedly it is a grain farming country too. We purpose giving the men who are successful in the allotment one quarter-section each, reserving the immediately adjoining 80 acres to be used by the soldier under some arrangement with the board in the meantime, pending his. establishing that he is farming his 160 acres properly and is going to succeed in discharging his obligations, in which event it is intended to sell that 80 acres to him at not its full value, but at some fair valuation, based, of course, upon inspection in each case. Then there are lands that have been held for stock-


Arthur Bliss Copp: In this Porcupine district are the soldiers who settle there entitled to a loan for stock?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they will be entitled to the loan of $2,500 provided for by the Act of 1917, in addition to the advantage which the soldier has' had since March this year, namely, the right to a further loan for stock, implements and improvements. He does not get the full $4,500 that the man gets who buys, because he gets the bounty of the Crown in getting his land; his maximum, therefore, in every case, will be $4,500. He does not get that, of course, unless there is some additional security in the land.


Frank S. Cahill: Have the Government arrived at any basis upon which they will allot this land in the reserves?

Mr. MEIGiHBN:	It is being done by a
system of drawing lots; the whole plan has been worked out and is accepted as satisfactory. I do not like the chance system, but I do not know of any other. From all appearances, there is going to be a rush for these lands more resembling a Klondike rush than anything else. We have had to put up tents on the grounds and provide for the accommodation of the soldiers who are going to be there for entry on the 2nd of July.


Frank S. Cahill: I suppose that the plans
and regulations can be obtained from the Department of the Interior?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, all details can be had from the Soldier Settlement Board, Union Bank building.
There is one other matter to which I wish to call attention. Under the 1917 Act the soldier homesteader is entitled to a loan of $2,500. That is not added to, except in this way:	He is not entitled to the improvement loan of $1,000, because his $2,500 is all he gets on his land; but he is entitled to the loan of $2,000 for stock, and implements, provided the total amount he get does not exceed $3,000. It is felt that if we assist the homesteader by a loan on his land and by a loan for stock and implements, the whole aggregating $3,000, inasmuch as he gets his land free he has no cause of complaint when he compares his position with that of the man who buys his land. As regards the man who owns his land, and, under the 1917 Act was entitled only to a loan of $2,500; to him we grant the privilege of application for the $2,000 for stock and implements and the $1,000 for improvements, provided his total does not exceed $5,500. It will be noted that we do not do the same for the man who owns his land as we do for the man who buys his land and becomes a settler. From some points of view that may appear hard to justify, but the reason is this: The great purpose of the soldier settlement scheme is not to become a big loan venture, not to take the place of loaning companies, but to make men settlers. It is a settlement institution, not a loaning institution; you do not make a man a settler merely by assisting him. But because we assist so much those who become settlers, we cannot altogether deny help to those who already are settlers; so we have decided that this is a fair arrangement to make with regard to the returned soldier who is a farmer, owns his land, and is therefore entitled to some of the advantages of our general scheme. Having said that, I
think that I have answered, in the main, the question put through this morning by the member for North Perth JMr. Morphy).
I omitted to mention this morning, one feature of the activities of the board. Some little time ago the board established a branch known as the Home Branch, or domestic science branch, the purpose of which is to assist the soldier's wife. The head of that branch is Mrs. Muldrew, who for many years has qualified herself for this work. Indeed, she was previously engaged in work of a similar character, and is the best person we could possibly get to assume the responsibility of this branch of the work. The Home Branch endeavours, by a system of circulars and correspondence, to help the soldier's wife in her domestic work and in the management of the home, and to prevent, as far as possible, waste and extravagance there. One assistant in each province undertakes the responsibility of the work for that province, and supplements the correspondence by actual visits to the homes of the soldier settlers. That is as far as the organization as yet has gone. In the United States this branch of the agricultural work has reached a considerable degree of efficiency; indeed, it is looked upon there as, perhaps, the most useful phase of the work of the Department of Agriculture. We are trying it in the soldier settlement work-so far, we have every reason to believe, with considerable success.
I think I have finished about all that 1 should say before we come to the actual clauses of the Bill, except that I .should forecast, in general, the main provisions of this legislation so far as they amplify the powers that the board has already exercised under the^Orders passed. Under the main basic order regarding private lands, that is, the Order of the 11th of February, the board had power to acquire, by purchase, gift or otherwise, lands for sale for soldiers and to acquire stock and implements for the same purpose. But they have no .power to take the land by expropriation, if satisfactory terms could not be arranged with the owners. The power of expropriation was one which we did not feel justified in taking by Order in Council; moreover, it was a power which, for the time being, we did not require, as sufficient lands were available and were being offered for sale to make it reasonably certain that, without expropriation, there would be little, if any, difficulty in providing all the soldiers who would come in with suitable lands for their purposes. At the same time, we cannot altogether rest on the basis of voluntary purchase. There will be

lands which we will have to expropriate; consequently this Bill vests power in the board to take lands by expropriation. There is no intention, nor does the Bill evidence any intention, of taking from any man land for soldier settlement which is now reasonably utilized; the only purpose is to compel the owners of lands of which an unreasonable proportion is idle to place those lands at the disposal of the board at a fair price. Consequently in this Act provision is made whereby the board can declare settlement areas in various portions of the country wherever there appears to be land being withheld from utilization and the holders of which are not disposed to sell at a reasonable price so that the lands can be settled under this Bill. When a settlement area is declared, the Bill provides that certain results ensue. It becomes the duty of the owners of the land within those areas to state a price to the board at which they will sell, and to answer questionnaires which will give to the board an adequate knowledge of the land owned by them-of its character, the te^ms of holding, all the parties interested therein, and so forth. So the whole country, immediately this Act passes will not become subject to expropriation without discrimination. The board must first of all, by gazetting, declare a certain sphere of land a settlement area, and the land within that area so defined then becomes subject to the operations of the board, and the duties that the Act prescribes fall upon the owners of the land within that area.


Mr. GRIBSBACH:: These provisions do not apply to land that is settled.


Arthur Meighen: They refer only to land that is not being settled. The fact that only a negligible percentage of land was under cultivation would not protect, it from expropriation. If the owner is not using very much of the land now, he must show that he has facilities in sight with which to cultivate it in the near future. If he is a farmer, for instance, with some sons growing up, he will be dealt with differently from the speculator in the city who is merely withholding the land from cultivation for speculative purposes. The principle the board will follow is embodied in the Act. It would be manifestly impossible to prescribe hard and fast rules that would be applicable everywhere, and indeed, impossible to prescribe hard and fast rules that would be applicable anywhere, but the principle is embodied in the Bill, and it will be the duty of the board to live up to it. fMr. Meighen.]
I should have said this morning, in connection with the operations of the board, that the total investment of this country in this plan up to the 14th of June was $14,467,974. I should also have explained when giving the figures as to the number of horses and other animals sold, and the average price per horse, and so forth, that those figures were not by any means the totals for the provinces concerned.
Another feature of the Bill that will re-qfftre some discussion is the class of men who are to come within its pale, tinder the terms of the old Act the soldier of the armies of Great Britain or of any of the Dominions was entitled to the same rights as the soldier in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and the soldier in any of the armies of the Allies was entitled to equal rights, providing he was ordinarily resident in Canada. If in the army of Great Britain, or of the other Diminions, he did not need to be a resident of Canada; he was defined and included in the term "settler" just the same as the Canadian soldier. In this connection I want to explain that in the actual operation of the Aot we have never yet got to the point of admitting any of the soldiers of the Imperial army or of the armies of the other Dominions, for the reason that the onrush of applications was always sufficient from our orwn soldiers to exhaust the capacity of the Board to take care of them, and we deemed it our duty first to take care of the soldiers of Canada, for the reason mainly that Canadian applications-almost eighty per cent of them had had experience of farming in Canada-came from men who were more likely to succeed in this country even than successful farmers out of the British army. As a consequence, the doors have never yet been opened to any other class of men except those ordinarily resident in Canada who served in the Canadian army or in the armies of the Allies. That is to say, we have dealt so far only with Canadian citizens, or citizens from the United States, let us say, who served in the Canadian army.
The definition of "settler" as it will be found in this Act if accepted by the Committee and the House will be virtually the same as under the old Act. There is some alteration, but that can better be discussed when we come to details. It is not, however, the purpose of the Board to admit at once to the privileges of the Act settlers from other countries in the armies of Great Britain or the Allies, and in admitting to

the privileges of the Act soldiers of other armies who were not ordinarily resident in Canada before the war, the Bill gives the Board power to exact a larger percentage of cash price (than is exacted from soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I think it will likely be the part of wisdom for the Board to exercise that power, because, however successful a man might have been in agriculture in another country, he will not, other things being equal, be as successful in Canada as a man who has been engaged in agriculture in this country, there is no back-to-the-land movement so good as the movement of the soldiers of the country back-to-the-land in Canada. That is the best back-to-the-land movement there can be in the world, and consequently we propose to push that to the fullest, and in admitting to the privileges of the Act other than the soldiers of this country we believe it will be the part of wisdom to lay down rather more strict provisions than are applicable to Canadian men.


Peter McGibbon: Can we feel
reasonably assured that the men who never went beyond Canada will come under this Act in the near future?


Arthur Meighen: In the Bill as now submitted the only men who did not go beyond Canada who will be admitted to the privileges of the Act are those who were injured in Canada, or whose injuries, previously .sustained, were aggravated in Canada.
Let me emphasize in this connection, and this has particularly to do with the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa this morning as to extending these or similar benefits to other than farmers, that the great primary object of this Bill is not to afford a gratuity or reward to the soldier. If that were its basic principle and its first purpose, it would inevitably follow that the same gratuity or reward, or one on equal scale, would have to be extended to all. The primary and great principle of this Bill is to secure settlers on the lands of this country-to secure settlement of our idle lands, and to make settlers of those who have proven themselves the backbone and stay of the nation in its trouble. We believe that we cannot better fortify this country against the waves of unrest and discontent that now assail us, as all the rest of the world, than by making the greatest possible proportion of the soldiers of our country settlers upon our land. Of course, every class of citizen is necessary to constitute the national life, but the class of citizen that counts the most in the determination of the
stability of a country against such forces as I mentioned a moment ago is undoubtedly the basic class-the agricultural class. That class is the mainstay of the nation. So the purpose of this Bill is a national one primarily. Its purpose is to strengthen the fibre of this country by building into the basic industrial structure of the best blood and bones of our nation.
I stated at the opening that we were giving assistance at a scale more liberal than had ever been undertaken by any institution looking to financial profit, and that is essential. We believe that we shall in the main be protected against loss, first of all by the advantages that we give these men, leaving them free to discharge their obligations and make a living for their families untrammelled by the many burdens which the ordinary settler has to carry. That, we think, is our first security against loss. We believe that the system of supervision that we shall exercise will be the second; and the character of the men, as selected by our qualification boards will be the third,-the last but not the least. Nevertheless, with all these precautions we are certain to have some loss. It would be entirely chimerical to imagine that we can venture without some loss upon this field of activity, into which I think no other nation has ever yet entered, at all events on the scale which we now have in view. Indeed, no other country has ever yet attempted to do the work that is being undertaken by the board in the way of provision of chattels, stock, and equipment. So far as I know, this is distinctly a new venture not launched upon in any other country that conducts, either through the state or otherwise, enterprises of a similar character. As I say, it would be futile to hope that we can save ourselves from loss altogether, but it is a matter of encouragement to find, looking over the whole class of men who have come in and are now settlers by virtue of our law, that there are very few, indeed, who are not adapting themselves to their environment and who are not actually cultivating the land in the most promising manner. Of those who might be said to be not altogether promising-they are not many-most if not all came in and settled under the 1917 Act before any system of selection whatever was in force. The men had the right under that Act to go in and take homesteads, and once they took their homesteads they could come and get loans. Some of those are not succeeding, but so far even that proportion is not large. We find, however, much better results where the men have been first of

all selected, their experience inquired into, and all their qualifications ascertained. When that is done we find a much less percentage of loss-indeed, very little, if any, prospect of loss-among those so settled, Consequently this Bill, which aims at still further protecting the soldier against imposition than the various methods I have outlined would do; which -aims at the extension of our work beyond even the successes that have been so far achieved; which aims, in a word, at making this one of the greatest settlement schemes in the world, I commend to the committee. This Bill, having those great objects in view, I commend to the best consideration of the committee and of Parliament.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Will this Bill be applicable to returned nursing sisters who have served overseas with the military forces?


Arthur Meighen: No. The purpose ot
the Bill is settlement and the only women who come within its provisions are widows of fallen soldiers. They are included because it was felt, first, that they had a special claim, and secondly, because very frequently widows of soldiers have boys growing up who can render material assistance and make the proposition one of actual settlement. The ordinary nurse, I am afraid, could not come within that promising class, and I do not think that returned nurses should, in their own interests, be encouraged to make settlement on land their occupation in life.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But suppose a nursing sister gets married and wishes to. settle on land. Would she not be qualified?


Arthur Meighen: No. We are not helping men who marry nurses. We are helping returned soldiers.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: "Settler" is defined as a person who at any time during the war " has been therein engaged on active service in a military force." Does'not that definition include nursing sisters?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps under a strict legal interpretation it might. But as a matter of right, the soldier is not entitled to anything. It is all in the discretion of the board, and the policy of the board is definitely not to include women.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I ask the question because I have already had an application from a nursing sister who is desirous to have a homestead, and that matter, I un-
[Mr Metehen.l
derstand, is under the consideration of the department at present. '


Arthur Meighen: No. I do not propose to include women.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of returns made by commanding officers, has the minister any idea of the average number of soldiers who intend settling on land?


Arthur Meighen: As I said this morning, the number of applications is 17,450, up to the 14th of June. In this connection, it must be remembered that the Act has really been in operation only since about March. The chairman of the board is very loath to give anything in the way of an estimate, but if he were compelled to give one he would say that the prospects are that under the Bill we shall settle between
30,000	and 50,000 Canadian soldiers.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there a maximum price for land, and is the soldier permitted to buy improved land where he may find it at a proper price?


Arthur Meighen: He is permitted to buy improved land but no maximum price has been fixed, because, for example, in British Columbia, the proper method of farming in certain districts might be to own five or ten acres of improved property which might be all he could afford to venture upon with the assistance the board provides, and it might be at a considerable figure per acre.
So that no object could he served in fixing a maximum per acre.


Frank S. Cahill: Suppose a soldier gets a quarter-section in Saskatchewan. He borrows money at five per cent and secures equipment. In the event of his desiring to dispose of his rights. what will be his position?


Arthur Meighen: Under the Order in Council he cannot sell without the consent of the board and this condition will continue if this Bill passes. I may say that a similar provision obtains in Australia, . and it is manifestly necessary. We cannot permit a man to come in under the Bill and immediately sell to some one else who may at once desert the land. We have the supervision of each settlement, and the purpose of the board is to make the settler and not somebody else a success as a farmer.


Frank S. Cahill: What will the board do if one returned soldier is willing to assume another soldier's obligations?


Arthur Meighen: It would all depend on the maximum advantage. We are not go-tag to let any man sell unless we are assured that he is likely to fail and that it is in his interests to sell. In a word, the talisman in every case is the interest of the soldier.


Mr. MANION:: What line of co-operation is 'being pursued at present between, say, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, or any provinces which are not distinctly prairie provinces, and the Soldier Settlement Board, in the way of getting settlers on their lands?


Arthur Meighen: The Bill provides, as the Order in Council provided, that we may make arrangements with the provinces for utilization of provincial Crown lands. We have adopted the policy not to interest ourselves in provincial Crown lands unless they have been brought to such a stage as to clearance, etc., as to be reasonably fit for a man to make a living on it immediately. In other words, these lands must be on a level with ordinary homestead land as regards sustaining a family; and from the point of view of roads, schools, accessibility to railways, etc., they must be of such a character that it would be desirable to encourage settlement on them.
We do not intend to take provincial Crown lands and do the work of the provinces on these lands. We have enough to do with regard to our own lands. It is for the province to place the land in that position, and then, if they will permit that land to be handled by the board, we are ready to make any fair rate with them.


Robert James Manion: The reason I asked that question is that I noticed in regard to the details given by the minister in his very able exposition of this exceedingly large scheme, that out of all the soldiers who have so far settled on the land, numbering 11,518, 7,812, or roughly two-thirds, have been,granted lands in the Prairie Provinces. I have no objection to settlers going to the three Prairie Provinces. It would naturally be to the advantage of Canada that these three Prairie Provinces should be settled and developed, but it is a source of regret to men from Northern Ontario, particularly, and probably from some of the other provinces, such as British Columbia and Quebec, which have large areas of bush land, to see that this scheme gives them so little benefit. In saying this I do not mean to imply that there is any discrimination, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the bush lands
will derive very little of the benefits that are to accrue from the carrying out of this project. For instance, in Northern Ontario there are thousands of acres of good land- bush land, I admit-throughout the clay belt. There is an area extending a thousand miles from Winnipeg to north of Ottawa in Northern Ontario through which three lines of railway run. These three lines of railway pass through a territory which is practically unproductive in traffic except mineral. Those pioneers who have settled in the district of Cochrane, Cobalt and in my own district at the head of the Lakes, have made a very fine success of the land which they have taken up. I happened, by a coincidence, to get a letter to-day from a farmer in my riding about another matter, and I think it is worth while to put part of it on Hansard, because it illustrates the capabilities of that country. The writer of this letter says:
I am in my sixty-fifth year and while I have done nothing astounding yet I have been a useful citizen and the pioneer of this settlement. I started in 1893 with thirteen acres under cultivation, a team and wagon paid for, $1,000 of debt, and a large family of small children. With frugality, sobriety and steady application, I have a few thousands to spare after making ample provision for the maintenance of my wife and myself during our lifetime ; so I have no complaint.
Here is a settler who went into that country as a pioneer twenty-six years ago and made good. There are hundreds of other farmers in that district who can make an equally good showing and the reason I am taking up the time of the committee is that I would like to see some scheme worked out by the board, the minister and the provinces, such as the province ol Ontario and the other provinces to which this argument applies, whereby they would get a portion of these lands settled up by these returned soldiers, because a better class of citizens could not be found.


James Arthurs: I would like to call the attention of the minister to a case of a number of soldiers who went overseas from Northern Ontario. They were locatees and had started work on their farms. They are in doubt as to whether they are entitled to receive assistance from the board. I would like the minister to make it clear whether any advance can be made to these men who have come back to their old farms which they are clearing. Can they get an advance, such as is made to other returned soldiers who are taking up land, or in case they do not ask for an advance, can they take advantage of those cheap prices for machinery, harness, etc? Provided a man



does not ask for anything in the way of a loan, is there any provision whereby he can take advantage of the other privileges?
Mr. (MEIGKHEN: I am just a little doubtful whether a man on provincial crown lands, that he does not own, can come under the law now. I do not think he can become a settler under the Act and be entitled to an advance for machinery, etc. iBut under this statute we will be enabled to make arrangements with the provinces whereby we will be able to do that. We ' want to do it. I do not see why a man who is located on provincial crown lands, if he has something that he can make a living on, should be denied one iota of assistance given to the man who located on Dominion crown lands. There should be no discrimination in that regard provided of course the province is ready to do for us what we can do for ourselves in regard to Dominion lands; that is to say, give us the land as security. In the case of the provincial crown lands such as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has just described, and of which I know there are considerable areas, we hope to make an arrangement with the provinces whereby they will place this land at our disposal for soldier settlement, the board to supply the money needed to purchase stock and equipment just the same as if the soldier were settling on Dominion land with the provision that if the soldier makes good and keeps the land it is all over and the [DOT]province has no interest in it; nor has the Dominion. That is the purpose that the provinces have in mind in dealing with these lands; they want the lands settled, but they do not want anything out of them. In the event of the soldier not succeeding and the lands reverting to the board, then it would seem a fair arrangement that the board should hold the land only for what was then against it and that after that the province should take the land. That might be worked out. If there is to be given to the province a supervision as to the amount advanced in the first place, accepting the approval of the province to it, and then if the soldier abandons the land, we can give the province the option of repurchase at the amount against the land. That would be, it seems to me, a fair arrangement as to provincial Crown lands. If the provinces will enter into an arrangement of that kind there should be no difficulty in our going ahead with it.


James Arthurs: How will it be where the soldier already has title?


Arthur Meighen: If the soldier has title the matter is all right now. He can come in at once and get $2,500 on his land, $2,000 on his chattels, and $1,000 for improvements just the same as the others provided he passes the qualification board and subject to the qualifications the same as other people.


Michael Clark: If I may be permitted, I should like to express to the committee my own feeling of great appreciation of the lucid explanation the minister has given to the scheme and the strong, further evidence he has afforded to us of the tremendous zeal with which he does an almost incalculable amount of public service. I should like, coupled with that expression of opinion, to voice the hope that this scheme will meet with the generous success which such zeal ought to obtain. I say that being as fully alive as I think the average farmer who has been a settler in the West for eighteen years may be to the difficulties of the scheme, I should be less than human in sympathy if I elaborated those difficulties to the minister because I know that he is well aware of them even by this time in the chronology of the launching of this effort. The amount of public money that will be laid out in the long run, supposing a forecast of the board is at all accurate, it may be readily calculated, will be between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000.
Well, that is a large sum of money. I am bound to say that, listening to the minister, I thought that every possible human safeguard that could be devised had been devised. I think that those responsible for . the scheme have gone into it with the utmost care, but it would not be right, perhaps, if some member of the Committee didn't put himself on record as seeing what the difficulties of the scheme are. From
30,000	to 50,000 returned soldiers settled upon 'the land would, I am sure, to every member of this Committee, be a most desirable thing to bring about, but having regard to the psychology of those soldiers, one cannot help having very grave doubts about the retaining of them on the land.
I have had a little personal difficulty with some returned soldiers myself, and there has been considerable difficulty in retaining some who have had the chance of going on the land under much more favourable conditions than are offered under this scheme.
I am glad the minister made it clear to the Committee that this is a scheme for the benefit of Canada; it is not primarily, I take it, a scheme for the benefit of the returned soldier. If it were represented as

such then one would feel that there was great cogency and force in the question which was put by my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) this morning, as to what we are going to do with the soldiers who do not get the benefit of going on to a half-section of land with a seven or eight thousand dollar debt. My hon. friend has not homesteaded in the West-at least I do not think so. I have. Therefore I probably view the benefits conferred upon the soldier under this scheme in a very different light, or from a very different angle, than from that of my hon. friend, and any other hon. gentleman in this House who does not know what the difficulties of settling and bringing a farm to success are, even with the great advantages of western Canada today. I say these things not with a view to offering any opposition to the scheme whatsoever, I wish it the most hearty and ample sucoess. I think that probably the Board and the Government will find, and successive governments which have this scheme to administer will find, that the greatest success will be attained in the handling of the two or three classes to whom the minister referred this morning. There are some men, I understand, going in for agricultural training; there are boys going in for training. That is a splendid guarantee in the first place that these men or boys will get enough knowledge of farming to be judges themselves of whether they are fitted to take up farming occupations and likely to succeed in them; and it is a splendid guarantee in the second place that if they do take up the occupation they will have attained the knowledge and the experience, and the training, which gives some reasonable prospect of success.
Among other difficulties attending the scheme-a scheme of unprecedented magnitude-will be found the fact that what we buy for the men going on the land at the present time in the way of cattle, and horses I very much fear will be bought at values which are not likely to be maintained in the course of a few years. I cannot myself, Mr. Chairman, I wish I could on personal grounds, look forward with any confidence to agricultural prices along these lines being maintained in the course of the coming years at the level at which they are now. That, of course, will put the soldier in the position of a man who, in so far as he has means, has invested in cattle or horses, has made a bad investment. It -will be different, however, with the land. We may look forward to land still appreciating
245i
in western Canada, and especially we may look forward to that if the success which this scheme deserves is in any fair measure obtained and we have these men settling on the land.
Now I have only one or two further observations to make, and one I am rather frightened to make in the presence of my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He chided me the other day with the fact that all roads lead to Rome with me-in other words, I cannot speax in this House without talking on the tariff. Well, I will try to put the matter as broadly as I can and not wound my hon. friend's susceptibilities; but I do want to point out very seriously to both sides of this House that a primary and fundamental condition to the success of this scheme is to make farming a profitable occupation. I think the Committee will agree with me in that broad proposition. If farming cannot be made, in the years that are ahead of Canada, a reasonably profitable occupation, then we are launching a huge scheme, at the instance of the Government, which is-foredoomed to failure, and we are committing almost a crime against the men whom we send farming. I put it so strongly be-, cause I am so sure of my ground. I would like to impress that upon this Committee because I want to go a little further and say, that having settled as a farmer in Western Canada 18 years ago, and being in touch with other farmers of all classes out there, farming was a purely paying occupation before the war. It is a great question if you can raise wheat for 65 cents a bushel as a paying proposition. I very much question if my hon. friend from Victoria, Alta. (Mr. W. H. White), who knows farming conditions in the West probably as well as any member in this House, won't agree with me in that matter.
4 p.m. He resembles myself in having endeavoured for years in the most honest and hardworking way to make farming pay, and he and I have had talks over this proposition in private. We are getting splendid prices for cattle just now. My farm put out steers last fall, two-year old steers, which brought $125 a head. But since I came to Canada, from the same farm three-year old steers have gone out for $36 a head. Just imagine a man bringing a calf into the world


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: -living with it for three and a half years, and then selling it for the magnificent sum of $36.


Jacques Bureau: Twelve dollars a year.


Michael Clark: Just think of
it: And that has actually happened to me since I came to Canada. Now I do not want to branch out on this subject or I shall be making another Budget speech and possibly a more practical one than I delivered last week. I do not want to go any further with this. Indeed, in speaking to the minister I am pretty well convinced I am speaking to a convert. He is a minister who comes from Western Canada, I have talked to him in private over the tariff and he is one who some years ago moved a resolution favouring a reduction in the duties on certain implements. But though he is himself in a measure converted on this question, I need not tell him, he knows too well, the stony ground he is operating on in Council; and I want him to bring the same ability, the same strength of character, and the same determination to bear upon that ground (in pointing out my final consideration) that he does to his general work in the political life of this country. Along that line I wish him also success, and I point out the only line on which his scheme can be made a success.
I want to close toy once more saying that I wish the minister's scheme a most generous amount of success. It wfill cost a lot of money, and it requires some imagination to see what are the benefits which will compensate for the expenditure of that money. If we can succeed in settling any fair proportion, say 30,000 to 50,000, of the gallant men who with the rest of our Allies defended the world,-if we can succeed in settling those men upon the lands of this fair Dominion, what a foundation we are laying for a citizenship, w'hat traditions of world service and national service we are building up for future generations to emulate. While it is easy to calculate the money that this scheme may cost, it is impossible for the human mind to calculate or 'to describe what benefits will accrue to Canada if we can embody these human elements,-the grandest in t-he world today, and the grandest that the world has ever produced-in the manhood which is to make the Canada of the future.


Frank S. Cahill: Could the minister tell us approximately what amount of land is owned by the Dominion Government in the area set apart and considered fit for soldiers' settlement? And another question while I am on my feet: Is it the custom of the department to pay cash for the land
f.Mr. M. dark.]
which they purchase before selling it to the soldiers?


Arthur Meighen: As to the first question, I have not at present an estimate of the amount of land within the 15-mile area that is fit for soldier settlement.


Frank S. Cahill: Is that being inspected?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I think, though, that Mr. Roland of the board is able to give an estimate after inspection by himself, but I am satisfied that the acreage is not sufficient to take care of the number of men we have settled already. In this connection, let me say that although this plan has been in operation virtually only since March last, the Dominion of Canada has, up to the present time, actually settled more men upon the land than have all the other Dominions of the Empire and Great Britain together by, I think, approximately 50 per cent.
Mr. CAHILL; Is the consideration for the land paid in cash?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is always paid for in cash.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the board invite holders of land in Western Canada to offer their land to the board for sale?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we invite offers for sale from everywhere. The number of sales that have been put through in Nova Scotia and in all the other provinces can be given, But where land is settled, as in the southern portion of Ontario, you cannot do very much more in the way of soldier settlement. We do not discriminate at all between the provinces; the soldier can go just where he likes, and the advantages of the scheme are applicable everywhere.


Mr. COOPER:: The hon. minister has emphasized that this is a national undertaking and not especially for returned soldiers. Would he define what soldiers are entitled to the benefits of this Bill? There are a large number of men who proceeded as far as Bermuda. Are they to be considered overseas men? A large number proceeded to Siberia, which cannot be defined as the theatre of war. There seems to me to be a great discrimination against many good men who have served in Canada-men who have been retained in Canada for no other reason than their own efficiency. The greater benefits of this Bill, as of other legislation pertaining to soldiers, will go to the class of soldiers that deserve least of

their country. I refer in particular to those men who were forced to do their duty by the Military Service Act. Some 4,000 of these men have served in Siberia; some
20,000	or 30,000 of them have not gone any farther than England. Many thousands of men volunteered in Canada and gave excellent service, but, through no fault of their own, they were prevented from going overseas. If this is to be a national undertaking, I say that these men are entitled to consideration. Furthermore, I notice that section 2, paragraph 3, provides that the widow of any person who died on active service, and who but for his death might be a settler as now defined, etc-. Now, does that not preclude the widow of a soldier who died on duty in Canada from benefiting?


Arthur Meighen: He might have been on active service in Canada.


Richard Clive Cooper: Previous to June 22 last year the only men serving in Canada, except C.E.F. units, were the militia.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's question has taken several phases. First of all, the board has so far confined, and will by this Act confine, the benefits to members of the Expeditionary Force who have gone out of Canada. That is the definition appearing at the top of p. 3 of the Bill-"who have gone out of Canada and are members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force on active service." It is quite true that a great many deserving men did not go out of Canada. It is also still more true that the main purpose of the Bill is land settlement. But in arriving at the main purpose of the Bill, and keeping that ever in mind, it is only right and proper that the most deserving at all events should be treated first, and, generally speaking, those that have the first and primary claim to the best treatment are those who have gone overseas. That is not always so, but it is as broad and fair a line as can be drawn. While it is true that many men were retained here because they were efficient, if you admit a man to these benefits, simply because he is a good man, then you would have to admit civilians as well, because a great many Canadians who did not go overseas are not to be blamed.
It is no reflection on them that they did not, but those who have the greatest call upon the country are those who did; consequently, that is the class to which we first bring the benefits of the Act. But if a man incurs a disability while on active
service, or if a disability which he previously had is aggravated, he becomes entitled to the benefits of the Act. Undoubtedly if a man dies after enlistment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he incurs disability; therefore, his widow comes under the provisions of the Bill.


Richard Clive Cooper: Prior to June 22 of last year, the forces in Canada were the active militia; they were not part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Arthur Meighen: If her husband would not have been entitled to the benefits of the Act, she cannot take advantage of its provisions, but if her husband dies on active service, she becomes entitled to the benefits of the Act.
Mr. MAjHARG: The minister has said that the most deserving shall receive the first consideration; and I think he is perfectly right in that. It seems to me that there are none more deserving than those who have been wounded and are detained in hospitals for months, or even years- men who will eventually be able to take up land and work it successfully. I have in mind the case of a boy who went overseas, was seriously wounded, and has been in hospital for some time. He is a farmer's son and understands farming thoroughly; in close proximity to his father's farm there is land which it is expected the board will soon throw open for entry. The boy has had several operations with a view to making him cap'ble of earning a livelihood in his former occupation. Some provision should be made under which boys in that position may have land retained for them for a reasonable length of time, provided they can pass the board. As the Bill now stands, they cannot secure land until they are discharged, but by the time they are discharged this land may have been taken up by others who may be just as deserving, or may not. These boys should not be prevented from securing land which, in a great many cases, they might be able to obtain, if it was reserved for them, in close proximity to land owned by their friends or relatives. Possibly the minister will let this clause stand until he has had time to give this suggestion consideration. Another point which I should like to mention is this: The Bill gives to the widow of the soldier who has been killed overseas the right to secure this assistance. In all fairness, that assistance should be extended also to the mother of the boy who, having been her only support, has been killed overseas.

Mr. P. R. MoGIBBON: I suggest that the minister add a clause to the Bill to provide that nursing sisters shall, so far as the benefit to be derived from this legislation is concerned, be placed on an equal footing with the returned soldier. We are giving women the vote; they are satisfactorily filling many public positions. These nurses risked their lives overseas and no doubt saved the lives of many soldiers, and I think they should not be left out of this Bill.


Michael Clark: Would not the readiest way to do that be for the nursing sister to marry the soldier?
Mr. P. E. McGIBBOiN: I have no objection.


Arthur Meighen: Replying to the hon. member (Mr. Maharg), I may say that, generally speaking, it would be impossible to deal with those' who, by reason of disability, are not discharged, because it is not possible to tell whether, having regard to the condition they may be in after their discharge, they should be encouraged to take up farming as an occupation. Consequently, the door should not be opened widely to that class. But it is not impossible to provide that where the qualifications are favourably passed upon, such a man, though not discharged, might have the right to reservation of land in his name; and I will defer the clause with a view to considering some such provision. The hon. member also referred to the case of the mother whose sole surviving son was killed in the war. If the main object of this Bill were to help the afflicted relatives of soldiers, certainly the mother should be included; but, if the mother's only support was killed I do not see how she could be a settler. Certainly she is deserving, she is in the first class of all, and if she has other sons growing up she might be in a position to benefit by this scheme. But if she is alone-and the hon. member presumes that there is nobody to help her-it is not kindness to her to ask her to become a settler; I scarcely think, therefore, that it would be well to admit that class. As to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. P. R. McGibbon), the argument that I have just used would apply. I am inclined to think that, speaking in a legal sense, nursing sisters are included in the provisions of the Bill. But it is not the policy of the board to extend to them the benefits of the Act, because not being widows of deceased soldiers with children growing up, these nurses, it is very strongly presumed, would be better doing something else than trying to become pioneer settlers.


John Archibald Maharg: Could not a mother whose only son had been killed at the front at least be given the benefit of the free grant mentioned in section 15?


Arthur Meighen: No. The widow of the soldier is entitled to the benefits of the Act, including the free grant, first, because there is presumption of her having other help, and, secondly, and perhaps the more important reason, because under the Dominion Lands Act, widows, if they have others dependent upon them, have the right of taking out homestead entries, and in 1917 Parliament extended the soldier settlement rights to widows.
In view of these two considerations I include them here, but neither of these considerations are present in the case of the mother, and I am afraid if we extended the Act to that most deserving class of all, the mother of the fallen soldier, we would have to extend it to the sister who was dependent on the fallen brother, and to the aunt who was dependent on him. It would be very hard for us to stop if we went any distance beyond where we are now.


James Arthurs: Just a word regarding the widow of the man who died Overseas. I think this clause should be extended to include, the widow of the man who has from any cause died since he served Overseas. She would not be included as the clause is now drawn.


Arthur Meighen: It might be justified if he died as a result of service, but I do not think it could be justified otherwise. I will take a note, however, of that class.


James Arthurs: Apparently the intention was to make that class eligible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a lengthy and very important Bill, but I hope that the very full explanation we have received from the minister will help us through with it. I think it is a pity that the Government did not, once for all, decide what their policy was to be with regard to assistance and recognition of the services of the returned soldier. It is well understood that it is the intention of the Government to give some form of recognition to the services of every soldier who has been Overseas and acquitted himself with credit to his country, and is now back here expecting to engage in his former occupation or to take up some other legitimate form of employment. While I have no definite information on that point, it is the general belief that the Government intends to take cognizance of their services and reward them in some way or

other. If that is the policy of the Government it is a pity that it was not settled, once for all, whether it was to be assistance in the way of farming, assistance in the way of business, or in some other way, and then the returned soldier would have had the opportunity of choosing which of the different offers put forward by the Government he would take. That course would have avoided dissatisfaction and perhaps jealousies among the returned soldiers, for it may well be argued that one class of returned soldiers have been given a better opportunity and shown greater consideration than the rest.
Here we have one of the schemes which the Government has adopted-the giving of assistance to those going on the land. We can view the policy put forward by the Government in this Bill from two standpoints. It is either a colonization policy entirely, or it is a policy of assistance to the returned soldier. As a colonization policy, I say at once to the minister that it is an impossible one; it is far too expensive and precarious for the Canadian people to carry out. That is all I shall say from the colonization standpoint. We must try and get people on the land, if colonization is our object, at much less expense than this proposal involves.
Considered as a policy of assistance to the returned soldier, we have to consider very carefully whether we can satisfy the returned soldiers who will not be admitted to the privileges of this Act with the proportionate assistance they will be looking for. That I think is a proposition which the Government will have to consider very carefully indeed. In the scheme before us we propose to assist the returned soldier to the extent of an advance in some cases of $8,000, and in the majority of cases oi $7,500. That is a very large amount of ' money, when we consider that possibly fifty thousand men in this country will take advantage of it. If they do, that will mean a vast amount of money advanced by the Canadian people. If the soldier-farmer succeeds and is able to return -this money to the country, we may survive it, but my hon. friend from Bed Deer who has had eighteen yedrs of experience of farming in the West, who is a careful, industrious, intelligent and capable man in every respect, tells us that he found it as much as he could do to make ends meet when he was cultivating the land in the far West. Now that should be a warning to us that we shall have some failures on our hands in connection with this scheme. However, it
has been decided upon by the Government, and personally I am not going to take any decided stand one way or the other, except that I hope it will succeed. I must say again, however, to the minister that as a colonization scheme it is a bad one; it is too expensive. If it is intended as assistance to the returned soldier, we must bear in mind that the Government must give assistance in like proportion to our other soldiers who were engaged in the war. To my mind, it is a question whether or not it would be better to agree upon a set amount of money to be given to each soldier as a recognition of his services, and then let him fall back on his own resources and use his own initiative and ability in working his way in the world. Perhaps that would be the better way. After all, it is not well to have too many strings on people and to have them tied down too closely to Government assistance. It is good for them that they should have a free hand and be thrown very largely upon their own resources. That has been the experience of our forefathers in every part of Canada. When they came here they had to hew out homes for themselves out of the great forests with no assistance of any kind; they had neither railroads nor steamboats nor anything else, and yet they made a success of life.
Mr. MEIGHiEN:	The hon. gentleman
mentioned a grant of so much money to each soldier. If that scheme were adopted, how much money would he suggest should be paid to each soldier?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have not sufficiently considered the question, but I did see one suggestion that came before the legislature of Alberta or Saskatchewan where it was put forward that a grant of $2,000 should be made. I am not saying whether that is too much or too little, but that is the only amount I have seen mentioned. Even if we gave them $2,000, T think in the end that would prove a less onerous burden for the Canadian people than the scheme that is now before the House. However, I have not figured it out and I am only pointing out to the minister the fact that he may encounter a difficult problem in fixing a standard of $8,000 in the way of assistance to some soldiers and not the same amount to others. I make the suggestion that the minister might consider whether or not it would be better for the oountry to give a certain amount as an absolute gratuity to returned soldiers and say: Go your way, do the best you can and God

be with you. Make a home for yourself in this free country. That is another way of looking at the matter and I merely throw out the suggestion. I hope -that the scheme will be satisfactory and that this country will to a very great extent be developed by the setling down of these good men on the land. I trust we shall be able to get through with this Bill without very much criticism, as I believe it has been very fully explained by the Minister.


Arthur Meighen: I should explain that
in Clause 3 on page 3, in the definition of "settler" the limitation in the 13th line contained in the words "and has been otherwise than dishonourably discharged," etc., appertains to all three classes.


Mr. ANDREWS:: For over a year now, associated with some of my comrades, I have considered the Land Settlement Scheme very closely, and I have no hesitation in saying to-day that after a most careful consideration of the whole matter I think this is absolutely the best land scheme in the world. I have lived in the West, not eighteen but thirty years, and I think that if a man cannot afford to pay the present prices of land in the West the country is no good. Now I know that the country is good, and I know that the men are good, and therefore the success of the scheme is assured. A friend of mine from Winnipeg, who looks after the interests of the selection board and who has been in the land business for something like thirty years, told me that over 90 per cent of the men who had already availed themselves of the scheme were practical farmers, of good descent. Altogether I congratulate the -Government most heartily on the move.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Were those who were under sentence at the end of the war and were pardoned in the general amnesty be regarded as dishonourably discharged?


Arthur Meighen: I really cannot answer that question. In the old Act we had " honourably discharged " but we found in operation that some soldiers did not get anything that could be called an honourable discharge, although there was such a thing as being released from the army under dishonourable circumstances. We therefore changed it to these words " otherwise than dishonourably discharged."


William Antrobus Griesbach: What is his position when discharged at the termination of his sentence?


Arthur Meighen: That, I think, would be a dishonourable discharge.


William Antrobus Griesbach: No. Having served
his sentence he is discharged in the ordin-try way, if his sentence does not provide for his dismissal. He is not dishonourably discharged merely because he has served a sentence.


Arthur Meighen: When a man applies,
his name goes automatically to the. Militia Department and they are asked if he comes in under these classes. They decide whether he has been otherwise than dishonourably discharged.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Adverting to subsection
(s) of section 2, it seems to me that one of the most deserving classes of those who have gone overseas is the nursing sister. I am sure every hon. member who is a soldier will bear me out when I say that they have conducted themselves in the war with honour to themselves and this country. They gave unstinted service in the cause of the Empire, sacrificed the comforts of home, and left pleasant, congenial surroundings to take a strenuous part in the war and share in its hardships, discomforts and terror. I think that the minister would be justified, in view of this fact, in allowing the nursing sisters at least to qualify for a part of the considerations that are provided in this Act and to homestead, to the extent of what is called a soldier's grant of land. Having made an application of this nature, I think the department has already ruled in effect that nursing sisters are entitled to this consideration. I would not be positive, but I think I have a letter on file to that effect. I made application on behalf of a nursing sister who is still overseas, having been there four and a half years. I asked that her father be allowed to make a homestead entry for her and the reply I received states distinctly, I am morally certain, that under the law her father could not make the -application for her and that she would have to wait until her return. I think this is as reasonable as the claim made by the hon. member for Maple Creek on behalf of widows and particularly those whose only sons had been killed overseas. I think it is equally reasonable and should merit particular consideration before the Committee passes this section of the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: Widows are, of course, specifically included. They are included in the 1917 Act and have the right to soldier entry, but every one-nursing sisters and all

-must be passed by the qualification boards as fit settlers before they come in for the benefits of the Act.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the minister to say before that they were not entitled to these benefits.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say they were not entitled. I think even in this Act they are still included in the term "settler," but the practice has been not to admit them to the benefits of the Act for the reason that they cannot qualify for the rough and strenuous duties of settlers. Even in the case of widows the very greatest difficulties are encountered. Frequently they are very anxious to enter upon the land and it is hard to refuse them, but it is only one in a large number that should be encouraged to go upon the land, and that may succeed if she attempted to do so. There is another grave difficulty in the case of women. A woman may shortly marry and we find as a fact that they do More widows than one who came under the Act and got all its benefits married soldiers. In each of these cases there was one family with double benefits.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is quite right.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but I think it is much better to distribute the help which the State is able to give and which is going to be heavy enough, we all admit. I rather believe in a fair system of distribution than doubling in this manner. If such a woman's husband died and he left her an estate she might marry another soldier and double up again.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is nothing more wrong in a nursing sister marrying a soldier and having two grants of land than there would be in a family having five sons each obtaining a grant.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member must surely perceive that where you have one soldier married you have only one settler. The purpose of the Act is to encourage settlement on the land, and where you have four sons you have four potential families and four distinct settlers. There is all the difference in the world between that and the proposition of the hon. member.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. White) suggests that this is one example of collective bargaining which the Government might very well endorse.


Mr. BLAKE:: Will members of the Royal Air Force, especially those who did not get away from Canada, come under this Act?


Arthur Meighen: All those who got away although they were members of the British Royal Air Force were included, but those who did not get away from Canada are just in the same position as others who did not get away: They are not included. *


Matthew Robert Blake: I think that is a matter
that should be given consideration. A lot of men are kept in Canada not because they wanted to be but because they could not help themselves. Their hearts were just as right as those of the boys who went over.


Arthur Meighen: That applies to the
hon. member himself.


Matthew Robert Blake: They should have the same right. They have lost their time, and their business is wrecked. If they are qualified and prepared to go on the land, they should be given the same consideration as those who did go over.


Arthur Meighen: They did lose some
time, but they were not really taken from their business in the same sense as the men who went overseas. In the order of dealing with these men, the most deserving class must be taken first. Those who find it most difficult to rehabilitate themselves are usually the most deserving class.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the section be
adopted?


John Archibald Maharg: I thought I heard the
minister say that he was prepared to let this stand?
Mr. MiEIGHEN: Yes, that stands.
On section 3-Soldier Settlement Board continued:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the minister
might tell us what demarcation there is between his own department in dealing with the returned soldier and the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department?


Arthur Meighen: The Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Department deals with disabled soldiers. This has to do with land settlement and the qualifications of soldiers for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-officers, clerks and employees :
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What salaries will be
paid to these officials?


Arthur Meighen: The chairman receives $6,000 per year at present. Each of the two other commissioners, Major Ashton, a returned soldier, and iMr. Maber, receive $5,000 each. These are the salaries of the board. The other officers are appointed at salaries approved by the Civil Service Commission. Our advisory councils and qualification boards, to whose earnest and competent efforts whatever good there is in our organization is largely due, give their services free. They were composed of the very highest class of citizens in every place where they were appointed-men who were busy with their own occupations and who made a very substantial sacrifice to do this work. In Winnipeg Mr. Cross is chairman, Mr. Robert McKay, of Allan, Killem and McKay, who has been associated with the work from the beginning, is one member of the board and the third is Colonel Grassie. In Regina, Mr. Stiles, Mr. Gibbins and Dr. Mahan are members of the board. There are similar men in Alberta, and they have performed very valuable services to the returned men in the devotion they have shown to this work. Later on, for them and for the qualification boards, we adopted the system of recompensing them for each day of actual work-not the days going and coming-at the rate of $10 per day. At my special request the hon. member for Westminster District (Mr. Stacey), who is himself a settler and pioneer in British Columbia, went to that province for the purpose of assisting returned men, explaining to them how to come in under the Act, and helping them in every way in his power and he did so with great ability and very evident and satisfactory results.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I noticed that earlier in the explanation of the Bill the minister stated that the representative of the Ontario Department of Agriculture in each section of the province would assist the Government in this work. Will the Government have to pay for that assistance, and if so, how much?


Arthur Meighen: There has been no arrangement made to pay these men anything. The duty that falls upon them is very light for the reason that Ontario is very largely settled. These men are the ones to whom the soldier should apply, and if it is a clear case that he is a qualified man and has a proper experience, that ends it; he is accepted as qualified. If there is any doubt about it at all he has to go to the qualification board.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: On the recommendation of the Ontario officer?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. But, we have made no arrangement to pay them and we have not paid them anything.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-minister may reserve and transfer lands to board:	'
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the title to this land remain in the Government or is the title vested in the purchaser?


Arthur Meighen: The title is vested in the board immediately the Governor in Council passes an order turning the land over to the board. That applies to the Dominion lands which have been reserved for soldiers' settlement. As soon as the Order in Council turns the land over to the board, the title is in the board and the board can sell it. As regards-private lands purchased, the title is taken by the board in fee simple and the board has a form of agreement which is invariably used. They simply sell by agreement of sale. That is a method that has been used much more in Western Canada than Eastern Canada but it is applicable everywhere. That is the only way we can take care of these obligations because if the method that is more customary in Eastern Canada of putting the title and the mortgage together the expense of making good the title and discharging the mortgage later would be so great that it would impose a burden on the buyer. We have endeavoured to keep our legal costs down to the minimum. We have a scale which I revised, that, I think, is the least the work can be done for, but instead of employing legal firms or legal men in each of the districts, we have a separate legal branch in each of the provinces in charge of a salaried man. We pay all expenses in connection with the loans, we do not charge the soldier anything and we are doing that by establishing in each of the provinces, attached to the board, a legal man.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If a soldier goes to a certain place, say in Manitoba, and selects a farm and the board approves of the price, the board, in its own name, makes an agreement of sale with the purchaser?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will both documents be of general record in the province?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we record our titles just the same as the title of any purchaser although under our Act we do not have to.


John Howard Sinclair: What kind of title does the soldier get?


Arthur Meighen: He gets an agreement of sale. His interest in the land is equitable only.


John Howard Sinclair: He does not get an absolute deed.


Arthur Meighen: He does not get an absolute deed, and the agreement of sale is cancellable merely upon notice. No expense at all is involved.


Peter McGibbon: Is the valuation placed upon this land by the appraisers sent out by the Government, final ?


Arthur Meighen: It is final in this sense that the valuation of our officers is the valuation upon which we rely; that is to say the amount we will permit to be advanced against that land depends upon that valuation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-compulsory purchase:
Mr. STACEY:: I wish to offer a slight amendment to clause 8, or rather I suggest it to the minister in the hope that it will he acceptable. But before doing so, I would like to make a few general observations regarding the way in which this proposition actually works out from the standpoint of the soldier as an applicant. It was my privilege to spend some two months on the mainland in British Columbia endeavouring to do what I could for the returned man in his effort to find a home upon the land, and having had some experience in the city of Vancouver during the last few months, I have no hesitation whatever in most heartily congratulating the Government and the minister upon the comprehensive, complete, and in the main, thoroughly satisfactory character of the scheme which has been placed before the country. I want also to congratulate the minister upon the staff which is to be found in the city of Vancouver, and I presume a similar staff in the matter of efficiency has been provided in every other office throughout the country. I mention the Vancouver staff because I know of it, and know something of its character and efficiency. Not only do I refer to the officials, 'but also to the men who comprise the qualification committee and the advisory board.' In the city of Vancouver there are three of the best known loan men in the province of British Columbia, who volunteered their services. I do not suppose we could have bought those services; the men are too busy, their time is too valuable, and they are otherwise engaged from morning to night; but as a contribution by themselves towards this work they were willing to help and do it gratuitously. This service was very highly appreciated by the board in Vancouver, and I am sure is likewise appreciated by this House, and I presume similar conditions obtain with regard to other centres.
The question may arise in some men's minds: Who are going back to the land? We of course looked for men who had come from the farm to return, but in addition we found that there was a considerable number of men from offices, even some men from the professions, who desired to settle upon the land and for various reasons, now consider, they do not further desire the confinement of an office. They seek and long for, a settled life; they want to be doing what they believe is worth while. They appreciate the national slogan of production as the cry for the coming generation, and wish to make their contribution towards the development of this great country. We did find, however, that there are in the province, and I presume the same may obtain in otheT provinces, several misconceptions as to the character and the nature of the scheme outlined. We found in some parts of British Columbia men here and there with the idea that, the Government was buying on a large scale, that it was purchasing great areas of land. Consequently, we had offers from individuals and corporations of land that was in their opinion, most admirably suited for the returned soldiers. Some men seemed to think they had land that was especially suitable for the returned men, although to the most of us the question would naturally occur why it had not been offered and accepted for a similar purpose prior to the introduction of this scheme.
Notw I want to speak of a matter which the minister did not mention but which is one of the practical outcroppings of the entire proposition. We have received very hearty co-operation from various organized bodies, from municipalities, and from private citizens, and indeed from 5 p.m. real estate firms, along these lines. A man returned wished to engage in a certain kind of farming. We knew the country and would say to him: "Go out to a certain place. Go to Mr. Smith and he will show you everything in that district which is available." There was nothing in it for Mr. Smith, he did that work in the interests of the men con-

cerned; and thus we were able to facilitate the search of the applicant for land without any material expense.
I made reference to real estate agents. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that in this country, and I do not speak from the standpoint of any one province, there are real estate men, and real estate men, and there is a vast difference between them. In the latter class the manhood still dominates, the adjective is smaller than ithe man. We did receive very material assistance from a great number of real estate offices and many of the men in those offices have given their time and their services in order to secure settlers upon the land. I regret to say, however, that in a few cases it was necessary to discontinue operations with certain men who seemed to possess the spirit of the age to such an extent that they deemed it was up to them to got all they could, not simply out of the Government- but they seemed to think it was their chance to "do" the soldier and it was our business according to the best information we could secure, and ito the extent of our ability to safeguard the interest of the returned man who was seeking a home upon the land.
The question has been raided as to the character of the land upon which these men went. I do not want any one to think that in every case the returned men are settling upon entirely new land. That is not the case, Sir. In some instances they are buying unimproved land, but more generally in the province of British Columbia they are purchasing improved land. It may be argued that this does not really conduce to an increased amount of production, but the reason for that, Sir, is this: In many sections of that province you will find a large number of farms and ranches held by elderly men. The explanation of that is that his boys have gone overseas and will not return.
He has a farm on his hands, he is too old to work, and he says: " I will sell it." In many cases he offers his farm for sale at a cheap price to the returned man, and he himself steps aside and gives him the advantage of his years of toil. That is one reason, Sir, why in many cases they have bought improved property. I could cite instance after instance where that has actually taken place; the elderly father who is left on the farm is not able to carry on, and consequently his land is sold. Often it is subdivided into two, three, four, or more small holdings, and that means the neuclei of so many more families. As a result we have a

large percentage of returned men upon the improved lands of British Columbia. I am speaking now of the southern part of the province, where the majority of the settlers are locating. There are some who choose the pioneering life, but unless a man makes that choice we do not encourage or even go so far as to suggest it to him. Most of the men want their homes' reasonably near centres, with all the advantages of social and business life that can be obtained in the older sections of the country. The result is that we are seeking more land in the southern part of the province.	[DOT]
Clause 8, as I understand it, looks towards compulsory purchase, and my amendment is along this line, Sir, that I would have the clause go a step further. I would therefore submit for the consideration of the minister and the committee the following amendment to clause 8, which would then read as follows:
The Board may, for the execution of any of the purposes of this Act, acquire by way of compulsory purchase, in the manner provided by Part III of this Act, such agricultural land as it may deem necessary from :
(a) All persons, firms, and corporations in
any part of Canada ;
(lb) The Indian superintendent for the
province of British Columbia.
I note in the Indian Act of 1906 a provision foT the appointment of an Indian superintendent for the province of British Columbia. If that appointment has not been made, a change in the wording of my amendment I presume would toe necessary. But I wish to call the attention of the Committee to two or three very important facts. In the province of British Columbia we have a large area of land held as Indian reserve land. A year ago I called the attention of the House to this matter, and again last spring. My attention has been directed to the same matter very frequently during the past two months, and I would not be performing what I believe to be my duty and taking the right course unless I gave some additional facts regarding this very acute situation in that province.
I presume that these Indian reserves were granted years ago on' the principle that the Indian was the ward of the Government, that he was to be taken care of by the Government, that he was not in a position to look after himself; and that therefore a wide sweep of land should be given to him on which he could hunt and fish. In the course of time the Indian population has decreased, the hunting in the sections of the country to which I refer is altogether a thing of the past, and the result is that

in many parts of southern British Columbia we have large areas of some of the finest land utterly waste. I could cite many cases to support this statement. I have in mind a block of 800 acres of the finest land in one section of the province, occupied, I understand, by three small Indian families, who miake their living mainly by selling wood. At this juncture of the nation's history it is almost a national calamity so much of the best land in our province should thus lie waste. We pride ourselves on doing justice to the Indian. I am the last man in this House to suggest that anything but the fullest measure of justice should be meted out to him. But in doing justice to the Indian, let us not do an injustice to the white man or to the country. I have in mind another case where, adjacent to a city in British Columbia, there are some thousands of acres of choice land bordering right on the city limits, impeding most seriously the development of that city and the adjacent country. 1 might enumerate many other cases. Suffice it to say that in the southern part of the province it is a most serious problem,-in fact, in soipe places it is an almost intolerable situation, and the citizens virtually demand that the Indian be placed, in this regard, upon the same footing as the white man. In other words, that he have a good chance, and, if anything, a little better chance than the white man, but that he be not allowed to hold thousands of acres of the finest land without any pretense whatever of its being used for purposes of production.
Now, Sir, my object in introducing this amendment is simply that the same provision which applies to the purchase of speculators' land be made applicable to certain Indian Reserves, and that where it can be shown that there is thus a large area of land unused, and that in all human probability it will remain unused, that the department he required to sell that land. I do not think as a matter of fact that the provisions of the amendment I suggest may ever have to be used, but if the clause is there, and it is known that we can use it, it will facilitate the purchase of such property. For this and other reasons, which I might enumerate but do not wish to take up the time of the House at the present juncture, I respectfully urge upon the minister his considering the adoption of my amendment for the benefit of returned soldiers settling in the province of British Columbia. It simply means that whatever land may be deemed necessary by the board may be
purchased not only from all persons, firms, and corporations in any part of Canada, but -with special reference to British Columbia -from the Indian superintendent for the province or other officer who has the power of acting as vendor.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
answers that question, the Indian Land Act itself provides for the methods of procedure by which we deal with Indian lands, and I think it would be rather dangerous to adopt another method in this Act.
Mr. MEI6HEN:	From the statutory
standpoint I agree with the leader of the Opposition, that if such action were taken, it should be taken by an amendment of the Indian Act.
We have already prepared amendments to the Indian Act which will make applicable all the necessary provisions of this Act applying to returned soldiers who are Indians arid which will make the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs take the place of the Soldier's Settlement Board in the administration of that phase of the Act,
The point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) is one of the most important that the committee has to consider; it was referred to some weeks ago by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Hay). When the Bill was under consideration providing for the expropriation of small portions of land on Indian reserves for public purposes, it was urged that we should not deal with Indian Reserve lands on the same principles as those upon which we dealt with private lands. It is a matter for very serious consideration indeed, whether, in view of our negotiations and settlements with the Indians in this country, which proceeded in the main, on the assumption that they were a separate nation, and that the agreements were entered into by Canada on the one hand and by the various tribes and separate peoples on the other, we ought to invade the sanctity of the treaties made and settlements arranged, for the purpose of taking their lands in order that they might be used not by the State, but by private persons. I cannot say that I have made up my mind that that argument is irresistible; I really am not disposed to think it is. It. is very questionable, though, what might result if we did take the stand urged by the member for Fraser Valley. Undoubtedly it would result in dissension, and perhaps in the issue being carried beyond the bounds of this country for settlement. No doubt, whatever settlement Canada should arrive at would,

in the end, be accepted as final; I do not suggest that any disposition to interfere would originate from without. But we have regarded these people as our wards, and we have made treaties and settlements with them; therefore it is desirable, if possible, to avoid anything in . the nature of dissension, or anything in the nature of a charge against us of infidelity. Consequently, for the present session, I have decided not to ask Parliament for power to expropriate lands in Indian Reserves for this purpose. We are now engaged in an endeavour to secure valid surrenders of these unused lands in reserves. We have officers engaged in an examination and appraisal of lands in Indian reserves in order that such are not being used and should be used for farming may be surrendered to the Crown to be used for soldier settlement. We have attained considerable success so far; with one or two exceptions, the various tribes have not been unreasonable, and if we continue this policy we are likely to succeed better than we would if we now took statutory power to expropriate. I rather think that the attitude of the various tribes will be more favourable if we proceed along the path that we have now ventured upon and try to get surrenders in every case. If the Indians should become recalcitrant, or if there should be anything in the nature of mere obstinacy as against their own interests and the interests of the State, we might consider at a later session the advis^ ability of taking expropriatory power, to be applicable in such cases For the present, I commend to the Committee the advisablity of leaving out anything in the way of power to expropriate Indian lands, and of allowing the board to deal with tho subject by employing the more conciliatory method of procuring surrender of the reserves.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I have no thought whatever of suggesting anything which would apply to Canada as a whole. I note that provision is made in the Indian Act for action in the various provinces with regard to specific phases of legislation. I do want to impress upon the Committee and upon the minister that if there is one thing in the mind of the average citizen or returned soldier of British Columbia that is ,the cause of great unrest and discontent, it is the patent fact that much of the choicest land in the entire province is absolutely unavailable for use, and in all human probability never will be productive unless there is some radical change in the policy. Personally I do not feel disposed to give very much at-
tention to the argument that because we have always done something, we must always continue to do it. We have recognized the right of these people in the past; we have given them their opportunity. If their population is decreasing and the hunting is gone, why can we not go to these people and say: Let us make other arrangements; we will buy this land from you and give you a suitable place in which to live. We need not talk to the Indian about compulsory purchase, but steps should be taken to secure this land. We have the report of a commission regarding certain reserves which says that a certain amount of tin's land may revert to the Crown. But that amount is a very small percentage of the whole. I repeat that in British Columbia the Indian reserve question is a vital issue and is one of our grave troubles; and I ask the minister and the Government to make, at the earliest possible day, such provision as is necessary for the securing of a portion of these areas for settlement and production in order that that part of the country may develop more rapidly than it has developed in the past.
Mr. CAHiILL: Do I understand the hon. member to say that we should take this land by compulsion from the Indian?


Frank Bainard Stacey: I ask that the provisions which apply to land held by speculators apply also to Indian reserve lands. Here is a man who has 500 acres; he is holding it until some of us will go round him and improve the value of the land so that he may grow rich out of our efforts and our labour. That man should be compelled either to work his land or sell it, hence clause (a) of the section. Then, here is an Indian reserve of 500 acres with only a few Indians on it, perhaps none at all, but some band has a legal claim upon it. My point is that similar steps should be taken with respect to this land. The band should have the benefit of any financial advantage resulting from the sale of the land; the proceeds might be invested for them and they w-ould then be in the receipt of an annual income that would be of much greater benefit to them than the mere possession of those lands which they held uncultivated.


Arthur Meighen: The steps the hon. gentleman proposes we should take before going to the length of expropriation are now being taken in British Columbia, though not as widely as we purpose taking them very shortly. We are going to make most energetic efforts to reduce to the minimum uncultivated Dominion lands there, and if

we fail after exhausting all our efforts I shall be very glad if the hon. member will bring the matter up for the consideration of Parliament next session. I may do so myself.


Frank Bainard Stacey: With that explanation I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Frank S. Cahill: I trust the Dominion Government will consider very seriously before breaking their treaty engagements with the Indians. Simply because we have the power to do so, by reason of being in greater numbers, is no reason why we should break a treaty. The Indians have rights that should be respected in this country. If we respect anything we should respect our word to the Indian or to anybody else. The fact that the lands of the Indians happen to have enhanced in value by reason of white settlement is no reason why the Indians should he compelled to give up their land. There is no justification for the hon. member or the Government deciding what is best for the Indians. The Indian may very likely not be interested in the money he may get out of the land, and if he wants to keep his land I do not think this or any other Government should take it away from him. There is plenty of land in Canada for the white man for many centuries to come without taking away from the Indian forcibly land he holds more dear perhaps than my hon. friend holds the dollars we would get out of it.


Frank Bainard Stacey: The hon. member neither understands the situation in British Columbia, nor my remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On sectiop 11-school lands:
Arthur Meighen: This is a very important clause which I should have referred to in my opening remarks, We cannot, of course, take school lands and sell them. We have to sell school lands in accordance with the Dominion, Lands Act by auction sale. The returned soldiers are very much interested in these school lands. Of course, they have a chance to buy at these auction sales. We do not feel that we should interfere with our administration of that trust, except with the consent of the provinces, and therefore we devised this means of arriving at the valuation by joint boards, each board to be composed of one representative of the Dominion and one representative of the province concerned. If these two report in
favour of a certain valuation, the Soldier Settlement Board will have the option of taking the land at that valuation for returned soldier purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]*
On section 15-free soldier grants:
Richard Clive Cooper: I understand it will not be possible under this clause for a soldier who already owns a homestead to take up land under this scheme. Is that so?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. Owning a homestead does not prevent it at all, but if the soldier owns a homestead he can also get a soldier grant; that would make 320 acres of free land in all. On the other hand, if the soldier has the soldier grant he is still entitled to a homestead. We say that in the case of a man who is entitled to a soldier entry and exercises his right, we cannot also undertake to assist him by way of purchasing land. We decided that the better distribution would be to deal with him as a soldier entrant, and we advance him the money accordingly, but we do not deal with him in the capacity of a buyer of private land from the board. Of course, the board has power in a special case to allow him to buy a small amount of land.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-conditions of sale and conveyance of lands by board to settlers :
Frank S. Cahill: Would the minister explain paragraph (b) ? Does that mean there has to be an exact price for the land ?


Arthur Meighen: This is taken word for word, I think, from the Order in Council of February 11, and the reason for it is this : If we buy a quarter-section we know what we are paying for it, and we can easily decide what to sell it at, but suppose we purchase five hundred acres in a block owned by one man; three or four soldiers want that land. Then paragraph (b) applies, its purpose being to direct the board to sell each and every parcel of the five hundred acres, or five thousand, as the case may be, at its proportionate price of the whole purchase price, not based on acreage, but based on value. That is the way it is expressed, and I think correctly expressed. I understand that it is not the intention of the board to buy any parcels of land of that kind unless it has already been selected by the soldier.


Frank S. Cahill: That is quite right.

Mr. IMcRENZIE: Suppose that alongside a piece of land owned by the Government there are some thousands of acres owned by a land company, and a soldier selects 100 acres or 200 acres of that company land and tells the board that he can buy it at such a price. Suppose this price is very much higher than the average price at which the Government could buy all that company land. IVould it not he better for the Government to try and acquire all that land at a lower price than, to permit it to he taken over in small parcels?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and that is just
ithe purpose of this section. As a matter of practice we do not purchase blocks of this kind unless we have the soldiers in sight ready to purchase the land from us. In a word, we are not taking chances; we are limiting the chances altogether, I think.
Mr. iMcKENZIE: The Government should take steps to see that a higher price is not paid by taking land over in small parcels.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. Very frequently we save considerable money by purchasing it in block. Ten per cent is the minimum required. The maximum allowed against the land is $4,500. That is subject to very special exceptions in the case of married men of more than ordinary qualifications, who have had successful farming experience in Canada.


Frank S. Cahill: The Board is to exercise its discretion in collecting the annual payments. There are to be twenty-five annual payments, or there may be fewer in the event of default. What is the provision in this respect?


Arthur Meighen: The Board has full discretion as to what it shall do in event of default. As it deems fit, it can either overlook default or cancel upon default. Everything will depend on the circumstances of the case. As a rule, of course, default will be discouraged because we do not want soldiers to get the idea that the obligation is not to be discharged.


Frank S. Cahill: Would it not be better not to demand payment on principal for the first year- or two while the settler, particularly in wild land, is breaking up and improving his land?


Arthur Meighen: Every effort will of course be made to overcome difficulties. But where the land is such that payment cannot be made the Board will have power to grant an extension of time. In the

generality of cases, however, we expect them to commence payments at once, the only exception being in regard to the loan for stock and implements, in which case we wait two years.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They do not pay interest the first two years?


Arthur Meighen: Not on stock and implements. They do on the land.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would ask the permission of the Committee to return to section 14, in connection with which I should like to ask the minister a question on two points.


Arthur Meighen: Very well.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I notice a clause in reference to placing settlers with farmers for instruction in farming, and another providing for the payment of subsistence allowances to settlers, for themselves and their dependents, while such settlers are in receipt of instructional training. The minister dealt with this matter in a general way this morning. Has the Board received specific instructions as to the disbursements that will be made in these cases, and the considerations that will be allowed the farmers? What allowances will be made for the subsistence of settlers and their families?
Mr. iMEIGHEN: Provision was made in this respect early in April. The amount allowed when a man is taking instruction in the three months' course provided in all colleges is $10 per month if he is without dependents. If he has a wife it is $35, and for each child $6, with a maximum of $25 for children. If he is a widower with a child or children, $10 for each child.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is in addition to the free instruction and board?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. If he is a married man employed with a farmer he gets $20 and $6 for each child, with a maximum of $25.	__


Mr. REDMAN:: Has the minister considered the advisability of charging a rate of interest to settlers, other than members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or those who served in the Imperial and Allied Armies, who were ordinarily resident in Canada, which would be commensurate with the expenditures involved? I think it is evident that, in order to meet the demands of Canadian isoldiers, between two and three hundred million dollars would be required.

and "while _ we will not be disposed to be critical if we lose money on account of our own soldiers, I think we should take such steps as are necessary to insure that, in the case of settlers out. of the Imperial Army or the armies of our Allies, that we shall have a fair chance of getting back the money advanced. We should also take some further precaution, by way of demanding a greater deposit on the purchase price, such an increased deposit as shall be equal to the lack of experience Which will be found among this class of settler. The soldiers of this country will always feel that they are, to a degree, responsible for the money which is advanced to them, and I do not think it would be fair to our Canadian soldiers to include in this scheme a sort of immigration policy for European people in the carrying out of which, considerable money might be lost.
Mr. MAHAR.G: Did I understand the minister to say that the payment on land will commence the first year?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: Is not that a mistake? It will be rather hard for men, especially when they take up new land, to make payments the first year. In fact, it will be almost impossible.


Arthur Meighen: The money is payable the first year and the amount is small because it is spread over twenty-five years more or less. No doubt there will be cases in which men starting on new prairie land will not be able, although making a living from the first, to make payments the first year or two. Ample power is provided in these cases to carry men on. But we do not want to encourage that and we should not make it a general rule that nothing should be repayable the first year or two, because many men are buying cultivated land and there is no reason why they should not pay the first year. We therefore make the agreement the .same in each case and leave its application to the particular circumstances of the individual applicant who seeks an extension.


John Archibald Maharg: It would be wise, I think, to differentiate between men purchasing improved lands and those who are buying lands in the raw state. I know from personal experience that nothing takes the "ginger" out of a fello-w-if I may put it that w-ay-so much as being pressed for inidial payments overdue, and an exception might easily be made in the case of a man on soldier grant land. It would not be a difficult matter to give him an additional year the same as in regard to his stock.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt that in the practical working out of the scheme most of the men on soldier grant land will have to be carried for the first year, and we have ample powers to do so. These loans on soldier grant land were made before I took charge of the department. The Bill wias passed previous to that, and the law laid down. That being the case I did not feel free to alter it in that regard, particularly as the board had full power to extend 'the time. I therefore decided to leave that as it .is to the operation of the board. In answer to the hon. member for Calgary, we have considered the matter of taking extra precautions with regard to overseas men. Parliament established the principle of equality in the Act of 1917, and I felt that if we were going to admit British soldiers to the benefits of the Act we should not impose extra burdens upon them. It may be that we should exercise greater precaution in their selection and take necessary precautions against loss, and for that reason this Bill is drawn to enable us to demand a higher rate down, up to 25 per cent. I purpose to insist upon that in the case of members of the'Brit-ish Army.
I do not think there should be any complaint because that will have the result of sifting out the more doubtful cases. If 25 per cent is paid down and other precautions are exercised it will be a practical assurance against any loss further than what loss there may be in the higher rate on money that is prevalent over and above what it will be later on; but as time goes on there is every reason to believe that that difference will be eliminated. It cannot be possible that on Dominion debentures the interest will be much longer 5 per cent.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister feel that with this clause in the Act stating the exact terms of the agreement, the board will have power to make an agreement containing the condition that there shall be no cash payment for the first or second year on account of principal; so that people will not be .put in default where, in the opinion of the board, they cannot possibly meet the payment?


Arthur Meighen: We have not that power and personally I would not have that power. The soldier knows what he is confronting.



1	think it is better to have him know that he must commence paying back at once. If it is not his fault, and he is doing his duty, his time will be extended, but he must understand that he must do his duty and take care of his obligations. I want them all to understand that and n t merely some of them. I know there will be a class to be treated differently from the rest because their land is not immediately productive in the sense that lands of others are but the agreements will all have to be the same.


Frank Bainard Stacey: The committee will be pleased to know that in the Vancouver office we had cases of men who had mapped out their course for the next few years and who were able to show to the satisfaction of the board exactly how, where, and from what sources they expected to raise the revenue that would be required to meet their obligations. They had gone to the trouble of preparing a statement to convince the board that they could meet their obligations even from the first year. The men are not regardless of the fact that they must pay their obligations even from the very first and those who are entering upon highly improved land fully expect to begin paying at the end of the first year.


John Archibald Maharg: You are asking these men to sign something that it is physically impossible to carry out. Men on new land cannot make their payment the first year. The men are being asked to undertake to do something that the board knows it is physically impossible to do.
On section 17-(1) calculation of price by board; (2) improvements to be considered :


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In regard to subsection
2	of clause 17, is it the intention of the board to make improvements to land they are holding?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the board has full power to do it but we do not do so as a matter of practice. We have never launched upon that yet. I doubt if we ever will because it involves the buying of land before we have a purchaser for it and we want to avoid that. We might have to do so if we were buying a block of land; we might get it much more cheaply by taking it all. Subsection 2 of section 17 contemplates that possibility and provides accordingly.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the nature of the improvements that you contemplate malt' ing?


Arthur Meighen: If we bought a block
of land there might be some portion of it that we would have to clear to enable a man to commence farming at once.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: While in Australia I found something of that kind in connection with the Victoria Government's scheme for providing land for settlement. They would take over a block of land and improve it by constructing roads, drainage, fences and even houses before they would even undertake to sell it. I would like to ask the minister if there is any intention on the part of the Government to take areas and make them fit for settlement before they are opened up?


Arthur Meighen: No, that is not the
policy we adopt. If that is done in Australia it is done under the Governments of the States and not under the Federal Government and the same principle should apply here. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has recently done that as a private enterprise and in the case of soldiers settlement the Canadian Pacific has made arrangements with us whereby it discounts its list price to the extent of 20 per cent on land sold to any settler approved under this Act. That is an immense advantage in dealing with all Canadian Pacific lands. That is an arrangement which has been recently made.
On section 18-sales of stock and equipment:


Arthur Meighen: I would like this to
stand at the request of the War Veterans' Association. They have asked for a rearrangement of subsection 2 to enable the board to loan more than the maximum on the chattels, taking it from the other loan and getting double the sum on chattels so that the board may give up to $4,000 on a stock loan, their idea being to allow the cattle industry to be engaged in by many soldiers who desire to do so. I wish to give further consideration to that before the clause passes.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 2-resale upon default:


Frank S. Cahill: In the event of a soldier
abandoning his land, what will the process be?


Arthur Meighen: The board would then
cancel the sale and the land would revest in the board free from all claim whatsoever on the part of the soldier. Then the board would have the power to settle another sol-

dier upon that land taking over the obligations that the man left, but if the board places anybody except a soldier on the land it can only do so with the approval of the minister and the Governor in Council.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the board have to get the full price of the land from another soldier?


Arthur Meighen: They could only sell to some one other than a soldier with the approval of the minister, and they can only sell for anything less than what they have against the land after a full recital of the circumstances by the board and the approval of the Governor in Council. They cannot lose anything on the land except by the approval of the Governor in Council.


Frank S. Cahill: What action do you contemplate against the soldier who has abandoned that land?


Arthur Meighen: He is liable for it, but a judgment against one who abandons land under these circumstances, will, I am afraid, not be of much value.


Frank S. Cahill: You may keep the liability?


Arthur Meighen: We may keep the liability on the books.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not very familiar with some of the decisions in the courts in the West that have been going further in recognizing equities than we have been in the Eastern provinces. That is where a man enters upon land and pays a certain amount of money for it, and fails, I have read some western decisions in which it is still held that the man was entitled to anything that he has forfeited. That is to say where the land was worth $2,000 and he had paid $1,500, and was unable to pay the balance and had to abandon the land, I notice that the courts, not dealing with the Crown, but in cases involving private individuals, have given some recognition to the rights of the settler, although he was not able to carry out the agreement to the full extent.
I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with these cases or not; possibly the circumstances are different when the man is dealing with the Crown. In this Bill, I observe, the absolute right is taken away.


Arthur Meighen: The decisions to which my hon. friend refers are of comparatively recent years and do go a long way in the nature of recognizing the equity of redemption and even the payment the man has
made, upon cancellation. They have no relevance now because sub-section 3 wipes them off and declares finally in statutory form that there is no equity in redemption, and there is no right of claim upon the moneys paid. That being done, of course, the courts are quite powerless to enter and pronounce against the authority of Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite understand that, but my position is as to whether the minister recognizes the fairness of the principles laid down by these decisions.


Arthur Meighen: The King can do no
wrong.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Suppose a returned soldier took up a section of land under this Bill and carried it for, say, five, or eight, or ten years, and then died. Would his widow have an equity in the property?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is it provided for in the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: That is all provided for. His estate has the same right in respect to that land as the man himself possessed. All it has to do is to comply with the requirements, and it will be given the same right and protection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-advances for the discharge of encumbrances.
Richard Clive Cooper: Under this Bill, a man that owns his farm, but has an encumbrance against it of more than $2,500, cannot take advantage of this legislation. Would it not be possible for the minister to reconsider that provision?


Arthur Meighen: The War Veterans Association have pressed upon me a reconsideration of this clause in the direction suggested by my hon. friend. It will be recalled that I stated that as regards the man who owned his land and merely wanted an advance for' the purpose of wiping off encumbrances, we did not feel we ought to do the same as in the case of a man who was purchasing the land to become a settler, because in the latter instance we are adding a new settler, whereas in the former, we are merely exercising the functions of a loan company-we are not doing anything for settlement at all. We do not want to get into that field any more than we can avoid, so we adopted the maximum of $2,500 which was fixed by the 1917 Act s

related to the'man who owns his land. We say: " We will lend you up to that amount and we will lend you for improvements and for stock, hut we will not lend you on your land alone beyond the $2,500 fixed by the 1917 Act merely for the purpose of clearing off encumbrances-that is loan company work." So the man who owns his land can get advances up to $5,500, but only to the extent of $2,500 on the land as then valued. I think that is a fair division to make; in my opinion we ought not to go any further.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. MAH A.RG:	Mr. Chairman, we were
discussing the point as to whether a larger amount than $2,600 should be advanced to pay off a previous loan. I think it is very desirable that this amount should be increased. While the minister states that the primary intention of the Act is to create new settlers, yet I think it is just, as essential to retain the old settlers-in fact, possibly it is just a little more essential. Had we been able to retain all the settlers that went on the land in the past, we would be in a much different position to-day. A number of these men went overseas with loans against their land, and, during their absence at-the front their farms have been more or less neglected in a great many cases. The loan companies are pressing for repayment, and the men are unable to meet the companies' demands. The conditions of these repayments are rather burdensome, the interest almost invariably being 8 per cent, and in some cases even 9 per cent, I am given to understand. I do not think the minister could do better for those men than to increase this advance sufficiently to wipe off encumbrances. It might be increased up .to $3,500, or just as high as the loan to be advanced to the soldier who is purchasing his land.


Arthur Meighen: The argument, or course, is very strong on behalf of those men who have been compelled to let their interest get into arrear because of their being overseas; but the dangers are very great, because it would mean that we are using for loan company work money that might be used to get settlers. I would be prepared to let the clause stand so that I might give a little more consideration to the possibility of extending it somewhat. I do not think rVTr. Meighen.]
it would be at all the part of wisdom, though, to put those men on the same level with the men who are actually being placed on the land by the board.


John Archibald Maharg: In all sincerity I think
(hat these men are entitled to even greater consideration. Those are the men who made the sacrifice in the first place. They left their farms at the mercy of other people in hundreds of cases, and, to my mind, 'they should get first consideration.
Section stands.
On section 27-Forfeiture by settler of title to land when he is in default.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to have that
clause amended, to better express its purpose. Amended it will read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in the Dominion Lands Act or in any other Act, in the event of a settler who is holding any Dominion land on which a charge has .been imposed, constituted or created toy or under this or the former Act (hereinafter referred to as "charged land ) being in default with respect to the terms or conditions of any agreement of sale, mortgage or other document executed or made with or to the board, the minister, upon request made toy the hoard, may declare the right, title and interest of the settler to or in such charged land to be forfeited, whereupon (and also in the event of the right, title or interest of the settler to or in such charged land becoming forfeited for default in performance of settlement conditions or for any other reason apart from the provisions of this section) the minister may declare the said right, title or interest of such settler, and also the right, title or interest of His Ma-jesy to or in such charged land, to toe vested in the Board, and it may thereafter, subject to the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act, in order to recoup itself for the amount owing by such settler and charged upon such land, sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of such land to a settler, or, with the approval of the minister, to any other person; tout if any surplus is realized1 beyond the amount required to recoup the board as aforesaid such surplus shall toe paid toy the board to the Department of the Interior for the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 28-No sale to any .settler who obtained soldier grant, advance on his own land, or owns an average farm.
Arthur Meighen: I desire to have this clause amended by inserting after the word "not" in the second line the following words: "Unless the minister upon the recommendation of the Board, shall approve."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 30-All agreements between Board and settler under twenty-one years are valid.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not that a serious departure from common law principles?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and throughout the Bill there are very many important departures from common law principles; there have to be. This is a task we have assumed for the benefit of the whole Dominion, consequently we must assert for ourselves rights that, ordinarily, are provincial rights, but which we are in a position to assert because the lands become our own. In this regard it is, of course, necessary to obtain a real obligation on the part of the men with whom we are going to deal, and we cannot refuse to deal with a returned soldier because he happens to be under twenty-one years of age; consequently we have to make him liable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 33-Unless Board consents, land, stock, etc., held and unpaid in full by settler to be exempt from operation of ordinary laws.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the meaning of that? Unless the Government has a bill of sale of the stock in the possession of the man who takes advantage of this Act, and that bill of sale is registered, it is hardly fair that his property should not be subject to his debts, the same as any one else's property. I gather that the Government holds a lien on such property which has priority over any other?


Arthur Meighen: That is a fact. But it is not proposed to put the general public in a position to impose upon that man obligations which may result in his being sold out and in the whole purpose of the Act, which is to make that man a settler, defeated. By this Act we give notice to the public that these special precautions are thrown round that settler; the public must deal with him accordingly. The section says:
Notwithstanding any law, whether statute or otherwise, in force in any province,-
(a)	which authorizes or requires the registration, recording or filing of deeds, mortgages, certificates of judgments, attachments, bills of sale or other documents which effect title to, or evidence the existence of liens or charges upon, property, real, personal or other; or,
(b)	which authorizes the levy upon, or sale under attachment, execution or other process, or the expropriation or seizure of, property, real, personal or other;
unless the board shall otherwise consent in
writing the lands of, or sold by the board to, a settler, and- the live stock and equipment of, or sold by the board to, a settler and the in rease of any such live stock, and the board's an.l the settler's respective interests in such lands, live stock and equipment, shall, for so long as any part of the sale price, or the amount of any advance made with respect to any such property, or any interest, or any amount charged upon such property or any thereof in favour of the board, remains unpaid to the board, be exempt from and not within the operation of such laws.
That is to say, no man can sell the property of that settler, which we provided him with, under execution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When a private individual lends money and takes as security therefor a bill of sale on the goods and chattels of the person to whom he makes the loan, that bill of sale is registered; the same should be true in the case of loans made by the Government. The merchants of Saskatchewan and Manitoba will not read this Act, and when they see one of these settlers with a fine farm and good stock and equipment they may be willing to extend to him a credit of two or three hundred dollars; but when they come to look for their money they find that they cannot touch his property. When the Government undertake to lend money on security they should comply with the provincial law in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot adopt that policy, because in some of the provinces there is no provision for registration. These animals that we are providing the settler with are our own, and they still remain our own after they are sold to the settler. There is no provision for registration in Manitoba. If A sells to B in Manitoba certain goods and takes what is known there as a lien note for them, he does not have to register that lien note. Any one dealing with B as to these goods must look up the chain of title; that obligation is on him. In our case we are adopting the policy of identifying our animals so that any one can see that they are the property of the board; and that will be a warning to all concerned. It is manifest that we should not start this man out and then permit others who may be shrewder than he is to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill by selling him enough goods, or in some way getting his obligation, taking execution. The Government must see this man through from beginning to end.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If in Manitoba there is no registration of bills of sale, that is another matter.


Arthur Meighen: There is registration of bills of sale, but we do not take any bill of sale'; the animals are ours.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the title is vested in the farmer?


Arthur Meighen: No, in the board.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Weh, the possession is in the farmer?


Arthur Meighen: -Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In our province the presumption of ownership goes with possession; but before you go too far with the presumption you look up the registry of deeds, and if there is nothing on file there in regard to the property concerned, you have a right to suppose that it is the property of the person who holds it in possession. In Nova Scotia you cannot be safe in following any other course unless there is some agreement to the contrary. There is a pernicious system with respect to the sale of pianos, organs and that sort of thing which is creating havoc in our province because of the fact that the paper which is taken by way of security is not put on file; but apart from that, everything has to be dealt with under the Bill of Sale Act.


Peter McGibbon: It may be a good thing for the Government to put a man on 100 or 150 acres of land, well stocked and equipped, and to protect him so that he can defy the public, but it seems to me that it does not tend to improve the moral standing of the man who goes on the land.


Arthur Meighen: We are simply protecting the goods we sell; any other goods are liable. If we did not protect our own goods the case would be hopeless, for we are carrying this scheme out in every part of Canada.


Peter McGibbon: The protection is confined exclusively to the goods furnished by the Government?


Arthur Meighen: It is confined to our goods.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What security does the minister take in respect to the ownership exercised by the Government?


Arthur Meighen: As I said a moment ago, we do not take any security.
We purchase the goods and sell them to these men, and we have a system of stamping them in such a way that any one on investigation can see they are ours. What

we hold out to the whole country is this warning that every man in the district will know who is a soldier settler. It will not be very long until they get to know that as regards that soldier settler a special law exists, and they must take care in dealing with him not to rely for security on goods to that soldier by the Government. I do not think there will be any difficulty; there has not been so far, and this has been in effect since the 11th oif February, and has worked very well.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there any section in the Bill dealing with stamping?


Arthur Meighen: No, but that is the practice.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I believe this will create a dangerous situation for the mercantile and professional interests. Any person wishing ito do business with a soldier settler would take it for granted that his security was gilt-edged, because there would: be nothing on record in the registry office to show to the contrary, and I do not know by what means they would trace up the settler's standing. I fail to see any reason why the Government should not register the documents which affeot the title to the property. Why should it not be placed on record in the registry office in the various provinces? I think that would be in the interest of the settler as well, because if there is any doubt in the mind of the general public as to his general stability or title to the property it would affect the settler prejudicially. I certainly think it would be in the interest both of the settler and of the mercantile and professional interests to have some system of registration whereby the exact title could be ascertained by those desiring to know.


Arthur Meighen: I think that the hon. member ought to take special pains to see that no merchant is under any apprehension in that regard, because the board is absolutely determined that it is not going to undertake these obligations as trustee for the public, and expose the settler to exhibiting the Government's goods as the basis of the credit to him. The board has received ample warning in this regard. There is evidence abundant that myriads of people were simply hanging by the wayside waiting for this scheme to come into operation, expecting that they would be the real beneficiaries thereby. Why, we have cases, and more than one, of agents who have sold a cream separator to a sol-

dier with, one cow, and these things will continue unless we take some special precautions. What is the difficulty about a merchant knowing? It is not hard for him to find out, if he is dealing with a soldier settler, that he cannot rely for his security on the goods the Government provides. If the man is reliable he can give him credit if he wishes, but he had better not rely for his security on the goods that we supply to that man There is no difficulty about them knowing the law in that regard, and if they do not know it, they had better inquire and find out. In my judgment, the whole plan would be doomed to inevitable failure on any other basis whatsoever.


Mr PEDLOW:: I fail to realize that by showing the man's standing you would be creating a basis for credit. I think it would have just the reverse effect; it would protect the general public. It would also be protecting the Government's interest. I do not see why the Government should make laws to govern private individuals, and not live up to those laws themselves, as in this case. I think the Government should live up to the law just the same as any individual in the country.


Arthur Meighen: We intend to live up to it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But you are making one law for yourselves and another for individuals.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the farm and all that is on it be subject to municipal assessment?


Mr MEIGHEN:: Yes, the settler's interest in all these things will be subject to assessment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I mean the land as well as the personal property. The title remains in the Government, and under the common law the property, being the King's property, would not be subject to assessment. Is there any arrangement by which that property shall be subject to assessment although it is the property of the Grown?


Arthur Meighen: We are not creating any new law in that regard. Crown property of course, is not subject to taxation. It has been held, however, that in the case of a homestead, for example, although that is Crown property, the homesteader's right is assessable and taxable, and we think that
ordinary law applicable here will be quite sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34-while any sum on advances unpaid all properties of settlers to remain as security and his interests therein cannot be alienated.
Jacques Bureau: Is the patent issued, in case of Government lands, before the whole indebtedness of the settler is paid off?


Arthur Meighen: The patent does not issue until the obligation is paid; that is in the case of Government lands, what we call Dominion lands. But in the case of lands acquired by the board for sale, the patent, of course, is already issued, and the title following that patent rests with the board until the board is paid.


Jacques Bureau: Including the amount due on chattels?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, because as will appear by a subsequent section, all the obligations of the settler, no matter from what source arising, are made a charge upon the land, so that the Government holds the land for all.


Mr. FULTON:: It is possible for a soldier settler, I suppose, who may have some money of his own to purchase horses or cattle which would belong to him and on which the Government would have no charge. How is the public to know in dealing with that settler which animals belong to the Government?


Arthur Meighen: They can find out, of course, upon inquiry from the board if they do not rely upon the settler. In addition, we adopt the practice of stamping the goods sold.


Frederick John Fulton: The animals, too?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, by branding.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the word
"charged" in line 37, of page 16, should be "charge."


Arthur Meighen: What the draftsman intended was "against his interest in any property subject to lien," or "against his interest in any property charged." I think it should be the way it is.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then the comma should be after the word "lien" instead of where it is?
.3888


Arthur Meighen: I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 39-Owner to file return with district superintendent within 30 days as per from C:
Arthur Meighen: I move to amend section 39 so that it shall read:
Within thirty days after the last gazetting of the establishment of a settlement area each owner of a block the whole or any part whereof is situate within the settlement area, shall file with the District Superintendent of the Board having jurisdiction over the district within which such settlement area is situate, a return in Form C in the Schedule to this Act naming the prices at which he is willing to sell the block and each parcel thereof to the board. He shall give such other information with respect to such block as the board may from time to time prescribe or require.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 40-'Statement of all liens, etc., on land to be furnished to board by person interested:
Hugh Boulton Morphy: This section says that
every person who has any estate or interest in any land to be compulsorily purchased, " or who represents or is the husband of any such person," and so on. Why should it be limited to the husband?


Arthur Meighen: This clause is taken
verbatim from the Expropriation Act, and I thought it better to keep the exact words of that Act. The only reason why this anl many other clauses from that Act are incorporated in this is that the Soldiers' Settlement Act may be complete in itself in order that it may be used as a single document. Otherwise we would simply say " the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall apply."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is it necessary that it
shall be restricted to the husband?


Arthur Meighen: It puts an obligation
upon the husband of the owner. It does not say " the wife of the owner " because the owner in that case being a male can do it himself. This requirement arises from the practice of the husband looking after the wife's business. The section was taken entirely from the Expropriation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 41-The board may purchase land compulsorily:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the process for ascertaining the amount that should be paid

in the case of the compulsory taking of land?


Arthur Meighen: By the provisions of
this Act the first step is the expropriation. The board decides that certain land must be taken and a mere notification gazetted takes the land. Then they proceed under the ordinary provisions of the Expropriation Act to determine what shall be paid for the land.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Section 41 does not
mention the Expropriation Act.


Arthur Meighen: No, we do not mention the Expropriation Aot anywhere, we simply transfer the sections in that Act on this subject into this Bill. The Exchequer Court decides values under the Expropriation Act. That court can constitute judges in the several courts of the provinces as Exchequer Court Judges for the purposes of the Act, and the valuations are fixed by the judges so constituted.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the board
under this Act acquire Canadian Pacifie Railway lands?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. They are just
the same as any other. I stated this afternoon that the Canadian Pacific had made an arrangement whereby they will sell land to the board for the purposes of this Act at 20 per cent off their list prices. Their established prices are well known to the country and 20 per cent makes a very large difference.


Mr. LANG:: When the board has acquired the Canadian Pacific lands will those lands then become liable to taxation?


Arthur Meighen: They would not if the board held them because the board represents His Majesty, and at common law His Majesty cannot be taxed. But the board does not acquire them until it sells them. The board acquires the land on the application of a settler, and immediately the land is sold and becomes liable to taxation.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the board find the land or the settler first?


Arthur Meighen: The hoard finds the
settler first. As soon as the prospective settler selects the land, the board sends out one of its inspectors and if the price is found to be right the board buys tSe land and the sale to the settler is carried on simultaneously.


Mr. HAY:: In case land now liable for
taxation is taken over by the board and is

not sold, that land will be no longer liable for taxation and hardship will be inflicted on the municipality.


Arthur Meighen: It would be if the board kept the land, but the board does not do that. The board will turn it over to the settler.


Thomas Hay: This land cannot be sold at a tax sale as can other land in the western provinces?


Arthur Meighen: No, the interest of the board could not be taken under tax sale. But we realize the necessity of not undermining the municipality. That is going to be the policy of the board and it will be to their interest to see that the settler's taxes are paid.


Thomas Hay: Does this mean that only the interest that the settler has in the land is taxable, or the whole property?


Arthur Meighen: The individual himseli is liable for the entire taxes that he is assessed for by the municipality. The land is merely the security. The security which the municipality will have in respect to the settler will just be the settler's interest in the land, the same as its security now is limited to the homesteader's interest in his land. All homestead land that a man enters for is taxed but the municipality cannot sell it. The municipality, however, can say: You do not get the title to that land until you pay your taxes. It is a similar law which we apply here. They cannot sell the land which is owned by the board but they can tax the settler's interest and retain it, and the settler cannot get his title until his taxes are paid.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 42-when board may establish or declare a block of land a settlement area:
On motion of Mr. Meighen the word "forty" in line ten was stricken out and the word "forty-one" substituted therefor.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 46-payment of compensation
costs:
Arthur Meighen: That is just as in the Expropriation Act. Any claims against land the Board takes becomes a claim against the moneys that the board has taken.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 48-resistance to peaceful possession:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a very import* ant procedure. I have not had time to read the Bill through, so I ask: What is the procedure to dispossess a man? I think it would create a great deal of hardship to turn a man and his family out on the road if they had no place to go.


Arthur Meighen: If resistance is offered, of course the hardship would apply because the order of tne Exchequer court for possession would empower the sheriff to deliver possession to the board. Naturally hardship could be imposed upon a man in that way, but if he has been paid for his land it would be no great hardship to give it up. Subelauses 1 and 2 are 'taken verbatim from the Expropriation Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not what I mean. I understand it is proposed that the moment a plan is filed and notice given that title to the land vests in the board, the proceedings described in this 'Section may take place. Yet, the owner may not accept the money, he may want to go to the Exchequer court, and it takes two or three years before the matter is finally settled. In the meantime, there may be an application for a warrant to put the board in possession of the land. That is where the hardship comes in. If s man takes the money for the land he ought to give up the title, but he may be entitled to say that the amount offered is not enough, that the case is in the Exchequer court and that he will not give up possession until it is finally disposed of. Is there any provision for notice to the party in possession of the application being made before the Exchequer court?


Arthur Meighen: The party, under this Act, always has full notice before the expropriation proceedings are taken and when the attempt is made to purchase the land. They try to come to a friendly arrangement as to the price. If that proves impossible notice of expropriation is given and the filing of the plan follows. . C nave no doubt it will be possible for the board to act harshly in obtaining the title, but the board is not going to do so. At the same time, the board cannot be delayed, out of mere obstinacy, in obtaining possession of the land for the settler. This is not a new law at all; it has been the law for many years and this is the way that possession has been taken in hundreds of thousands of cases of appropriation under such circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is the common practice to give notice. There is nothing better established in British law than that you cannot make an order against a man in the court without giving him notice. The Supreme Court of Canada have held over and over again that a man cannot be bound by any proceedings which take place in court of which he has had no notice. The court may grant an order but the man should have notice before the order is granted.


Arthur Meighen: This very section provides for notice.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I told my hon. friend that I had not had time to read it and I was asking him what the effect would be.


Arthur Meighen: That notice is provided for.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What good purpose does the minister hope to serve by taking land from one -settler to give to another settler who wants, or fancies, the land that some particular settler has located on when there is so much unsettled land in the country?


Arthur Meighen: I have answered that question -several times. There is no intention on the part of the board to do that. In fact, the principle is clearly embodied in this Act that the board is not to take land that is being used, it is to take land which is not being reasonably used. There is some advantage to the country in handing land over to somebody who will use it as against the man who will not use it and who holds it for speculative purposes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I assumed from the discussion that has just taken place between the minister and my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that you intended to dispossess some man, put him on the roadside and instal some one else in his place.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 49-inspection and survey of and entry upon lands:
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I draw the minister's attention to the fact that whereas in subsection 2 of section 49 the qualification:
-duly licensed or empowered to act as a surveyor for any province of Canadais required, there seems to be no definition of the qualifications of an engineer. The danger I see is that a non-qualified person may be deputed to make a survey as an engineer, and may make it improperly.


Arthur Meighen: Section 49 is taken from the Expropriation Act, and I do not like to burden the ordinary expropriation machinery if I can help it. I think the original Act would have been better drafted if some qualification .-had been put after " engineer," but there is one very great advantage in following another Act, even though that Act may not be drafted in the very best way, namely, the advantage of following the procedure, and so forth. I do not suppose we would lose any of that by defining the term " engineer." The board is not going to employ a person who is not an engineer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 59-power of board to estimate land- apart from buildings and to vary amount as to balance due:
Arthur Meighen: I desire to propose two amendments to this clause. The way it reads now the board is empowered to take any amount not exceeding $1,000 away from the stock loan and add it to improvements. The amendment I propose is to enable the board to take away from the improvements .loan and add it to the stock loan. The amendment will therefore empower the board to vary the provisions of section 18 in that regard and:
(li) To vary the provisions of section sixteen to nineteen inclusively, of this Act, so that live stock and equipment to a value not exceeding three thousand dollars may he sold to a settler, but so that the total amount of balance of price and advances -remaining unpaid by the settler as the result of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this Act shall not exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars.
The Bill will then provide that $1,000 may be taken off stock and added to the amount available for improvements, or the stock loan may be raised $1,000 and made $3,000, so long as the total does not exceed $7,500. I think that will be clear to the committee. That is to meet the strong representations made by the war veterans that we were not adequately providing for stock ;farming, especially in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I also desire to amend subsection (1) by adding the following subclause (c):
In all cases of sales of orchard or fruit lands, to apply the provisions of section 18 of this Act, with such other provisions thereof as may depend upon or have relation to those of said section, as if for the words "live stock or equipment" or "live stock and equipment acquired under authority of this Act" or words to the same effect in said section or in any of said sections appearing, there were substituted

the words "fruit trees, already planted or growing on any land sold by the board to the settler,"-
That is to say, providing for the substitution of fruit trees already planted or growing on any land sold by the board to the settler.
-and, for any purpose of this Act, to estimate the value of the trees and shruibs already planted or growing on any land being sold by the board to the settler apart from the value of such land.
I submit that the better course would be to have this amendment as proposed printed in Hansard, and to let the clause stand, so that the members of the committee may see the clause in the morning as it will appear in its amended form, and we can deal with it when we are in committee again on the Bill. It makes a very substantial amendment to section 59.
Amendments stand.
Section stands.
On section 61-No fee or commission on any sale to board:


Arthur Meighen: This is a very important clause. It provides that:
(1)	No person, firm or corporation shall be entitled to charge or to collect as against or from any other person, firm or corporation any fee or commission or advance of price for services rendered in the sale of any land made to the board, whether for the finding or introducing of a buyer or otherwise.
(2)	No person, firm or corporation shall pay to any other person, firm or corporation any such fee or commission or advance of price for any such services.
(3)	The board may require of any person, firm or corporation from whom It purchases land, or who is in any manner interested therein, the execution of an affidavit in Form E in the Schedule to this Act.
The affidavit contains a declaration that no commission whatever is paid in connection with the transaction. It must not be inferred because this clause is inserted that the business of a commission land agent is wrongful, or criminal, or any less legitimate than any other business. But the fact is that owing to its being the Government that is purchasing and dealing with these lands, the necessity for shutting out even access to fraud is so great that we deem it best to prohibit commissions altogether. In fact, we do not know any other way of doing it. The Government when purchasing land in a locality does not know every individual resident there, and it is very difficult for the Government, as for a private individual,
to guard itself against being imposed on in this way. Consequently we provide that no commission shall be charged on any sale of land to the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 64-Repeal of 1917, c. 21, and continuance in office of employees.
John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister continue these employees in office or not?


Arthur Meighen: They are continued in office. When this Act takes effect they are officers operating under this Act instead of under the old Act, that is all.


John Howard Sinclair: How many officers are there?


Arthur Meighen: There are 470 altogether. I think that is a very small number when we consider the vast operations of the Board. Besides those engaged on soldiers' settlement work, there are in the Department of the Interior, 2,956 officers. In the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment there is a staff of almost 4,000. So, having in mind the vast extent of the administrative responsibilities, the .staff of the Soldier 'Settlement Board is not at all large.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it necessary to increase the staff for the purposes of this Act?


Arthur Meighen: The Act of itself will not increase the staff, but the business is increasing all along, and we shall have to increase the staff in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 131, for the promotion of technical education in Canada-Hon. J. A. Calder-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last under consideration by the Committee we had adopted clause 1, short title, and were discussing clause 2, definition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It seems to me, upon a reading of paragraph (c) of section 2, that all the words after the word "province" are superfluous; the rest seems to be explanatory.


Mr. CALDER:: The point is very well taken; the additional words are really of an
.3892

explanatory character, and the section would be complete without them. However, I think no harm will be done by leaving the words there, as they give an indication of the character and purpose of the work to he carried on.


Jacques Bureau: I suppose it is the intention of the Government to pass paragraph (c) of this section, notwithstanding the protests that were made the other day and the reasons that were adduced to show that this was an encroachment upon provincial rights?
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-not to apply to any province which has not approved of Act:


James Alexander Calder: The purpose of this section will be served if we strike out the words "approved its provisions and," so that the section will read:
This Act shall not apply to any province until the Government thereof has by order in council signified its desire to take advantage thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-amounts payable:
John Howard Sinclair: In subsection 2,
what "census" is referred to?-the federal census that is taken every ten years? Or would that include also the interim census taken from time to time in the western provinces?


James Alexander Calder: It is the last federal census taken in any province. A quinquennial census is taken in the three Prairie Provinces, of which that part of the country would get the advantage under this Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why is the census taken more frequently in the Western Provinces?


James Alexander Calder: The per capita grants
payable to those provinces are based upon population, and as the population was growing very rapidly it was thought that it would not be fair to base the per capita grants upon a census taken every ten years. I understand that a similar provision with regard to the census is in the Highways measure and in the Agricultural Instruction Act.


Jacques Bureau: May I suggest that the
word "decennial" be inserted between the words "last" and "federal" in line 24 of page 2. I understand that the reason

given for the quinquennial census is on account of the amount paid to the provinces per capita. Now the western provinces are increasing in population much faster than the eastern provinces, and it would not be right to apportion this money to the western provinces every five years and to the eastern provinces only once in ten years, for this reason:	The western provinces are essentially agricultural, while the eastern provinces are essentially industrial, and it is in connection with industry that technical education is mainly required. It was admitted by practically every one who spoke on the Budget, and I think the House will agree, that it is in the eastern provinces that the greatest industrial development is taking place. Therefore, the development of technical education in the East will require more money than in the West. I think it would only be fair, therefore, that this grant should be apportioned on the basis of the last decennial census, which was taken in 1910, until a new census is taken throughout the Dominion.


James Alexander Calder: I admit at once that there is a great deal in the contention of my hon. friend. The older provinces, which are more highly industrialized than the western provinces, are, I think, entitled to an advantage in this respect, and if it is the wish of the Committee that the word "decennial" be inserted, I am quite agreeable to the change being made. On looking up the Agricultural Instruction Act I find that the expression used there is the "last decennial census" and not the "last federal census."


Jacques Bureau: I would therefore move
that the word "decennial" be inserted between the words "last" and "federal" in line 24 of page 2.


John Archibald Maharg: What is the idea of making that change?


Jacques Bureau: In the West the census is taken every five years. Therefore, the basis of apportionment of the money will be changed every five years for the West, while only every ten years for the East. The change I have suggested will make the basis uniform. If this was a grant to agriculture I would say that we should do just the reverse, but as it is a grant to technical education, which is concerned with industrial education more than anything else. 1 think the East ought to stand on a par with the West.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I would draw the minister's attention to subsection 2 of this section providing for the apportionment of the money between the several provinces in proportion to population. When this matter was under consideration before, it was pointed out very distinctly that the minister was following along the lines of the Agricultural Instruction Act. That Act provides for a minimum allowance to each province before the grant is apportioned on the per capita basis. I am in receipt of a communication from the Board of Technical Education in New Brunswick pointing out that it is very important that a minimum allowance should be provided for the smaller provinces as a foundation on which to work. Otherwise, the basis of apportionment would he very unfair to the provinces with a small population. On the per capita basis Prince Edward Island, for instance, would receive only $8,000 out of this grant, and New Brunswick only $30,000, which is a very small amount with which to accomplish much in the line of technical education, either by establishing a technical school, or combining technical education with the ordinary school work. In technical schools, such as we hope to see established under this grant, there is always a certain amount of overhead expenses for instructors, preparatory work, and so forth, and I submit that it would be unfair to the provinces with a small population not to provide a minimum allowance before distributing the grant according to population. On behalf, therefore, of my own province,-and I know I shall have the sympathy of every hon. member from the Maritime Provinces who takes an interest in technical education -I would urge the minister to see if he cannot provide for a minimum amount being allotted to each province as was done under the Agricultural Instruction Act. The minimum there, I think, was $20,000. The smaller provinces have been struggling along valiantly in extending their educational [DOT] facilities, and it is a very heavy burden, particularly in regard to technical education. I trust, therefore, my suggestion will have the favourable consideration oi the Government.


Mr. McISAAC:: I think it will readily be appreciated by hon. gentlemen that if this grant were apportioned strictly on a per capita basis the provinces with a small population would be handicapped and subjected to injustice. Under the Agricultural Instruction Act there was a flat rate in the first place, and afterwards the balance ot
the money was apportioned on a per capita basis.
The larger provinces do not suffer to any extent by having this flat rate apportioned in the beginning, because the amount thus paid out is only a small proportion of the entire grant, and with their large populations they are at an advantage in any event. But the smaller provinces with small populations isuffe'r a great disadvantage if the grant is apportioned on a purely per capita basis, for they would receive a very small portion of it by reason of the meagreness of their population. I sincerely trust that the minister will see his way clear to adopt the same method in distributing this grant as was followed in the case of the agricultural grant. My own province, is the smallest in the Dominion, with a small population, but according to area, I am pleased to say, it is the most thickly populated of all the provinces. Besides its smallness it has this further handicap : There are provinces that had small territories but were enabled to enlarge them from the lands that lay around, but in our case, unfortunately, we cannot hope for any addition of that kind, because we are an island. Therefore, I hope the minister will so arrange it that a portion of the grant will in the first place be given equally to all provinces, after which the balance will be distributed according to population. That will be an advantage to the smaller provinces! while it cannot prejudice the case of the larger provinces, because those with a population of a million or two or more, will be in an advantageous position in any case.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this clause was up before, I urged upon the minister as strongly as I could to adopt the principle followed in the Agricultural Aid Act and also in the proposed division of the road money. I have before me the resolution in connection with aid to highways and it says:
Resolved, That It Is expedient to provide that for the purpose of constructing and improving highways in Canada, the 'Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada of the sum of twenty million dollars during the period of five years from the first day of April, 1919 ; which sum shall be allotted and paid as follows: (a) eighty thousand dollars each year to the Government of each province, and (b) the remainder of such sum to the Governments of the respective provinces, in proportion to the populations of the said .provinces respectively, as determined 'by the latest Federal census of each province;
That has been the method adopted in connection with the Agricultural Instruc-

tion Act, and it is the method proposed to be adopted in connection with highways. I tried to impress upon the minister that the same principle should apply in connection with this vote which is very much along the same line. The first is an aid to agriculture, the second an aid to highways, and this is an aid to technical education. If the principle is sound in the first two it should .be followed in the third. It is even more important that it should be adopted in this case. However small a province may be, it must have the proper equipment, the proper professor, throughly conversant with the subject, and must pay an adequate salary. In these respects a small province will require exactly the same kind of equipment as the larger provinces. I see no reason why the minister should depart from the precedent established in the other two Acts, when the circumstances are so closely allied, and I do hope he will consider this matter.


James Alexander Calder: Since the Bill was last before the committee two points were raised,-this one, and the question as to whether or not the moneys expended by municipalities should be taken into consideration in the payment of grants. I had intended to refer those two questions to Council, but I have not had an opportunity to do so. Personally I am inclined to the view that the Bill should be amended in the direction suggested. The question of a special amount to be paid to all the provinces will .be a matter for consideration; and I would move that subsection 2 of section 4 be allowed to stand. When the Bill is next before the House the matter can be again considered when I hope to be able to make propositions to the House.
Section stands.
On section 6-Terms upon which payments will be made.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Section 6 says that the payment of grants shall be made subject to certain terms and conditions. It mentions the first day of July, 1919, and section 5, subsection 2, in regard to the determination of grants payable to provinces annually, mentions the first day of April.


James Alexander Calder: It should be July in both cases. A point was raised in the general discussion the other day in regard to subsection (e) of this section:
The minister shall he the sole judge of all questions and differences that may arise under this Act or under any agreement made In pursuance of this Act.

*So far as I am concerned that provision can be struck out. An agreement has to be entered into between the province and the Federal Government, and I have no doubt that the agreement itself will provide for the settlement of any differences of opinion. I therefore move that subsection (e) be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jacques Bureau: Subsection (b) provides that no portion of any grant shall be used in whole or in part in meeting any liability or expenditure incurred prior to the first of July, 1919.


James Alexander Calder: That is, for lands, buildings*, furnishings or equipments.


Jacques Bureau: Why not omit the date? Twenty-five per cent of the annual grant payable to any province will be applied for acquiring land, erecting, extending or improving buildings, etc. Some provinces that may have begun the development of technical education may necessarily have had to go into debt before the first of July, 1919, and perhaps the date might be eliminated. I know that in certain cases heavy liabilities have been incurred by local governments and other bodies for the purpose of promoting technical education.


James Alexander Calder: The Bill is based upon
the need for expansion in technical education work From one end of Canada to the other there has been a lack of provision necessary for work of this kind. The Bill assumes that whatever liabilities have been incurred up to date have been provided for, and these grants are to be used for new work. If we depart from that principle and begin to take care of liabilities heretofore created, I am afraid a good deal of the money which we are providing in the way of grants will never be used for new purposes. We are most desirous, on account of the general lack of facilities of this kind in Canada, that any moneys provided by the Federal Government shall be used for entirely new expenditures, and not to defray old liabilities.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In regard to subsection (f), I think if there is to be an agreement there may be a conflict between this clause as it stands and the agreement that may be entered into. The clause reads:
(f) Every province receiving a grant shall furnish the minister with such evidence as he may resuire, to show that the grants paid here-

under are expended for technical education aa provided by this Act.
I think it would be sufficient to say that every province receiving a grant shall furnish the minister with such evidence as he may require to show that the grants paid are expended for the purposes agreed upon.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All the words after "for" can be struck out and the words "the purpose agreed upon" inserted after the word "expended."


James Alexander Calder: The section as amended
will read:
As provided for in the agreement with such province. Each province receiving a grant shall furnish such evidence as may be required to show that the grants paid hereunder are used for technical education as provided for in the agreement with such province.


Jacques Bureau: The agreement under this Act?


James Alexander Calder: It is not one agreement. There may be a slightly different agreement with each province.


Jacques Bureau: That covers it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Appointment of staff:


Jacques Bureau: Has the minister any
idea of the staff that will be required to carry out the provisions of this Act?


James Alexander Calder: I have not gone into that matter myself. This Bill was prepared by the Labour Department and the information required in its framing has been gathered by them. I would think that not more than one, or possibly two men would be sufficient for the purpose because the Labour Department, in carrying out this Act, will be merely an advisory and not an administrative department. I think it will be a distinct advantage to have one or two technical experts who can advise the minister as to the agreements and who can help the various provinces in unifying and harmonising the work. I think that one first-class man would probably be sufficient.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to ask the
minister if it would be possible for him to reconsider a certain feature of this Bill. If he would do so it would eliminate all the expense that is possible under section 7. If the words in subsection (c) of section 2, " approved by agreement between the minister and the Government of any province as being necessary or desirable " were eliminated, the provinces that have the machinery already in operation would be able to administer the fund covered by this Act without any expense to the country at all. I think that we might depend upon the educational departments of the various provinces to handle the money to the best possible advantage and to the satisfaction of the department an the country. I am in entire accord with the principle of the Bill in providing a fund for technical education. Immediately the armistice was signed the United States Government passed an appropriation of $100,000,000 for this special purpose. They realised the necessity of getting busy at once with the education of their mechanics, artisans and the members of various trades in that country up to the very highest stage possible. We are travelling along the same line. We cannot get busy too soon with this class of work and wo cannot give too much aid to it. I would suggest, in order that as much money as possible may be conserved, and as we have confluence in the educational departments of the various provinces, that the administration of this fund be left entirely with the provinces.


James Alexander Calder: The honourable gentleman was apparently not in his place when this question was raised by the honourable member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). If thes^ moneys are to be granted without some measure or supervision by the federal authorities I think I am quite safe in saying that the Government is prepared to drop or withdraw it. The Government has come to the conclusion, after very full and serious consideration, that if grants such as these are to be given to the provinces there must be some supervision and control. We had a very full discussion of the point the last time the Bill was before the House, and the clause has been before the Committee this evening also, when the honourable gentleman (Mr. Pedlow), apparently was not in his place. The clause was carried. I do not think we can raise the question again at this time. I had no knowlege that $100,000,000 had been voted by the Congress of the United States for these purposes. There is a pioposition before Congress whereby a sum of between $90,000,000 and $100,000,000, covering a .period of years, shall be used, if the proposition is carried, for a campaign of Americanizing the foreign-born in the United States. The only similar law I know of is the Smith-Hughes law, pas3jd

in 1917, under which Congress provides ffir a grant to the several states, hut they have very elaborate machinery in connection with that law for the supervision and control of the expenditures. Notwithstanding the fact that the various state auhorit-ies in the different states have full jurisdiction over the technical education, under the Smith-Hughes law by which grants similar to these are made by the federal authorities in the United States, they provide for the measure of control and supervision to which I have referred. I feel quite certain that the technical education board that has been established -md-. the law of the United States will render vi-r valuable service to all the states oi the Union that take advantage of the law. I am in hopes that the department of Labour here can secure the services of at least one, and possibly two first-class experts, and that these experts, in travelling throughout Canada and holding conferences with the men who are engaged in this work, will be able to render valuable services in this direction.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The press despatch from which I have quoted merely made the statement that that sum had been granted by the United States Government for that purpose; it gave none of the details of the working out of the proposition. If the minister wishes I can produce the press despatch in question.


John Howard Sinclair: I think we ought to avoid as much as possible building up a technical education depart-
10 p.m. ment at Ottawa, because it really is not necessary. When this Bill passes and the provinces undertake the work, there will be a technical education branch in each province and it would be a mistake for us to create a department here with such inspectors, clerks, and officers as are named in the Bill, at vast expense when it appears to be unnecessary. I do not think such a thing is required in the case of the grant that is given for the purposes of agriculture. The work to be done at Ottawa should be very small indeed- simply to pay over the money. The whole responsibility resting upon the local administration, it will be for them to show that they are expending that money according to agreement. I hope the minister does not intend to establish an expensive department in Ottawa to watch the provinces in the administration of this grant.


James Alexander Calder: No, it is not necessary to do that; but it seems to me it is very necessary, if grants are to be paid to, and agreements entered into with the several provinces that the minister who is responsible for that work should have at hand a man upon whose judgment he can very largely rely. Neither the minister nor the officials in his department, as at present constituted, are necessarily qualified in the field of technical education which is a specialized business, and unless the minister has some person at hand who can advise him in all these matters he will be more or less at sea. If I remember correctly, when provision was made for grants to agricultural education, one of the first things the Government did was to secure the services of Mr. C. C. James, who was recognized as one of the best agricultural educationists in Canada; and from what personal knowledge I have of his work in our own province Mr. G. C. James in consultation with the provincial officers rendered very valuable service. I cannot see myself any necessity for the building up of a large staff. I think all the minister will require will be at least one man, and possibly two, of the class that I have referred to, because they will have no administrative duties at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister, I am
sure, will appreciate the very strong conscientious objections that were made by some members on this side against any encroachment upon the scope of provincial jurisdiction, particularly in the matter of education which is left entirely to the provinces, in which views I fully concur. At the same time I do not object to what the Government is doing, because we started out along those lines when the Laurier Government was in power. That Government appointed a commission to investigate the question of technical education, and the present legislation, although very late, is the fruit of that inquiry. Therefore, I cannot say that it should not go into effect. But I must respect the opinions of hon. gentlemen who are opposed to any incursions into the jurisdiction of the provinces in this connection. I would suppose that the terms of subsection (c) of section 2 provides for the relation that will exist between the department at Ottawa which will have charge of the expenditure and the provincial authorities, because there has to be an agreement and the former will have full authority to make such an agreement as it may deem ample to safe-

guard the expenditures proposed to be made. That will be the federal government's only duty and its obligation will toe to see that the provinces live up to the agreement entered into. My own view is that the agreement in question should contain all the powers which the provinces should have and therefore I do not really think that sections 7 and 8, particularly the latter, are necessary at all. Then section 8, if the Chairman will permit one to refer to it before we enter upon its consideration, gives the Dominion Government power to the extent virtually of taking full control of technical education in the provinces. As to whatever part of section 8 may be agreed to by mutual consent, for example between the Government here and the Ontario Government, and put in writing, I have nothing to say, tout I do not wish to invest this Government with power in regard to education which the constitution of the country does not contemplate and which should not be granted.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What meaning does the minister put upon the word " survey " in section 8 ?


Georges Henri Boivin: I would remind the hon. gentleman that clause 7 is the one the committee is at present considering.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would draw attention to the fact that it cannot be altogether necessary for the Federal Government to have supervision over this fund). The expenditure contemplated under this Bill is email compared with other grants that are appropriated year by year for the several provinces under the provisions of the British North America Act without any such supervision. For instance, I find Chapter 41 of this Act provides for advances to the Government of the Northwest Territories to the amount of $250,000 annually, and it does not involve any supervision, but merely the paying * over of the money. Then I find Chapter 42 to be an Act to provide for voting an annual grant to the province of Prince Edward Island amounting to $100,000. I presume that is also paid over from year to year, under the Act which made Prince Edward Island a member of Confederation, without any particular supervision. A small amount such as the Bill contemplates might very well be paid over from year to year to the various provinces and confidence placed in them to dispose of it to the best advantage. I am sure that in the case of Ontario the provincial Minister of Education will take care
that the federal grant is expended in the wisest possible manner.
I speak on this subject because I have some intimate knowledge of the efforts made by the town of Renfrew at the present time to establish a technical school there in connection with the collegiate institute. They purpose spending $150,000 on this item alone, and the schools there-both the collegiate institute and the school for technical education-will be built and maintained by the municipality of the town, notwithstanding the fact that fifty-five per cent of the pupils come from outside the municipality. Now, I am glad, as I said this evening, that the Government has taken a hand in this work and is endeavouring to assist the municipalities in their laudable efforts to meet the situation in the best possible manner. The municipality of the town of Renfrew has assurance from the provincial Government of assistance towards this object, and I have no doubt that there will be additional assistance rendered them after the passing of this Bill.


James Alexander Calder: The section on its face looks as though a very elaborate machine was to be established. I would suggest that the words " experts and clerks " toe struck out. The clause will then read:
Such officers -and employees as may he required for carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall he appointed under the provisions of The Civil Service Act, 1918.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The provisions under which the subsidies to the various provinces have been granted seem to me entirely different from the voting of money by this Parliament as proposed in this Bill. Under the British North America Act the provinces were limited in the means whereby they could raise revenue, and that is stated briefly as one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, why an annual subsidy was granted to the provinces and handed over to them to do with as they saw fit. I cannot see where there is any possibility under this Act of encroaching on the rights which the provinces have in educational matters under the British North America Act.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I had not that in mind. My argument was directed to the means for conserving moneys for the purposes for which they have been voted.


William Cameron Edwards: But it has been mentioned by some other hon. gentleman, I believe. I cannot see where there is any possibility of encroaching on the rights of the provinces. In the first place, whatever



money is voted by this Act to the various provinces is safe-guarded by an agreement between this Government and the provinces. So that there could not be any encroachment on the domain of the provinces without the consent of the provinces themselves, and I do not anticipate that any province would for a moment consent to having the rights that were granted to it under the British North America Act infringed upon. But for another reason I, as a member of this House, would very strongly object to the moneys set forth in this Act being voted without this Parliament having something to say in regard to the manner in which those moneys should be expended. Some hon. gentlemen seem to think that it is all right for us simply to hand the money over to the provinces and say good-bye to it, leaving the distribution of it entirely to the provinces. I, as one of the members of this House, object to voting money in that way. I say that if we vote money for technical education, or for the improvement of roads, we as the people who are voting that money have a right to some little say as to the manner in which that money is to be expended. It seems to me that is the only logical position for us to take as members of Parliament voting away the people's money. While my hon. friend has said that it would be perfectly safe to hand the money over to the educational department, inasmuch as this is money voted for technical education, undoubtedly in any agreement entered into between this Government and the Government of the province of Ontario or the Government of the province of Quebec, those provincial Governments will call in those to advise them who are best able to do so, that is those who are administering the educational affairs of those provinces. That, I think, we may take for granted. Take into consideration also the fact that there mustbe an agreement entered into between the provincial Governments and this Government, and I do not see where there is any encroachment upon the rights of the provinces in educational matters.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Conference, surveys and investigations.
James Alexander Calder: I would suggest that that section be allowed to stand, Mr. Chairman. Personally I am inclined to the view that if work of this character is to be carried on it should be by a distinct agreement with

the provinces, and I think it would be far better to leave that to be dealt with in the agreement. But I do not wish to drop the section until I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister of Labour, who will likely be here in a day or two.
Section stands.
On section 9-Balances unexpected to be carried forward, but not more than 25 per cent of grant without consent of minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before I forget what the hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) has said, I must remind him that when we are giving moneys to the provinces we are not giving it to strangers, to some body who has no right to it. Of course, if you were dealing with moneys that came to the treasury at Ottawa, and were paying them out to people who had no right to them, except as we were giving the moneys to them, that might be a different thing. But there is only one people. The people of Ontario are the people of that province just as much for educational matters as they are for paying revenue at the customs house, and it is their own money just as much as it is our money. The British North America Act, in effect, says that the control of education is entirely in the province; therefore by implication any moneys voted for education shall come under provincial machinery. So we are not, to my mind, at all destroying any right under the British North America Act by the Act which we are now passing, even if we do pay over to the Government of Ontario every cent they are getting and say to them: This is part of your own money; we might have kept it from you, but now we are giving it to you; it goes into the machinery of education for the province, and you have control of it.
There is nothing unconstitutional or improper about that. But while I do not object to our exercising some control over these matters, we must not go too far when we are advancing money for. purposes which are purely provincial.


William Cameron Edwards: We might use the same argument in respect to every dollar that we vote in this House. We might say: This is the money of the people, and they have a right to it. But, as a matter of fact, they have not the right to it until we vote it. This is not the first occasion upon which we have voted money for educational purposes.


Jacques Bureau: We did it in 1913.


William Cameron Edwards: We voted money for educational purposes when we passed the Bill to aid agricultural instruction. What is that but education?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But there is to be dual jurisdiction here.


William Cameron Edwards: Quite so, just as we
have dual jurisdiction in respect of the moneys which we voted for agricultural purposes. It is quite true that the money belongs to the people, but the responsibility for voting that money devolves upon us, and we have a right to follow that responsibility up and say how that money shall be expended.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on a certain proposed resolution to provide for the construction and improvement of highways in Canada-Hon. Mr. Reid-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: The resolution may be found in the Votes and Proceedings of February 20.


John Archibald Maharg: I made reference to this matter during the course of the debate on the Address. In Western Canada we are more in need of railroads at this time than of highways. (Highways would he all very well if we were supplied with railroads in proportion to the mileage in the other parts of Canada, but we are not. It has been shown before the Railway Committee during this session that people out there are drawing their grain anywhere from twenty-five to fifty or sixty miles over very crude roads; the distances are so great that it is practically impossible to provide improved roads in all cases. The highways proposed to be constructed under this Bill will be automobile roads; they will not be so constructed that settlers can use them for transporting their grain and other products. They will link up the larger centres; they will not contribute to the convenience of those who have to team their heavy products long distances. For that reason I am strongly opposed to the adoption of this resolution.
Some method should be found of treating the long stretches of clay belts in the western country with a view to improving
247i
transportation facilities. For a distance.of forty, fifty or sixty miles you will find a streteh of country which is pure clay and where no sand or gravel is obtainable. Before any elaborate scheme is launched some experiment should be made with a view to seeing whether some kind of treatment cannot be applied to these clay belts with a view to increasing highway facilities, because the building of roads with gravel in. those sections would cost very much more than would similar roads in other parts of the country. We have been endeavouring during this session to persuade the Minister of Railways. (Mr. J. D. Reid) to extend our railroads in the Western country. He has been very good in many ways, hut if he has several million dollars to contribute to our province for the improvement of our transportation facilities, that money would be much better spent in the extension of railroads into the districts which are not now adequately served. Scores of settlements are in that position, and it would be wise, at least for the time being, to vote this money for purposes which would be-more beneficial to us in the West than the: building of these highways would be,


Mr. J. D. REID:: The hon. member is right in saying that the West is entitled to more railroads than it has, but I say to him here what I have said to him privately: That the Canadian National Railway Company are constructing all the railways in the West that they can possibly go ahead with during the present year, having regard to labour conditions and to the number of ties that can be obtained for the purpose. So that if we proceed with the construction of highways, that will not interfere in any way with the construction of railways in the West. The Canadian Pacific are also constructing lines in the West; perhaps they should be doing more than they are doing -as to that, I do not know.
In Eastern Canada, I believe, there is nothing that the people require more than good highways, but I do not agree with the hon. member that the same are not required in the West. Certainly there is nothing more important to the farmer of Eastern Canada than good highways, and I do not think it is fair for hon. members from the West to oppose this great improvement. As a member of this House and as a member of the Government I am prepared to do everything I can to bring population to the West and to provide the West with railways and good roads, and when we are-doing that, I think it is unfair for my hon. friend to put forward every effort against

good highways for Eastern Canada. The hon. member has said that these roads in Eastern Canada are really for automobiles. Let me tell him that the great majority of the automobiles in operation in the eastern provinces of Canada are owned by farmers, and I am glad to see them using them to bring their products to market where they can get a good price. The great cry of the farmer of Eastern Canada is for good roads. I am sure that any man who has seen the good roads in the neighbouring Republic would hold up his hands for good roads in Canada.
As I said when introducing this Bill, these highways will also provide employment for the returned soldiers. Perhaps at the present time there may not be so great a demand for employment by the returned soldiers; they perhaps do not wish to go into employment immediately upon their return home; but the time is coming when employment will have to be provided, and I think it is the duty of the Government to provide employment in the way of good roads and other works of benefit to the country. Where we have had good roads constructed in Canada you will see the farmers using them to take their products to the market. They are also used for distributing the freight amongst the small towns. Good roads have been found to be of such great benefit in the neighbouring Republic that the federal government of the United States has voted this year $800,000,000 for good roads, and the local governments are all spending large amounts on the construction of good roads in the rural districts. In my opinion it is to the advantage of Canada that we should proceed with this Bill. My hon. friend is anxious that we should do everything we can to advance the Northwest. Surely, he has some little consideration for the needs of the eastern provinces.


John Archibald Maharg: I am delighted to know that the great difficulty the minister has been up against in the past has been removed. Now, apparently, his difficulty is to get ties and labour. Well, if he will promise me that he will build railroads in western Canada as fast as we can produce the necessary ties and labour I will withdraw all my objections to this Highways Bill right here and now. But things must have changed within the last month or so, for it was less than a month ago that we interviewed the minister in connection with the delay in laying the steel on the Hudson Bay railway, and he informed us ithen that he did not know where ithe money was to
fMr. J. D. Reid.]
come from. I am delighted to know that that difficulty has been overcome, and that his only difficulty now is to get ties and labour to do the grading.
(Mr. J. D. REID: The hon. member will remember that at that time he stated that there would be no trouble in getting ties for the Hudson Bay railway. I understood from the president of the Canadian National Railways a few days ago, that though he was willing to give contracts for ties, they had not gofl a tie up to the present time, and from what he told me I do not believe he will be able to get ties to proceed with the work this season. I stated then what I state now. The president of the Canadian National Railways told me that they could not get enough of the kind of labour they required to build more than some 350 miles of new railway and some 350 miles which has to be re-built, and I have yet to find any man from the West either in this House or out of it who has shown me where labour can be got to carry out more than the programme mapped out. At all events until this amount of work has been done, I think I will take the word of the president of the Canadian National Railways, which is to the effect I have mentioned.


Mr. TOBIN:: Did I understand the minister to say that he could not go on with the building of railways on account of a shortage of tiesi-that the president of the Canadian National Railways told him he could not get ties?


John Dowsley Reid: I was talking of building railways in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I said that he could not get ties for the Hudson Bay railway up in that district.


Edmund William Tobin: I am glad the minister has mentioned that, because different large lumbermen of that part of the country from wbieh I come understand there is a sort of combine or trust in connection with the Canadian National Railways, and that only a favoured few can get a contract for ties; that it is a case of wheels within wheels, in fact. I do not know if the minister knows about it, but I think he should inform himself on that point. I know concerns with half a million ties to sell who approached the Government, but could do no business with them. At the same time I understand that only a few days ago agents were going around other parts of the country buying ties for the Canadian National Railways.

Mz-. J. D. REID: There has been no trouble in getting ties in Eastern Canada. The hon. member knows it would not be possible to buy ties in Quebec or Ontario and take them to Alberta or Saskatchewan because the freight would be too high. The ties are therefore secured in those districts. I have no doubt you could get ties in Western Canada in winter, but at present it would not be possible.


Mr. GREEN:: There is a West other than Middle West. If the Middle West wants railways, the Far West wants wagon roads and highways. British Columbia is just as much in need of highways as the Middle West is in need of railways. I am not particularly enamoured of the method in which the money provided under this resolution is to be expended. For myself, I would prefer to see the Government build a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Jacques Bureau: That is quite an undertaking.


Robert Francis Green: It would be a large undertaking, it is true, but a great part of that highway is already built, and all that would be needed would be connecting links. In that way, the Government would not only furnish the money but would have control of the expenditure. The people as a whole are furnishing the money, and this Government is responsible for its expenditure. I will not say that if I cannot get the Government to see eye to eye with me as to the method in which to deal with this matter, I am going to oppose the resolution, because I believe that the Government are perfectly right in undertaking to furnish a large sum of money for the building of highways in Canada, East and West. I trust that the Bill itself will contain a provision for the Government to undertake the building of that highway themselves under their own officials and with the money of the people.


Mr. M. CLARKE:: How much money does the minister propose to spend?


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill will ask for an
amount not exceeding $20,000,000 in five years.	[DOT]


Michael Clark: Where is the money to come from? Has the minister any idea? You heard the Budget statement of the Finance Minister, Mr. Chairman. It is all well enough for my friend from British Columbia (Mr. Green) to talk in favour of a road from the -Atlantic to the Pacific. If one
had a sufficient lack of sense of responsibility he might propose a road from here to Mars. But where is the money to come from? There is nothing that both sides of the House will have to attend to more carefully in the next few years than the practice of economy in regard to public funds. That is possibly more urgent than the tariff, although the tariff is probably in a sense more important, because if the people have to contribute money directly they will look more closely to the spending of it. It is because the Government gets money by indirect means that it does not care what schemes it proposes for the spending of it. We have been told that there is a Middle West and a Far West, and that there is an East. Well, there is also a British North America Act which has to do with the manner in which laws are carried out in Canada. I speak subject to correction by legal gentlemen and others who have a longer acquaintance with public life in Canada, but I understand that highways are a matter that is relegated to the provinces under the British North America Act, which is the constitution of the country. Is that so?


Jacques Bureau: It is so.


Michael Clark: My opinion is confirmed by lawyers of repute. If that is the case, in the face of the statement of the Minister of Finance given to this country last week, and the fact that we are going around hawking for the pence of the proletariat to carry on the ordinary expenses of the country, is this a time when the Dominion Government should do work which by the British North America Act is defined as being within the purview of the provinces? I would like the minister to tell me where he expects to get this money from.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I do not care to speak on this subject from a provincial standpoint and will not inquire from the minister where he is going to get the money from. I am sorry to disagree with my friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I do not believe that in the interests of Canada as a nation, money can be better spent by the federal government than for the building of good roads. There is a howl from one end of the country to the other about the high cost of living, and in the name of High Heaven, how will you bring it down unless you increase production? We are voting tremendous sums of money to get the returned men back on the land, and nothing could be more admirable. Every responsible man in the country

is exercising his brains to find out how best to get people back on the land, and the only way in which you can accomplish this end-and I speak from an experience of a life time on the land-is to make conditions on the land and in the country better and more congenial. Now, how can you better do this than by building good roads? I am satisfied to hand the money tc the provinces, and I have confidence in the provincial governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, to believe that they will expend it legitimately and honestly. If we had a good system of public highways in the country surrounding the great cities of Montreal and Toronto, it would reduce the cost of living more than anything else. With good roads, the farmer could travel forty miles to a city and take his vegetables, fruit, or any other produce to market and, indeed, right to the doors of people. Would that not represent a great economy? We would not hear so much then about middlemen and profiteers. When this matter was under discussion on a previous occasion it seemed that the East was pulling against the West, or both ends pulling, against the middle, so to speak. We want railroads in the west and hope to see them built, but I say that we require good highways in order to induce young men to go on to the farms to remain there and help increase production.


Mr. ROBB:: This resolution involves
something more than the expenditure of money by this Government. It compels an expenditure by the provinces.
The resolution provides that the minister will contribute forty per cent of the expenditure. He allows $80,000 to each of the provinces. So that before the province of Prince Edward Island can get a cent of this money, they must spend $120,000. I am not rising to oppose good roads. I come from a province where we have made good progress in good roads. In one particular locality in my province for perhaps a distance of 100 miles east, south and west, there are good roads leading up to the Montreal highway. But to get into Montreal they must cross the Indian reserve of Gaughnawaga, which reserve is under the supervision of this Government. The Government will not allow the province to construct that road, nor will they do it themselves, and we are in this position that there are eight miles required to be constructed to link up with the city of Montreal over which the produce of the farm can be carried, but as the Government 
have not built these eight miles of road, we are deprived of going into the city with heavy loads. Before this Government start in to dictate to the provinces how much they should spend upon roads they should put their own house in order and make their own roads. I would like a statement from the minister as to that. This has been put up to the department. Do they propose to build that road through the Caughnawaga reserve and connect it with the provincial road? We are not merely planning about good roads in my province; we are building our good roads, and we have already a good system of building roads, probably a little bit better than will be dictated by the Government.


Michael Clark: Is it not a fact that the province of Quebec has not only good roads but is in a very sound financial position?


James Alexander Robb: I did not want to count that in too far or to introduce comparisons of that kind.


Michael Clark: I want to show that it is possible to get good roads and still follow the constitution of the country.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend may be, and I think is, quite right. However, I rose particularly to inquire about the position of smaller provinces like Prince Edward Island, in regard to the $120,000 that they will have to contribute before they get anything; and also- what the policy of the Government is in regard to the roads for which they are responsible across Indian reserves.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. member in reference to the road across the Indian reserves that he mentioned. I never heard of it before, and I know nothing about it. The hon. member will have to wait until the minister is up with his Estimates and ask him the question. If I knew what the trouble was I would be very glad to answer the question. In reference to Prince Edward Island and the smaller provinces, it was felt that they should get more in proportion than the larger provinces and for that reason it was decided that we should divide the amount equally, granting $80,000 to the several provinces and then the balance according to the last federal census. If they accept the money for good roads, they must pay 60 per cent and this Government will pay 40 per cent towards construction.


James Alexander Robb: In order to get the first $80,000 they will have to put up $120,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) put a very pertinent question when he asked: "Where is the money to come from?" I am sure that question impressed very strongly indeed the hon. gentleman from Maple Creek {Mr. Maharg), because he stated that if the Minister of Railways and Canals would only give him a promise that he would meet his aspirations in regard to railway building in the west he would withdraw all his objections in regard to the proposed vote for highways. He apparently was not concerned with the question as to where the money was to come from. That did not occur to him. "Give us more money than you are already giving us for railways" said the hon. member for Maple Creek "and I will not say anything whatever in opposition to the money that you vote for highways. Neither will I lie awake at nights wondering where the money is to come from." In the distribution of this money, as has been pointed out, the provinces, in order to get the 40 per cent, will have to contribute 60 per cent. If this does not appear to be a good bargain to the province of Prince Edward Island, that province can say: "No, we will not accept this money, we will go ahead and build our own highways as we have been building them, we will not be a party to this scheme and we will not consent to putting up 60 per cent in order to get 40 per cent." If the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta consider that the bargain is a poor one then Saskatchewan and Alberta can eay: "No, we will not agree with the terms proposed, we will not agree to put up 60 per cent in order to get the 40 per cent Ithat this Government offers to our province." Oh, but you say, while that is true and each province may refuse to enter into the agreement, this money is the money of the whole country and if Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan or Alberta does not feel like accepting this proposition for themselves, they do not want to see Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec get any money along these lines. Why not? We have spent millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in building railways, canals and public works here and there from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And what was the justification? The general benefit of Canada. That is what it was done for. The railway built in Prince Edward Island does not benefit
directly the people of Ontario, but the money that was voted for that railway was expended for the general benefit of Canada. While it benefited Prince Edward Island, it was indirectly a benefit to Ontario as well.
I would like the members of this committee to consider this question from that standpoint. Is it not worth while for this Government to spend a certain amount m Ontario, in British Columbia and in those provinces which are willing to meet the conditions laid down here and to carry out their various desires of having good roads? If these provinces are willing to meet those conditions and to put up 60 per cent, is it not in the interest of Canada that the money should toe spent in that way? It seems to me that that is a point well worth considering. I speak for the province of Ontario. Hon. members should not lose sight of the fact that while the West is a very important part of our country, considerably more than half of the population of this country is in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, lhey should not lose sight of the fact that while the West is a very great agricultural or farming country, as yet it has not reached the status of either Ontario or Quebec in agricultural production. The farmers and the residents generally of the older provinces have a very strong claim on this Government to assist them in providing those roads which will act as feeders for the big lines of railways. It is not only the farming community that are interested' in good roads. I venture to say that the people of the cities and towns are just as much interested,-at this time when the cost of food products is high, a little more so,-than are the people living in the country districts. Because if you have a system of roads extending for a distance of twenty or twenty-five miles from a city or town it means that in these days of automobiles the products of the farm are brought into that city or town which would never reach it oveT toad roads, employing wagons as they used to be employed years ago. In expending this money I think the system that should be followed is for the Dominion Government, acting with the governments of the different provinces, to decide upon a standard road; at present one kind of road is required for one province, or part of a province, and a different standard for another part. Let the engineers or the men appointed by, we will say the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec, meet with engineers appointed by the Federal Government, decide upon the kind of road to toe built and take the

building of that road, out of politics entirely by advertising the building of certain sections of that road1-five or ten miles, as the case may he-and call lor tenders for the work. That is the way these roads should be built, and that will remove these works entirely from the hands of the politicians. I would like to get the opinions! of hon. gentlemen on the point I raised a little while ago, because I am perfectly sincere in bringing it forward. Even suppose a province decides it will not accept the terms imposed in this Bill, would it not be worth while, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the general interest of the country to vote money to those provinces which would conform to the requirements of the Act and be willing to put up their sixty per cent.


Frederick John Fulton: I would like to endorse what the member for West Kootenay (Mr. Green) has said as to the feelings of the people of British Columbia on this matter; I am satisfied they will all be in favour of the Bill. Some years ago a very strong case was made out by the Provincial Government for better terms for British Columbia, and I believe the argument prepared at that time was advanced on the floor of this House. One of the reasons for claiming better terms for British Columbia was the great cost of building roads in that province. It is quite true, as the member for Bed Deer says, that highways come primarily under the jurisdiction of the province, but it does not seem to me that that is any reason why, if the Dominion Government offers to expend money on highways, its ofier should not be carried out. I believe it would be of great benefit to the country in general if an expenditure of moneys for this purpose were made at the present time. I must say for
11 p.m. the information of the committee that when negotiations were going on between the 'Crown colony of British 'Columbia and the Dominion Government in 1868 for the union of that province with the rest of Canada, the three delegates who were sent to act for British Columbia-one of whom, Dr. Helmeken, is still living-were instructed to ask not only for a railway as one of the terms, of union, but also for a highway through and connecting the province with, I think, Fort Garry. The latter project was dropped, but the railway was built. Another reason why I think British Columbia is entitled to some expenditure by the Federal Government on its roads and highways is this:

When the Canadian Pacific railway was constructed, it was built under an agreement between the federal authorities and the Provincial Government. The section of railway between Savona and Port Moody was built by the Dominion Government, not by the Canadian Pacific Company. In that strip some forty or fifty miles of the Yale-Cariboo wagon, road, a provincial work, were taken up by the railway and destroyed, so we lost that much of the road. When the Canadian Northern railway was built we lost another stretch of forty miles of the Yale-Cariboo road, so that in all some eighty or ninety miles of wagon road have been destroyed by the construction of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern railway, which latter system has now been taken over by the Dominion. I think the fact of our having lost such a large mileage of wagon road entitles us to some assistance from the Dominion Government in reconstructing this road, or in building other highways, in the province.


William Garland McQuarrie: 
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: If the arguments
used in favour of this resolution were carried to their logical conclusion, there are no local or provincial works which ought not to be undertaken by this Government. My friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. COMMONS
Sutherland) says that at this period of our history good roads have become a national undertaking. The same argument is used in favour of technical education. As a matter of fact, everything which tends to the progress of any province is to the national advantage. But there is the British North America Act, which determines the works which should be undertaken by this Government, and the works which are under provincial jurisdiction, and if there is a work which has been left entirely to the control of the provinces it is the highways. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) says that the system of taxation which has been granted to the provinces does not permit of a sufficient amount of money for the provinces to carry on their works, and that that is the reason why a special subsidy is given by the Federal Government. Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that if the subsidy is not sufficient it ought to be increased in order that the provinces should be left with that control which has been given to them by our constitution. Let us increase the subsidy if we can afford to do so-because the question of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has not been answered:	Where will you get the
money from? But it would be preferable to give an additional grant of money to the provinces and leave them in full control of those provincial works which have been given to them by the British North America Act.
There is another question. Some of the provinces have adopted the policy of building good roads, and they have made sacrifices for that purpose. In the province from which I come we are proud of the roads which have been built during the last few years. The municipalities have borrowed large amounts of money from the provincial Government, and they are paying annually large sums for interest and to provide sinking fund to pay back the principal within forty years. The farmers in most instances have earned the money themselves, the arrangement has worked very well, and at the present time the main platform of the Gouin Government,- which has been returned to power to-night with what seems to be a big majority-is the continuation of that policy of good roads, absolutely independent of any money which this Government might give to the province.
Well, is it fair 'that people who have already paid money for the improvement of their own roads should be called upon to contribute to the taxation which will be fMr. E. Lapointe.]
necessary in order to raise money for the building of roads in other provinces? I ask this question in all sincerity. This Government, according to the resolution, is to have control over the quality and the standard of the roads which are to be built. Suppose that quality or standard does not coincide with the quality or standard which has been adopted by the province of Quebec and that that province refuses to change its plans, would it be fair that the people of the province of Quebec should be required to contribute money for the construction of works in other provinces which ought to be carried out by the people of those provinces? Why not leave to the provinces those rights, powers and responsibilities which have been given to them or imposed upon them by the British North America Act? Again I say that if the Government has money available for the purpose of assisting the provinces to carry on their own local works, let them give the money to the provinces by way of increased subsidies. I protest against the interference of the 'Government in local works; if they interfere with matters of education or of highways, they may do so in connection with other matters which are purely local and provincial.
. Mr- McISAAC : It is quite plain that this is not an undertaking on the part of the Federal Government to build roads in the provinces; it is a contribution from the Federal Treasury to assist the Provincial Governments in the building and improvement of highways. Whatever amount may be spent, the treasury of each province will be obliged to furnish sixty per cent and the Federal Government will aid them to the extent of providing the remaining forty per cent of the cdst. It has been hinted that the intention is to build a great trunk highway across the continent for automobile traffic, and so on. Well, if that were true- but it is not-certainly my province could not participate, because there would be a missing link in the highway owing to the fact that there is quite a stretch of water between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada. So that, so far as my province is concerned, such a proposal would have no advantageous effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about a tunnel?


James McIsaac: Well, a tunnel is not a highway.


Jacques Bureau: You have a ferry.


James McIsaac: We have a ferry, but even with the ferry we could not have a continuous highway from ocean to ocean.


An hon. MEMBER:: You could use aeroplanes.


James McIsaac: Well, that would not be a highway either; that would be flying in the air. The Government of the province from which I come are satisfied to enter into an arrangement with the Federal Government under which, as is provided in this proposition, they shall receive forty per cent of this money to spend upon their highways and upon the improvement of their roads. They wish to improve the trunk roads leading to important centres; they desire to build or improve roads reaching the villages and towns, so that the farmers may have the advantage of good roads over which to haul their products. Certainly this is a proper and laudable arrangement in the matter of road-making.
I am quite prepared to support this resolution in order that the province from which I come may have the benefit of obtaining, from the Federal Government, that percentage of the expenditure upon roads which the Federal Government are prepared to grant.


Frank S. Cahill: What kind of agreement does the minister expect to make with the provinces? I want to know, for instance, whether a township in my constituency, provided they can get a grant from the Provincial Government for the construction or improvements of roads, say, in the back sections of the country, can participate in this grant.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot tell the hon. member whether any particular township would benefit from this legislation; it will be up to the provinces to suggest what kind of roads they want and where they wish to lay them out. The suggestion referred to by the hon. member for King's, P.E.l. (Mr. Mclsaac) that it is the intention to build a highway from ocean to ocean is, of course, out of the question; there never was any such intention on the part of the Dominion Government. If this Bill passes, representatives from the provinces will be called together and asked to produce plans showing what roads they intend to construct, and an agreement will be entered into under which the Dominion Government will pay forty per cent of the amount expended. It might not be advisable that a straight road he built through a province at a cost of $10,000 a mile; the province might want to
build cheaper roads with a view to getting greater benefit from the expenditure. But if Ontario decided to build roads costing $10,000 a mile, it would be for the province and the Dominion Government to agree on the location, and we would pay forty per cent of the cost. As to the province of Quebec, I do not think there will be any difficulty in agreeing with the Provincial Government as to where this money should be expended. The Provincial Governments are to expend the money, but we want inspectors to see that the roads are built in accordance with the specifications set out in the agreement between the Minister of Railways and the Government of the province.
The object of this Bill is to provide good roads and to give better transportation facilities; In my opinion good roads will benefit the rural population more than any other class ol the community. It will benefit the city dwellers, of course, by bringing the rural population into closer contact with them. Any one who has travelled throughout the United States and seen their good roads must have realized what a great benefit they were to the people of that country. The Government at Washington stands in the same position to the state legislature as we do to the provincial governments in regard to highways, but nevertheless, the federal government at Washington is aiding very largely in the construction and improvement of highways throughout the country, for the reason, first, that the construction of roads throughout the country involves such a tremendous cost, and second as they are considered to be for the general advantage of the country, it is felt that the central government should assist. That is the way I look at this matter; I believe it will be of great advantage to the Dominion as a whole to have these roads constructed at the earliest possible date.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the objection to this Government simply handing this money over to the provinces on the understanding that they get their per capita share in proportion to what they spend?


John Dowsley Reid: That is exactly what we are doing. All we ask is that the work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreement that we make. Money is being granted to the provinces for other purposes, and an'agreement is made in every case. Surely there should be no objection to our seeing that the money is properly expended. We are not asking to have anything to do 'with the construction of the road, or the

making of contracts or anything of that kind; that is all loft to the local government.


Mr. PROULX:: When speaking on the Budget I urged- the Government to go on with this -project which I strongly approve. I believe that nothing is more likely to induce people to go back to the land and to stay on the land than good roads. Some hon.,members object to this legislation on constitutional grounds. I might say to my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) that sortre of these roads are becoming interprovincial in character, and I do not see why this Government cannot assist in its construction of highways on the ground that it is for the general advantage of Canada just as much as it has assisted in the past, by way of subsidy, in the building of railroads in the provinces on the same grounds. In sections of the country traffic which was formerly carried by the railways is now carried over the highways by motor trucks, especially in districts close to market centres. So the construction of highways, a-s my hon. friend from Peterborough has said,' will be of benefit not only to the farmers -but to city dwellers as well, because they will be brought into closer contact with the producers. In this way good roads may be a factor in reducing the cost of living, and of getting the products of the farm to the consumer in a more satisfactory way. A few years ago this Government voted money and provided for its distribution to the -provinces to aid in promoting agriculture. Now good roads are connected with agriculture, and I see no more objection to giving money to the provinces to help in the building of roads than to help in the promoting of agriculture. [DOT]Only to-night we passed a Bill respecting technical education. We may say that technical education is a -provincial matter, but nevertheless this Government intends to spend large sums of money to encourage technical education throughout the country. So I can see no objection on constitutional grounds to the voting of this money providing this Government is reasonable with the provinces, and does not impose conditions which they would not care to accept. The Government can very well trust the provinces. I would impose as one condition that the provinces must spend some money. That, I see, has been provided for; the provinces have to spend at least 60 per cent to get the other 40 per cent. I do not think that this money should be spent only on main trunk roads. The province of Ontario, for instance, is -buil-d-
ing a road from the eastern limit of the province to the western, to be called a provincial road.	It will have two
branches, one from Ottawa to Prescott, and the other from Niagara to Toronto or Hamilton. Another road which I think should be subsidized is the road from Ottawa to Montreal, which is an interprovincial road. I think that all roads connecting important towns should come under this grant, and then the money would be -more conveniently distributed and a larger proportion of the population would benefit. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the details when the Bill is in Committee, so I will now only say that I approve of the principle of spending this 120,000,000 on -highways within five years. I should like to ask -the minister if he intends to distribute this $20,000,000 at the rate of $4,000,000 a year or more?


John Dowsley Reid: The money will be distributed as fast as the provinces construct the roads.
Mr. ARGUE; Will the provinces have the privilege of locating these roads where they choose?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a matter for
agreement. The provinces will prepare their plans for the roads, and I do not anticipate any difficulty between the provinces and the Dominion over the location. What the Dominion Government is concerned about is seeing that the -money is expended in accordance with the agreement made. All that we ask is that the contract be carried out and the road built, whether it is to cost $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000, in accordance with the specifications. There might be a disagreement in the matter of the location of roads but as the provinces will have a better idea as to the best course to adopt in this respect, no doubt in nine cases out of ten their suggestions will be acted upon.
Mr. ARGUE; Will the provinces have the privilege of using this money in districts other than those along the main highway? -Or is the money provided for the main highway only?


John Dowsley Reid: An agreement must be entered into between the provincial government and the Dominion Government. I take it that the hon. member's question is: Will the Dominion Government dictate as to where the roads shall be? No; neither will the provincial government dictate.

There must be a mutual agreement or no money will be spent.
Mr. (PETER McGIBBON: I sincerely trust that the minister will be able to carry his Bill through. To me it seems absolutely absurd that in this age it should be at all necessary for men to advocate the cause of good roads in Canada. We know that practically speaking we have no good roads. In Ontario we have very few first-class roads, and it seems to me that arguments in support of the building of good roads are altogether superfluous. The Ontario Government during the last seven or eight years has spent between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 on highways, and during the last session of the legislature a grant of some $5,000,000 went through. I was almost going to say that to-day they have no roads into the fringe of the northern country, and unless they get some assistance from the Dominion Government it will be a long time before that northern country will be opened up. The people in the southern parts of Ontario adjacent to the United States realize yearly the drawback from which we suffer in comparison with the States of the Union, in the matter of roads. Good roads bring tourists to the country, and money is left in the train of all tourists. By cultivating a tourists traflie you cultivate one of the greatest sources of a revenue a country can possibly have. I appreciate the objections that are made from the East and the West, but I think that those objections ought to be surmounted. We should be able to reconcile ourselves to the novelty of getting money for nothing, and especially for a purpose of this kind. I see no reason why objections cannot be overcome. In Ontario we need the money badly, expecially in the northern part of the province. If we cannot get more assistance than the provincial government can afford, it will be many years before the northern part of the province will be in such a state as to offer inducements to people to settle and remain there. Good roads, efficient mail service, and rural telephones are three of the great essentials to keep people on the farms.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Will the hon. member favour the Dominion Government spending money for rural telephones?


Georges Henri Boivin: That question is out of order.


Peter McGibbon: I am not discussing that principle. I am dealing with the expenditure of money on roads, which I say are a
great asset to the country, and I hope the Bill will go through. I think it was a mistake, when a similar Bill was introduced into the House years ago, that it did not go through. If it had passed we would have been in a better financial position to-day.


Jacques Bureau: What is meant by " main highways?" The question was asked by an hon. gentleman on the other side whether the money will be used on the main highway, and the minister said, no. The minister was then asked about some apprehended danger that the location, of the road would be dictated by the Federal Government and he said it would not, nor would the local government ...cate where the road should be constructed; he said it would be a matter of agreement. This is at once a matter for consolation and fear. If no one is going to determine where the road is to be there will be nothing to quarrel about, but we may be left without a road at all. What does the minister mean by " main highway?"


John Dowsley Reid: The local governments, most of which have highways departments, have divided roads into three classes. One class comprises roads that run to market towns. These are kept up by the municipalities and carry a little more than the traffic created by the farmers along the road. The second class of roads radiate from local markets or shipping points and carry a considerable accumulation of traffic, such roads as those leading into Ottawa or Montreal, for instance. Then there are the main highways between important cities and towns and other terminal points. A road between Montreal and Toronto would be a main highway. In some of the new provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance, a city or town might not want to see all the money spent in building one main road through the centre of the province. In Saskatchewan there are large market centres where there must be market roads, and they would likely want to divide up their money on these several roads, while Ontario might want to run a main road from Montreal to Toronto. But the Dominion and Provincial Governments will have to agree as to where it would be best to lay out roads. After it is decided where the roads will be built the Dominion Government will authorize the provinces to expend the money, we reserving the right to have our inspectors see the work carried out in accordance with the specifications and the contract awarded, for which of course public tenders will be called.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Assuming that there has been correspondence with the Provincial Governments, what stand do they take in regard to receiving the money, and what governments can the minister speak of with certainty?


John Dowsley Reid: The representatives of several governments have been here consulting with me and some of them took this position:	We want to divide this
money up among the principal roads leading into these different centres, but we do not want to expend our money in running these roads right through.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What governments?
Mr. J. D. REID' We have had representatives from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, and some of the western provinces-I think, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are they favourable to
the scheme?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, every one of them is urging it forward and looking for these highways.


Samuel Hughes: Is the Dominion
Government insisting on one, if not two, roads being built across the province of British Columbia and in the Lake Superior district ?


John Dowsley Reid: The provincial government are building roads in- netv Ontario from Port Arthur east. A lot of this money would go into that if they wished to expend it in that way. The roads that they are constructing in new Ontario are doing a great deal of good, and the Ontario government want to spend all the money they can in opening up new Ontario and extending roads on up through that territory towards Port Arthur. It is a new country and it is very costly to build roads up the-e.


Mr. NICKLE:: I do not know that I can add anything to this discussion but I would not want the vote to be taken without expressing the view of the district from which I come which is that there is virtue in this legislation. Practically the roads that exist in the county of Frontenac, the city of Kingston and the adjacent counties, were built for vehicular traffic and are not sufficiently well built to stand the stress and strain of the 'highpowered car, and certainly are not useful for early spring or late autumn traffic. A year or two ago it was my privilege to go around lake Ontario by

motor and I could not help noticing the very advantageous condition that existed in New York state. From the time you leave Ontario at Prescott or Brockville until you again get into Ontario at Niagara Falls the Toads in the main are as smooth as a table, and in whichever direction traffic is moving you are impressed by the tremendous loads that are taken to market by motor as compared with the small loads that are hauled in our part of the country. Not only that, but the whole of the New York state is alive with tourist traffic, to a certain extent, going from the province of Ontario and the country that lies north of the American border. But the moment you get into Ontario the bad roads are a deterrent, and as you go along there is one cause of complaint to the American tourists and that is that the roads are not suitable for tourist traffic. Every one tells you the same story: "This is the last time I am coming to Ontario until you give us better roads." They admit our scenery is good, they admit there is much that we have to offer to bring them into Canada, but they are indisposed to risk their cars in going over our roads which are unsuitable for them. There is another change that has taken place. Practically every farmer, if he does not now own a motor car is aspiring to, and to get the best use from it he wants to be able to use it in early spring and late fall. That is practically impossible if something further cannot be done to improve our roads. I know that Ontario has spent the province's money and that municipalities have contributed largely, but there is not sufficient money, unless outside aid is given, to link up the improved roads that have been built. I hope this House will see its way to give support to this appropriation so that we may have continued progress in this direction.


Mr MAHARG:: The hon. member says "unless outside aid is given." Where do you expect the money to come from unless you borrow it, for which the people of Ontario will have to pay?


John Dowsley Reid: I expect we will get the money where we got the money for building the railways in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
(Mr. M. CLARK: Building railways is a Dominion work, whereas, according to what we hear from lawyers, this is a provincial work.


Mr.  J. D. KEIJD@: I do not understand that railways are wholly a Dominion concern. There are railways being built by the provinces themselves and by corporations that are incorporated by the provincial legislatures. Therefore, the building of railways is not entirely under- Dominion jurisdiction. We are giving aid to the provinces in connection with other matters which are entirely under their jurisdiction. In the matter of education we are giving them aid, and we are also keeping partial control. We are asking that we be allowed to supervise the expenditures in order to see that the money is spent in accordance with the money voted by Parliament. That is all that we are doing in this case.


John Archibald Maharg: The minister says that we are building railways. If I am informed rightly the provinces which are building these railways own their own natural resources.


Avard Longley Davidson: How much money does the minister propose spending this year?


John Dowsley Reid: That would depend entirely on what the provinces would be willing to spend. If the provinces say they are willing to proceed with highways and to press them forward, of course, we would have to pay 40 per cent of what they would expend. If they do not wish to proceed with the construction, we would not have to pay any of the money.


Avard Longley Davidson: Has the minister an actual understanding with any one of the provinces that they are willing to embark upon an expenditure on the basis of the Dominion contributing 40 per cent and the province 60 per cent, particularly with the province of Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: The Provincial Government of Nova Scotia are anxious that we proceed with this Bill, and the information they give me is that they are willing to put up the 60 per cent and to accept the 40 per cent given by the Dominion of Canada and proceed with the construction of highways.


Jacques Bureau: The minister is going to bring in a Bill on this resolution, I understand?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The resolution states that $80,000 is to be apportioned to each of the provinces. That will be $720,000 per annum. That will be $3,600,000 in the course of five years, and in addition $400,000 is to be distributed among the provinces according to population. This amount of $80,000, if I understand rightly, will have to be expended within five years to give the provinces the right to the benefit of it. If one province fails to disburse the required amount, or to construct roads to the extent of 60 per cent of the amount of the $80,000, what will be done with the remainder of the money? Supposing the province of Quebec does not construct $400,000 worth of roads in order to make up the 60 per cent, what will happen? It would have to construct $600,000 worth of roads in order to get $400,000.
What will be done with the excess if say only $200,000 out of $300,000 of the Federal Government's money is expended, and how will that balance be apportioned? If I understand the facts rightly, the accounts will be closed at the end of five years and in the case of any province which has not complied with the requirements its share of the federal grant will remain unexpended. Now, will this balance be apportioned among the other provinces or will it go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr_ J. D. REID: The honourable member is supposing something which, I think, will never occur. The representatives of the different provincial governments have been in Ottawa conferring with the Minister of Railways, and from the discussion I have had with them they are all anxious for the construction of good roads. Their desire is to improve the existing roads and construct new highways-


Jacques Bureau: Does the minister admit that what I have said is possible?


John Dowsley Reid: -and, therefore, in my opinion, the money will be all used: I think I can say that because I have discussed the matter with the representatives of practically all the provinces. Of course, if any province does not accept the grant it would still remain in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but that is a point in the Bill which has not been provided for. When the Bill comes up for second reading I will consider the suggestion which my honourable friend has made. I would much prefer that the provinces go ahead with the construction of good roads because in my opinion nothing will be more advantageous to them. The amount proposed to be voted is not very large, but I have not the slightest doubt but that every province will avail itself of the proportion to which it will be entitled under this Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: 
James Alexander Calder: I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that the provincial governments have made arrangements for the present year and it is possible the estimates they have put through will be in such shape that they will not be able to take advantage of legislation which will not be passed and made effective until some time in July. If the money is not used this year it will doubtless be taken advantage of in the year following.


Jacques Bureau: That is all very well, but aJt the end of five years some of this money may be unexpended and it should be taken advantage of by those provinces which show themselves enterprising and progressive. That is what I want to provide for.


Mr. STEVENS:: We will give it to Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman has no cause to laugh at Quebec which is far ahead of British Columbia, or any other province, in the matter of good roads. I can drive my hon. friend all through the province of Quebec on as good a road as he can show me anywhere either in the neighbouring Republic or in British Columbia. If this legislation were to be based on aggressiveness and enterprise in the matter of good roads, the hon. gentleman can depend upon it we would wear the feather in our cap.
The resolution sets forth that the expenditure must be forty per cent of the amount which, " in the opinion of the minister, is actually necessary and reasonable in the cost of construction or improvement of such highway." In such a matter it is not the opinion of the minister that I, as a member of Parliament would like to have, but the figures and vouchers of the Provincial Governments. What I would suggest is that the actual cost of the road be determined by engineers and by provincial vouchers showing that the money has actually been paid out, and I will move an amendment to that effect when the Bill is introduced.
Mr. OAHIiLL: I hate to detain the House at this late hour but my constituents are very much interested in good roads, and have asked me to ascertain from the Government whether they can or cannot get any part of this money for the improvement of the existing roads, or the construction of new highways, and that I have been endeavouring to do. I asked the (Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) with respect to it, and I must say that I am somewhat at a loss to know whether my constituency was going to benefit by the expenditure of this money or not. When the resolution was before the committee on a previous occasion the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) made a definite statement that no portion of it would be spent except on main highways to leading centres. Now the Minister of Railways says it will be a matter of agreement between the Provincial Governments and the Dominion authority. The people in my constituency apparently seem to realize more than some hon. gentlemen do that they must be responsible for their share of this money, and that any constituencies that fail to receive any portion of it will be helping to build roads in other localities. The people in my constituency are building roads and want to continue to do so, but they do not feel that they are in a position to put their hands in their pockets and contribute

money for the building of roads in British Columbia while they still need roads in Pontiac county: If this money were to be expended on any road to which the provincial government would give a grant so that the back townships would also profit by it, as well as the main highways, I would not be so strongly opposed to it. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) talks of automobiles and' tourists, but I want to tell him that there are hundreds and thousands of farmers in this country that have not got any kind of tourist road to travel on and are struggling to build roads to their market towns. They are anxious to get money for this purpose, but they are not keen on the question of devoting money voted by this Parliament for the construction of highways in the interests of automobile tourists at the sacrifice of their own roads. 1 must say I am strongly opposed to so much paternalism on the part of this Government towards the provinces. First, they started with aid for agriculture-with a string attached to it; then aid for technical education-with a string attached to it; next the housebuilding programme-with a string attached to it; and now we have this roadbuilding scheme-also with a string attached. If the provinces want this money, why not give it as a subsidy? The very same people that elect representatives to the provincial legislature also elect the representatives in this House.
I have no doubt that they elect just as honest men to the local legislatures as they do to the Federal House, and these men can be trusted to spend the money in the provinces. If the Dominion Government has a surplus of funds and feel that the provinces are entitled to some of the surplus, let it make grants to the provinces outright, the money to be used on roads or on technical education and other things. They are just as capable of looking after the expenditure as is the Dominion Government. So, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will not withdraw his Bill, I say to him: Give this money to the provinces without any strings on it, to be spent on a certain pro rata basis. Then I do not think there would be so much objection to the Bill. But I am afraid there will be great objection to it by members representing constituencies where they need roads, but will not be able to benefit by these grants, particularly in the rural districts. The city districts,-where you are going to run a road between Montreal and Toronto-might naturally favour the proposal, I do not doubt they will; in fact, I think some
hon. members on both sides of the House expect the road to run 'through their constituencies. But when you talk of the provinces getting "found" money from the Dominion Government, it is no such thing. The people of 'Canada must supply this money, and the unfortunate part of it is, as my hon. friend from Bed Deer would say, in the method of collecting it the Government collects two or three dollars from the tax payer for the one dollar that gets into the Treasury. Leave the roads to the provinces. We are quite satisfied in Quebec to build our own roads, and we are doing the work to-day. My hon. friend says that he cannot get on any good roads outside the province of Ontario. If he will build good roads to the borders of my province, he will get on good roads when he passes the provincial boundary. The Prairie Provinces have a fair system of dirt roads that apparently suits them very well. British Columbia may need higher priced roads, and if they do they have the material to build them. But we know that the only people interested in these grants, are those who think they are getting free money in some constituency through which roads could be arranged to be built.
Some hon. M'EMfBEBS: Carried,


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not often inflict
my utterances upon this House, and a good many of the hon. gentlemen who are so vociferously shouting "carried", evidently with the intention to prevent me from speaking, are the same gentlemen to whom I have listened with a great deal of tedium on various occasions, and I expect to do so again. I think this debate has been exceedingly illuminating, but there is a good deal of mental darkness still prevailing upon the subject. I hear one member stating that he is supporting this resolution because he is ir. favour of a transcontinental highway. Thereupon the minister says that it is not the purpose of the Government to build a transcontinental highway, that the kind of roads to foe fouilt are interurban and country roads. Then another gentleman says that he favours the proposition because he wants the same kind of roads that exist in the United States. Everybody knows that the roads of the United States are built by the state legislatures and are permanent roads. I would like to ask the minister if that is the kind of road he proposes to have built with the money which is provided for by this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: In each case we would have to take the matter up with the Provincial Government and find out exactly what their proposition is. Some of the provinces might prefer spending the money on macadamized roads and distributing it over a longer distance, while other provinces, for instance, the province of Ontario, as I stated, might want to build permanent roads similar to those in New York state, which would cost probably from $8,000 to $10,000 a mile. Or they might say they would expend part of the money that way and part in macadamized roads, and we might agree to that. Probably in the Prairie Provinces they would not want to spend the money, I would take it for granted, on a road right through each province at probably from $8,000 to $10,000 a mile, they would want a different kind of road entirely from that desired by the Ontario Government. So it would all depend on the proposition put up by the Provincial Governments as to whether it would be a macadamized or a concrete road or some other kind of road. In the West, there must be many roads required, and they could not possibly he expected to spend the money on very expensive roads; whereas in Ontario we would probably build roads of a more permanent character than those in the West.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am very much indebted to the hon. minister for his courtesy in answering my question, but with all deference to him I am inclined to the opinion that he is quite as much in the dark about this matter as the other members of the House; and with all deference again, it seems to me before we embark on so vast a scheme we ought not to have such misty ideas, but we ought to have a clear-cut, definite policy. However, I am going to ask for some information in another direction. I would like to know if. the minister has any information as to the systems of roadbuilding employed by the different provincial governments who would have the expending of the money provided for by this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: Several of the provinces have commissions for the construction of roads, and they engage the very best men they can get-men who are experts on the subject of road building. The work is carried on in that way in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec. I do not know whether they have such a commission in the province of Nova Scotia in which the constituency of the hon. member (Mr. Davidson) is situated. I believe this

is going to be a very important matter for the rural population, and they are insisting on good roads. In the province of Ontario about 109,000 automobile licenses were issued last year, and over half of those were issued to the rural districts. In the province of Saskatchewan there were practically 40,000 licenses taken out, the next largest number, and they would be almost entirely rural I should say. I merely mention that to show the growth of motor traffic with the farmers. There is not a large city to-day but its market is crowded with motors from the country, and they come from very long distances.
A few years ago the farmers of my own constituency had to ship everything by rail; since motor cars have come into common use, they marketed their goods in Ottawa, and even in Montreal. Moreover the farmers can go to the large centres during nine months of the year instead of during only five or six. Good roads are a benefit to the rural population in that the services of physicians are made more available to the people; where the roads are bad, perhaps impassable, even where telephones are available a doctor may find it impossible to answer a call, or at least to answer it promptly.


Michael Clark: Should any intelligent
elector take the trouble, which I very much doubt, to pursue the windings of this debate I am perfectly certain that he will find himself in a state of mind akin to that which the member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) has described as his. If we are to vote on this thing I think we should vote intelligently. Now, what are the propositions of a concrete nature that have, been put before us in support of this resolution? The minister mentioned the providing of work for returned soldiers, and in the next breath he expressed very great doubt whether any soldiers would want the work. Well, that does not seem to be a very sound basis upon which to build a case for the expenditure of $20,000,000. I want to point out to the minister and to the Government that the further they go along the line of spending money upon what is non-productive work, the further they will produce people who want that non-productive work, and the more people they take out of the work of production the more they will put the cost of living up in this country. That is one of the objects which has been mentioned by the minister himself. The member for West Kootenay (Mr. Green) talked of building a transcontinental highway. I

cannot think that he was serious. What would $20,000,000 do towards the building of such a highway if it were all expended upon that one proposition? It would scarcely touch the scheme. So we may dismiss that; I assume that not a cent of this would go towards the building of 'a transcontinental highway, even if the money were voted now.
Then, the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) with truly democratic instinct, puts up the case of the American tourist as a reason why the highly-taxed people of this country should be enthusiastic over this road ischeme. Well, I should like to see the road leading into his constituency from the United States come as rapidly as possible to the excellence of the State roads- though eight millions of people with a larger territory to build roads upon can hardly be expected to equal the work of 110,000,000 upon a smaller territory, especially in view of the fact that we are strained by the expenditures of a war in which we entered three years before the United States did. But the point I want to put to this Committee is, if we are going to spend this money upon the building of roads connecting the United States with Canada, then we cannot spend it on a national highway.
Then, my hon. friend (Mr. Sexsmith) says that the scheme is really to help the farmers to get their stuff to market around the little local towns and so reduce the cost of living. What a very confiding Committee we shall be if we vote for this scheme put forward along these various lines or supported by these various arguments. If the minister is really serious in his intentions to press this scheme, I hope that when he speaks again, if he intends to speak again, he will tell us what he really wants this money for. Is he in favour of a national highway, and is any of this money to go to that? We have a right to know, because one of the gentlemen sitting behind him evidently has that in his mind. Or is he in favour of the highly-taxed citizens of this country looking particularly after the needs of American tourists? If that is what is in the minister's mind; if that is what is behind this proposal, then I should like to know, and my farmers would like to know it. If it is to give work to the returned soldiers-to which, incidentally, returned soldiers will not go, according to the minister-then I should also like that reason to give to my electors. If it is to help the farmers and to reduce the cost of living, then I should
be in the position of my friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill); I should, with all modesty, want to know how much of it is actually going to the constituency of Bed Deer. I must say that I do not like to complain of the minister's statements, but it is no wonder they were hazy if he had in mind the various explanations which have been given by other supporters of the scheme; because it would pass the combined eloquence and clarity of Demosthenes and Cicero to combine and reconcile these schemes-and nobody will charge the minister with being in the same class as Demosthenes and Cicero.


John Dowsley Reid: I stated that for several reasons I wanted this Bill to be passed this session. One was to provide work for returned soldiers; I believe that if this scheme is put through it will provide work during the next two or three or four years for very many of our men who have returned from the front, and for whom we might not be able to find other employment. I believe that nothing will reduce the cost of living more than the passing of this Bill and the building up of good roads throughout Canada. If you have good roads, men are encouraged to go on the farm and immigration is encouraged; and if you can get more people on the farm and thereby increase production, you certainly reduce the cost of living. I believe that the building of good roads increases the value of the rural properties through which they run; nothing will add more to the comfort of the rural population than good roads. One of the greatest benefits resulting to the rural population from the building of good roads is that of their being able to get a physician at any time; this would not be possible now in the spring and fall fn oases where the roads were very bad. As to the question of tourists, I do not suggest that this money be spent entirely upon the building of roads for the accommodation of tourist traffic, but I do say that if, in addition to the advantages that I have mentioned, we oan, by encouraging good roads, increase the tourist traffic throughout our country, we are doing something which is of very great value. I have here a statement which will indicate the value of tourist traffic in other countries which have good roads.	,
The amount annually expended by tourists is estimated as follows: France, $500,000,000; Switzerland, $150,000,000; Italy, $100,000,000; Maine, $40,000,000; Americans in England,. $25,000,000; Americans abroad, $350,000,000. Hon. members need only go to any of our summer resorts in Ontario, or any other

province, and see the Americans there, to form some idea of the amount of money that is expended by American tourists in our country. They will then come to the conclusion that the tourist traffic is certainly of some advantage, and I believe of very great advantage to Canada, and nothing but good roads will bring tourists in large numbers.


Samuel Hughes: The Governor of Maine stated last year that the revenue from the tourist trade for that state was five times greater than its lumber revenue had ever been.


Avard Longley Davidson: What steps have the Government already taken in the direction of good roads? I believe that some expenditure is now being made by the Dominion Government, looking towards the improvement of highways.


John Dowsley Reid: The only thing we have done is this: We have appointed Mr. Campbell, who has had a great deal of experience in the construction of highways, as commissioner. He has a small staff, and is trying to get an organization together to look after the matter of specifications. He is also studying the localities in which he thinks the roads should be constructed. A small vote of $25,000 was passed by the House this session, and it is out of this vote that this work is being done. I cannot expend anything under this Bill until it becomes law.


Avard Longley Davidson: In what department does Mr; Campbell work?


John Dowsley Reid: He is in the Department of Railways and Canals. We have expended only a portion of the $25,000 vote.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is it not true that the Mines Department is working along this line?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the only expenditure they are making is in connection with the inspection of mining areas in the different provinces.


Mr. J. F. REID:: I have listened very
patiently to this discussion on the national highway project, but as yet I am unable to understand whether it is to be a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific or a system of local roads throughout th# provinces. If the minister would take us into his confidence, and tell us that it was to be a national highway I would be opposed to it., I cannot see how such a road is going to reduce the cost of living. I am of the opinion that if you want to

reduce the cost of living it would be much better to spend this amount of money in railway branch lines, especially in the West, where we have thousands of farmers living forty and fifty and sixty miles beyond the national railway system, raising wheat and paying forty-five and fifty cents per bushel for hauling it to the railway. The minister must know that this condition cannot exist when prices come down to normal, and if those farmers living up there stop producing wheat when the price drops, naturally the amount of wheat produced will be diminished. I think it would be much better to drop this project of a national highway for the meantime, and construct branch lines of railway to the settlers who are now living fifty and sixty and seventy miles beyond the railway. Our returned soldiers are going in there to-day by the thousands, as far as eighty miles back from the railway. Are we not going to help them to get their products to market? It matters not to us, I think, whether our friends, the Yanks to the South, have good roads or not. They have 110,000,000 people to build their roads. Can Canada with only 8,000,000 people be expected to have roads equally as good as those on the other side? I think not. Not only does the production of wheat make more wheat products, but there are also the by-products to consider, which are used in the feeding of hogs and cattle, and all this helps to reduce the cost of living. I would ask the minister to consider this matter seriously and withdraw the Bill for the present, until he can lay down a definite policy and tell us just exactly what this scheme is to be. I am sorry, but if this comes to a vote I shall be compelled to vote against it.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am desirous of speaking at some length on this resolution, and inasmuch as it is now rather late and we have done a full day's work, I would ask the minister if he would consent to have the committee rise and report progress. Other hon. members whose opinions I am sure would be valued by this committee are also desirous of participating in this debate, and they would be able to be in their places tomorrow and contribute to the discussion.


John Dowsley Reid: I asked the committee to pass this, resolution to-night so that I could get the Bill printed. My hon. friend will have an opportunity of speaking on the second reading of the Bill and again at the committee stage, when he will have the Bill before him. I should like the resolu-

tion to go through to-night if the committee are agreeable.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think that this discussion, while, perhaps, not as definite as it might have been, and while many different opinions have been expressed as to just what the resolution means, has on the whole been enlightening, and might with profit be continued. The very fact that there seems to be such a difference of opinion would lead me to believe that. I should like very much to discuss this resolution at this stage, but at this hour of the night I do not wish to inflict a long speech on the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is cooler now than it will be to-morrow.


William Cameron Edwards: The suggestion made
by the hon. member (Mr. Copp) that it is cooler now is apt. We are just in the proper mood now for legislating on this matter. We are in a receptive frame of mind and are ready for the speech which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) wishes to give us. We are accustomed to late hours and this is an opportune time for the hon. member for Annapolis to follow up the questions he has been hurling at us by the speech which he is anxious to deliver and which I am sure will be quite illuminating. The questions which the hon. member has asked are extremely interesting and give evidence of his possession of quite a fund of information which the Committee is now prepared to receive. I would strongly oppose the suggestion that the Committee should rise and report progress because this is an eminently favourable opportunity for us to get the information which we need in order to help us make progress. Will the hon. member for Annapolis now get up and favour us with some information from that vast fund of knowledge which he possesses, coming as he does from the Maritime Provinces? They do not need good roads there, but nevertheless he has a remarkable interest in the whole subject and is evidently desirous of doing the right thing. I for one am prepared to sit here at least another hour and listen to the information which I know he has bottled up in his brain and is extremely anxious to give to the Committee.


James Alexander Calder: Notwithstanding the pressing invitation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) I am inclined to agree to the suggestion that the Committee report progress, in view of the lateness of the hour. If the hon. member for Annapolis desires further discussion of the subject he will have ample
opportunity on the second reading of the Bill. On the second reading hon. members may thoroughly discuss the principles of the Bill, the details of which can be minutely considered in Committee. I think the proposal of the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) therefore, at this stage, after a long day, is a very reasonable one. It must be borne in mind that some of us must get back to work at 11 o'clock, and that we shall have to stay at it until twelve o'clock at night, repeating the same thing the day following, and the day after that. If we are to get the work of the session done we must all look upon a situation of this kind in a reasonable way, and in order to expedite the work I suggest that unless there is some, grave reason to the contrary the proposaf , of the Minister of Railways be carried out and we be allowed to go home.


Avard Longley Davidson: May I be allowed to say a few words? If I were in the habit of speaking as frequently as the hon. member for Frontenac I could take a chance with my audience. The hon. gentleman who has -so kindly referred to the enjoyment which he anticipaies from my speech frequently addresses the House. Sometimes I have been driven to the painful necessity of using strenuous efforts to keep a quorum while certain speeches are being made, and I can understand the position of one who does not frequently speak if he were to attempt to occupy very much of the time of the Committee at this hour of the night on a question of this kind. It is rather unusual for me to speak in this House and I am anxious1 to select a time when the hon. gentleman is not obsessed with any great desire for his downy couch and when he can give undivided attention to the affairs of State and matters of first importance. This is a very important subject.
It has not to do with some little appointment to the Kingston penitentiary or any trivial matter of that kind. It has not to do with the vexed provincial question of national schools. It is of supreme importance whether we shall embark on a brand new policy in this country and I think the whole question should be seriously considered. If the minister insists, I shall of course, as I have done before, bow rwith all deference to his wishes and proceed to-night, in my exhausted condition, with the remarks which I intend to make. Looking upon the jaded faces opposite me, I am sure that hon. members will be in a better condition to hear me at a more seasonable time. If it is thought necessary I

will speak to-night, hut I would very much prefer to speak to-morrow.


William Cameron Edwards: I thought, when the hon. member rose, that he was about to give us of the store of information which I know he has in abundance. Possibly I have spoken more frequently than the member for Annapolis and in that respect the House has less to forgive him than me. The hon. mentber has referred to -one or two matters which have nothing to do with this Bill, and since he has wandered afield I presume I may follow him. I have heard the hon. member give some reasons why he is opposed to this Bill. It is not because he does not believe in good roads.


Avard Longley Davidson: How does the hon. member know I am' opposed to the Bill? I have not expressed an opinion on the matter.


William Cameron Edwards: If the member has not expressed an opinion he has had an opportunity of doing so, and his whole attitude has been one of opposition. He has expressed himself outside the Chamber, and if he will be as candid in the Chamber as out of it he will say that his reason for opposing the Bill is that he objects to placing money in the hands of the people of Nova Scotia, who, he has said, will use it absolutely for political purposes. If $40 out of $100 is handed to the Government of Nova Scotia, that government, in his opinion, is composed of such a lot of black legs that it will use the money absolutely for political purposes.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me entirely I never made any such statement and I ask him to withdraw it. i


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member did not say "blacklegs", and I withdraw the statement to that extent, but he has come as close to it as he could by inference without using that particular word. If that is his reason for opposing this Biill in the House, as it has been his expressed and only reason out of the House, why is he not candid enough to admit it? He does not, because he knows that an argument of that kind will not appeal to the committee. I repeat that he has frequently outside of the Chamber, used as an argument against the Government voting the money towards the improvement of highways, the alleged fact that if it is placed in the hands of the Government in Nova Scotia, those who are in control of provincial affairs there will use it for party purposes. The hon.
IMr. Davidson.]
member (Mr. J. F. Reid) raises the question about building railroads to farmers 50 or 60 miles away. It is all right, from his point of view, to take the money of the country to build .a steel road for farmers to get produce to market, but it is absolutely illogical from his standpoint to take the money to build a highway for the same purpose.
Why is it that every member for Saskatchewan approves of spending millions of dollars to build the Hudson Bay railway? Is it for the benefit of Canada? It is for the benefit of the farmers of Saskatchewan and Northern Saskatchewan at that. It is all right from their standpoint to build thousands of miles of railway across the continent for the benefit of 500,000 farmers in Saskatchewan, but where you have a population of 2,500,000 in Ontario you must not spend a cent down here to improve roads. There is nothing consistent in these hon. gentlemen at all. They never ask the question :"Where are you going to get the money?"-when it comes to a question of building the Hudson Bay or some other railway in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta. The people who have raised most of the money to build these railways in the West can go on raising most of the money to build railways out there and these gentlemen do not lose any sleep over where the money is to come from, but when it is a case of developing the agricultural districts of Old Canada, which has been the source of supply for building up Western 'Canada, they object. That is not a far-sighted way of looking at the situation. Throughout Ontario the building of highways is the greatest issue that you can bring before the people, and they have a right to come to this Government and ask them to contribute towards the building of these highways.


John Archibald Maharg: The money to build the Hudson Bay railway has been in the treasury for years and years, and it was obtained from the proceeds of the land sold in Saskatchewan.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for Frontenac talks about the members from Saskatchewan taking the money out of the country to build a railway. Does the hon. member not know that Saskatchewan is inside the Dominion of Canada and that we are not taking money out of the country? He tells this Committee what Ontario has done for the West. iMore lands were given away in Western Canada by the Dominion Government than would have built all tlhe

railways in the West. I would like to ask the hon. member for Frontenac about the canals which have been built in Ontario by the Dominion Government-and which do not bring any revenue to the federal treasury-not for the benefit of the people of Canada, but for the benefit of the people of Ontario. There is one close to this city built absolutely for pleasure for the use of the people of Ontario, and, I presume, built by all the people of Canada. He complains about the roads of Ontario needing such an amount of money, and yet he tells us that they have the largest population of any province. They have been building roads in Ontario for sixty or seventy-five years. Why does the hon. member for Frontenac not follow the example of the province of 'Quebec? Let him go down there and learn how to build roads, or better still, get a man from Quebec to tell them how to build roads in Ontario, especially in the constituency of Frontenac? If the hon. gentleman will visit the West we will give him a si>in in an automobile on our own mud roads, and when he gets out he will say he has been over one of the smoothest roads that he ever rode over.


Avard Longley Davidson: If the hon. member for Frontenac had waited for the remarks that I had intended to make it would have not have been necessary for him to violate the conduct of a gentleman in attempting to disclose in a public discussion confidential matters. The fact that the hon. gentleman interfered with my argument, by rehearsing a portion of it, seems an added reason why I should be allowed to continue my -remarks and perhaps speak in a more logical manner at another sitting of the committee. 'If the hon. gentleman had let me alone I would have been able to present very many more reasons for my opposition. But I submit that the one reason that in my judgment the Government of Nova iScotia would not expend the money that this Government propose to give them wisely, but that they would waste the money, is a cogent and tangible reason and a reason which J might have no hesitancy in expressing to this committee. 'Since the hon. gentleman has referred to remarks which were made to him in a confidential way, I might perhaps be allowed to refer to remarks which were made by him in a public way in reference to this very resolution. When the resolution was 'last before the House the hon. member for Frontenac stated clearly that he only proposed to support a resolution of this kind upon the understanding that permanent roads and nothing but permanent roads were to be built. Am I correct in stating that?


William Cameron Edwards: No, you are not.


Avard Longley Davidson: The error in this respect must be due to the occult way in which my honourable friend speaks or to my limited powers of interpretation.


William Cameron Edwards: It is the latter.


Avard Longley Davidson: No doubt it is. I hope my honourable friend will regard this as a public question and permit me to enjoy the same liberty of opinion I have always conceded him, although I happen to disagree with him upon this question, and not cherish any little feeling against an old friend simply because he differs with him on a public question. Do I understand the minister refuses to allow the committee to rise?


John Dowsley Reid: This is only a resolution that we are discussing, and I would like the committee to agree to-night to let the resolution go through so that the Bill could be introduced. Then we can discuss it when it comes up again. Of course, if this were the last opportunity, I would certainly not think of the resolution going through tonight. There is a great difference of opinion in the House and I realize that very many of the members are sincere in their opposition to the resolution. It is a very important one. If the honourable member for Annapolis will agree to the resolutiongoing through so that the Bill can be printed, we can consider the matter again in committee and I will bring it up at an earlier time in the day so that we can have time to discuss it. The session is now nearing a close, and for that reason I am afraid that if we let the matter go over this evening and not have the Bill printed it will create much further delay. I would, therefore, appeal to hon. gentlemen to allow the resolution to pass.


Michael Clark: I have no desire at all to occupy unduly the attention of the House. As to private members sitting up till one o'clock in the morning, it is not a very serious matter to happen occasionally, but I do feel for the ministers who have grave problems to consider, and that in a serious spirit. It has been rumoured that there are fresh disturbances in Winnipeg to-day and I am sure the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, (Mr. Calder) who comes from the West, appreciates the gravity of the situation. For my part I should be anxious to permit the ministers

to retire and get some rest so that they could turn their attention early to-morrow to these matters. I do think, however, that before we can accede to the request of the Minister of Railways we should have an expression from him as to a serious purpose to print this Bill and to carry this legislation at the present session. Members are all anxious for the session to terminate within a reasonable period from the present. The printing of Bills costs money; but money does not seem to matter to a government like this. The matter of a $300,000,000 deficit does not seem to give a great deal of care to its supporters; I am afraid it will give a great deal of care to the country before we are very much older. We are continually getting fresh demands and you cannot pay a $300,000,000 deficit without money. Let me repeat, the printing of Bills costs money and I think before we undertake the printing of this Bill we should have a serious declaration either from the minister in charge or his chief henchman for this evening, the Minister of Colonization and Immigration, that there is a purpose to go on with this legislation this session and to carry the Bill through. If that be the serious purpose of the Government we from the West are not the men to use obstruction; we do not need to, we always think we advance arguments. The majority in this House must rule and if the majority want this money spent whether they know where it is going to come from or not, their view must prevail. But we should have an assertion from the minister that the Government intends to go on with this legislation and . carry it through this session.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution
carry?


Avard Longley Davidson: There is another reason, which I have not yet advanced, why I think the committee should rise at this stage, if the .minister will pardon me. There are some members on this side who usually support the Government, who would be very unwilling to withhold their support from the Government on any occasion, and I flatter myself I am one of them. If the resolution is put through tonight with the present light that we have, even after listening to the luminous address of the hon. member from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), we are inclined to think we have not sufficient information to vote intelligently upon so vast and so in-1 a.m. volved a scheme. I think there are other members of this House

in the same position as myself in that regard. If we had time to consider this matter to think it out more definitely and study it more closely, and perhaps confer with the minister as to the details, we might be i na position where it would not be necessary to withhold our support. As it stands norw, I think I am speaking for others as well as myself when I say that is .the position. For that reason it would seem to me very desirable that the committee should be allowed to rise. This is the first time I have ever asked the indulgence of the Government in a matter of this kind, and it may very likely be the last. It will certainly give me a great deal of gratification if the minister oouild meet my wishes in this regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee ready for the question.


Mr. TRAHAN:: 1 move that the committee rise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee ready for the question?


Avard Longley Davidson: establish experimental farms in various parts of the country. In those farms scientific experiments are carried on, the results of which are beneficial to all parts of the Dominion, and in that way agriculture is helped. I want the same thing to be followed out in reference to roads. I think that the Federal Government might very properly engage in experimental road making. I am speaking in agreement with the views given me by the officer to whom I have just referred, when I say, that that department could use a much greater amount of money than it now has at its disposal. I believe the proper way for us to approach this question is for the Federal Government to build up a scientific department in road making, to gather together a body of engineers, and through their operations to be in a position, whenever a municipality or a province wants ' information in reference to this very important matter, to be able to give it to them, and to furnish them with competent and skilled help to make expenditures on road building.	,
But to-day there is not enough information and scientific knowledge on this question to warrant the expenditure of the exceedingly large sums of money which it is proposed to spend at this time of financial stringency. I venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is not one single province that has yet successfully grappled with the problem of road making. For years the various provinces have tinkered with this question. They have not gone at it in the right way. They decided that a certain road was needed and would cost a certain amount of money, and then they proceeded to get the money and to expend it without any previous experimental research, with the result that the expenditure in many cases has been lost. I do not think the province of Nova Scotia has suffered any more in this particular than the other provinces, but members of the present Government in Nova Scotia would be the first to admit that in the. past road construction has largely been a failure, and that to-day they are groping in the dark on this question, and if this Government forces the Government of Nova Scotia into the expenditure of large sums of money on road building, it will be spent in a hurry and practically thrown away.
I want to read to the House just a short paragraph from the Eastern Chronicle, a paper published in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, in reference to some of the opera-

tions in connection with road building in that province. This is the paragraph:
There is one of two things wrong with the supposedly permanent culverts that have been placed along the highways of this country- either the design is had, or the work of installation was not properly done. That the costly work is more or less a failure is easily apparent to one travelling the roads. In places they have given way, have heen thrown up by the frost and are now a danger to travel rather than the maximum of safety they were originally designed to be. This will be a matter of deep regret to the county representatives who were responsible for the installation of these intended improvements, and who placed their faith in the engineer who prepared his plans, and the contractor who had the performance of the job. It looks very much as if the design of these culverts was really at fault.
The province of Nova Scotia borrowed a very large sum of money in good faith, and they yielded to the cry of immediate action in the construction of good roads. They put these culverts down without knowing how, without the proper staff to ensure the work being properly done. That is the long and short of it. The result is that that immense expenditure is worse than a total loss, because the roads in which those culverts were placed have been made dangerous.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is the hon. member referring to Nova Scotia generally, or just to certain counties?


Avard Longley Davidson: The paragraph I read had reference to a particular road in Nova Scotia, from my observation I may say that the condition described in the county of Pictou is characteristic of the various other parts of the province. The people of Nova Scotia want good roads; there is no doubt of that. It is needless to point out the merits of good roads; everybody realizes that they are necessary. But the question is, will the scheme that is now under consideration lead to the production of good roads in this country? In my judgment, it is doubtful whether it will. I believe-and I have the opinion of a very able expert to support my conclusion-that if this thing is carried through it will simply mean that huge sums of money will be passed on to the various provinces, which will thereupon engage in wild schemes of road-making and in two or three years there will be nothing whatever to show for all this expenditure. I agree with what the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said the other evening when he spoke in favour of permanent roads. But it would be idle for us to borrow $20,-

000,000 and spend it in such a manner that in the future the only thing we shall have to remind us of the expenditure will be the necessity of our paying the indebtedness so incurred. 'Let us deal with this thing in a sane manner; let us continue the operations that have been started, go on with the work that has been begun, and wait until the provinces are in a better position to work intelligently upon the roads; then place the federal machinery at the disposal of the various provinces in order that they may build well. It is absolutely absurd for us to embark at this time upon such a scheme as this. I point out again the inadvisability of our trying to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces do not want us to do so; we are trying as it were, to cast the mote out of their eye when there is the beam of heavy obligation in our own. In view of the heavy obligations under which we are staggering at the present time, it is very silly for us to go around the country looking for people whom we may help out.
This measure, Mr. Chairman, is one which requires all the united wisdom of the members of this House; I do not know of any measure that would require more careful scrutiny. It is an absolutely new departure; the Federal Government has never built roads in this country. No scientific investigation has been made by the Government; they are not in possession of any data on the subject; they are not able to give the House any information of a definite character, yet they are embarking upon a scheme involving the expenditure of millions of dollars. If this thing goes through,	every part	of	the country will be after the Federal Government to expend money on roads; we shall be in for a tremendous expenditure. This, therefore, is an inopportune time to try to force a measure of this kind through Parliament. The proper thing to do would have been to bring the Bill forward at an earlier period in the session and to refer it to- a special committee of the House for study, analysis and criticism. When we had to deal with the consolidation of the Railway Act a special committee was appointed and sat for diays considering the various clauses of that proposed Act. Railway problems were not new to us; yet we spent weeks in the committee giving very careful consideration to the details of this Railway Act. Now it is proposed, at the eleventh hour, a few days before prorogation, to embark upon an entirely new scheme, a scheme of which we are entirely ignorant; and it is proposed to rush it
through. An hon. gentleman asks the Government to allow the matter to stand until another day; that the vote be not taken at this time, but this request is refused by the minister, for reasons which no doubt he appreciates, but which I cannot for the life of me understand. There are many other things I wish to say on this subject; is the minister still obdurate?


John Dowsley Reid: I would be glad to do anything I could for the hon. member, but we have lost a good deal of time on this resolution, which is now before us for the third time. I make one more appeal to hon. gentlemen to let the resolution go through so that I may get the Bill printed. We will then have the second reading, when there will be opportunity for discussion; and it may be further discussed in committee. Of course, if the hon. mensjber wishes to finish his remarks, I will give consideration to his suggestions. I realize that this is one of the most important measures that ever came before this House, but it -has passed this Parliament twice before, and it is well known to hon. members and to the people. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) wants to know whether we are going on with this Bill. I am asking that it be passed; then we may consider whether it, with other Bills, shall be gone on with during the present session. But I am not going to drop it in this way. T am as anxious as any member of the House is that the session be brought to a close at the earliest possible day, and if we do not get this resolution through to-night it will be the first Order of the Day to-morrow. If we pass the resolution to-night, we shall save a day and members will get home that much earlier. That is the reason why I ask that the resolution go through. There are a lot of other Bills on the Order Paper. In previous sessions Bills have been dropped in order that the session might be brought to a close. I am willing to do anything to facilitate the work of the session, but if the resolution is not adopted to-night I will ask the House to take it up to-morrow and to discuss it tomorrow and from day to day to see if we cannot have the resolution passed so that the Bill may be introduced.


Avard Longley Davidson: The minister is wrong when he says that this Bill has passed the House twice before. In fact, I believe that it never passed this House before.


John Dowsley Reid: The Highways Bill, I mean.


Avard Longley Davidson: That Bill was entirely different from this oift and involved an entirely different principle. It is one of the principles of responsible government that the Government which collects the taxes shall be responsible for the expenditure of the money so collected. That was the principle involved in the Highways Bills, which was passed by this House and killed in the Senate.
That is not the principle embodied in this legislation. I do not want to be churlish in this matter. My only reason for opposing this resolution is in order that all the members of this House may appreciate its importance and significance. If the minister would consent to have this Bill sent to a special committee to be considered carefully, as I believe it should be considered, I would have no objection to the resolution being allowed to pass.


John Dowsley Reid: I will bring the matter before Council, and we will decide whether it will be better to refer the Bill to a special committee at this late stage of the session or submit it to the House. That is a matter I should not like to decide offhand myself, but I shall certainly bring the matter before the Government and let my hon. friend know. I really think it would save time and shorten the session if this resolution were allowed to pass and we could get the Bill printed and on the Order Paper, and a copy of it in the hands of every member.


Mr.  M. GLABK@: I regret if I appear to have wasted the time of the House unnecessarily. I addressed what I thought was a courteous request to my hon. friend, and if it embarrassed him, I am sorry indeed; I did not mean it that way. I regret also that the minister should have used something which appeared very, very like a threat, and addressed particularly to myself. He assured me in somewhat strong language that if this resolution does not pass to-night it will be the first thing tomorrow. That will not incommode me. This House has been four months in session and I have not missed a Parliamentary day, and if my hon. friend wants me to stay here with him four months longer, and his constitution holds out, I will stay with him. I would remind him that on one occasion when we were sitting opposite to one another we had a two weeks' sitting without any intermission whatever. I regret that he should have thrown out what appeared to be very, very like a threat. I repeat what I said before, that if it should be the wish of the majority to enact this legis-

lation I have no objection; it would not be any use if I had. I desire majorities to rule. I have expressed the wish that we had been given a clear explanation of what it is the Government wants to do in the way of road building.
This has not been an idle day in Parliament. We had a very long Bill brought in by the (Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) this morning, a lucid exposition of the Bill greatly facilitated its passage, and it went through all its sixty-four clauses in committee. We had also a Bill with a great many clauses in connection with technical education. I must say, if the minister is inclined to threaten, that we would have got further ahead if he had told us exactly where he stands in regard to this national highway proposition and the other proposals. If he had told us exactly what the legislation is meant to effect, he would have helped me sooner to have ceased talking, and would have helped to let the resolution pass so far as I was concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: The last thing in the world I would wish to use is a threat, and if my remarks could be construed in any way as a threat, I would certainly wish to withdraw them and apologize to the House. I realize that there is a great opposition to this legislation in the House. This is the third time I have tried to get this resolution through.


Michael Clark: On the two previous occasions I have not opened my mouth.


Avard Longley Davidson: Nor did I make any statement.


John Dowsley Reid: What I felt about it was this: If I am not to get the resolution through to-night, I would rather take it up first thing to-morrow and let the whole House decide whether we were to go on with it. I did not feel that I was asking anything unreasonable to let the resolution pass so that the Bill could be printed. I did not wish to threaten in any way, but I wished to get this Bill printed. We have a lot of other Bills on the Order Paper, and as far as I am concerned I will do everything I can to try and bring the session to a close, even if it should be necessary to drop this or some other Bills; but the Government must decide whether it shall be proceeded with or not.


William Cameron Edwards: I considered the intimation of the minister that if this resolution did not pass to-night it would be the first order of business to-morrow, not as a threat,

but as a promise which was due to certain members of this House who do not agree with the position of the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Annapolis, but desire this resolution to go through. While I am on my feet I should like to make one observation regarding the argument advanced by the hon. member for Annapolis with respect to the British North America Act and the infringement on provincial rights. Before this resolution came up he gave his consent to the passing of the Bill respecting technical education, and if there is any argument in regard to the invasion of provincial rights that can be used against this resolution it can be applied with equal force to the Bill on technical education involving an expenditure of $10,000,000, to which the hon. member has given his consent.


Avard Longley Davidson: In order to set myself straight, let me say that I have no inconsistency in this matter. I was opposed to the principle of the Bill on technical education, and if a vote had been taken on it I would have been compelled to vote against it for exactly the same reason that I am opposed to this resolution.


John Archibald Maharg: If it is the will of the minister that a vote should be taken on this resolution to-night I shall have to take up a little of the time of the Committee, because I have not said a word on the principle involved. I have said that this is an inopportune time for the legislation to come before the House. This legislation is entirely wrong in principle It is an infringement of the rights of the provinces, and unless they have changed their minds I do not think they are a unit in accepting it. The last Highway Bill was killed for almost exactly the same reason. If we are going to hold a string on this grant-and we are holding a string on it-I can tell the minister that Saskatchewan, at all events, is absolutely opposed to the Dominion Government handing over moneys with a string attached. If the minister insists on a vote to-night, I shall have to take up a little time. As the minister does not care to answer, I take it for granted that he intends that a vote shall be taken to-night. In the first place, the emphatic statement of the minister that the Dominion Government would hold a string on the grant is surely sufficient reason for any member of this House opposing it. The minister says to the provinces: "We are prepared to give you this money, but we are going to say just exactly where you are going to build this road and the kind of
material you shall use in building it. We are going to keep an absolute string on the grant." For that is what the minister's statement meant. It is all very well to say that it will be a matter of agreement, but that does not work. The Dominion Government will hold a string on this money continuously. I say the principle is absolutely wrong.
The Technical Education Bill has no such string on it. It says the money must be spent for technical education but does not stipulate that one or two colleges must be built or that this or the other subject must be taught. It is simply provided for technical education. But this Bill says you must build the road where this Government will be satisfied with it, and the Government must be satisfied with the construction and the material. It has an absolutely binding string on it from start to finish.


Jacques Bureau: The matter of cost is in the opinion of the minister, too.


John Archibald Maharg: I did not know that, but that makes it so much worse. It seems to me most unreasonable to ask the provincial governments to accept this regulation, and I do not think that many of them will do so. Let the minister give us the information he has secured from the governments as to what they will do. If he is prepared to tell me that the government of my province will allow the Dominion Government to have complete control in the matter I shall immediately withdraw my objection, for that is the provincial government's business, and his assurance to that effect will relieve me of responsibility. But in the absence of that, and speaking, as I think I am, for the people of my province, I am opposed to the methods proposed. This was the attitude of the people of my province some years ago and I do not think they have altered their opinions much in this respect. We believe in provincial autonomy and although we were not accorded the-fullest measure of it, still we got a fair degree of autonomy and are anxious to retain it and if possible have it extended. To permit the Dominion Government to interfere with the internal affairs of a province is entirely wrong. We have heard a good deal about the United States methods. I am not familiar with many states, but I am fairly well acquainted with the good roads scheme in Michigan, as I have a brother there who is connected with municipal works. There the state hands the money to the county and an

arrangement is entered into between tbem. The county lays down the plan of the road and the Federal Government has nothing whatever to do with the work. If this Government is prepared to hand the money to the provinces and let them and the municipalities work out their own salvation I will withdraw 'my objection now and when the Bill comes before the Committee. Otherwise, I shall have to oppose it in Committee as strenuously as possible. I am not opposed to good roads, but I want the Provincial Government and the people of the province to say where those roads shall be built. In our own province they get away as far as they can from roads as such. They only undertake now large contracts, such as heavy fills or bridges. A member of the Government was Minister of Highways there for several years, and he will tell you they have been getting away from that system as much as possible. It was a continual source of trouble, getting the minister into difficulties through no fault of his own. This is a re-introduction of the system in an intensified form. It is entirely unwarranted and should not be supported. There are other matters I would like to touch upon and I should like to say a word or two to our British Columbia friends, but as the hour is late I will refrain from further remarks.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 152 founded on the resolution.
Motion agreed to -and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m.
Tuesday, June 24, 1919.