10 per cent paid1 by the settler? My recollection is that this was simply the money the settler still owed the government, and in no ease has the settler received anything back for the 10 per cent he had paid initially.
That accounts, too, for the great difference between the deflation price of stock and the deflation price of land, because in the case of the stock the settler did not pay anything down and the price indicated that what the government paid for it was the full price; while in the case of the land the price is only 90 per cent of the actual price in the first place. So there would be a discrepancy there.
in the improved land, which that report has very carefully avoided taking into account. The soldiers working on the farms for three or four years wore out the implements which they had bought, and I venture the statement that several thousand dollars' worth of improvements in the way of labour and material which those soldiers put on the land is unaccounted for in this report which the minister has read.
land myself, and I do not think I speak altogether as an ignoramus on this question. Where you have men abandon their land, I venture to say that the proportion of cases where they left the land better than when they got it would be very, very small. If you sell a man land, and after three or four years he quits, I should like to ask the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Morrisor), who knows this question just as well as I do, how often he would expect to take that land back in better shape than when he Sold. The man who improves his land is the man who stays on it.
right hon. gentleman that most of those lands were raw lands, therefore buildings 'had to be put up, wells dug, stones removed and ditches made-all improvements which the soldier cannot carry away with him.
might be cases where those things being considered would mean that the government got the land back in better shape; but even where the land was sold in the raw-and I do not think we ever bought raw land for the soldiers -as one who has dealt somewhat in land, give me the raw land every time in preference to the land abandoned, especially in this age of sow thistle., mustard and wild oats. I give this as my judgment, whatever it may be worth, that if you go over the whole sweep of the lands that were returned, I think you will find that their intrinsic value as they came back to the government ini the aggregate would be more probably less than greater.
to out soldier settlers, and in reply to the statement of those who say that these men are not making their payments and are in dire distress, I should like to put on Hansard this record of the payments by soldier settlers:
Seven hundred and fifty-four have repaid their entire indebtedness. This year, of the seventeen thousand settlers with payments due, approximately seven thousand have met their payments in full, more than seven thousand more have made substantial payments on account, and altogether approximately 70 per cent of the money due this year has been repaid.
form covers the situation perhaps so far as the price of the live stock of the settler is concerned when he bought his land, but there seems to be no explanation from the minister respecting the policy of the government with regard to t'he cost of the chattels originally. No doubt these soldier settlers in 1919 and 1920 paid very dearly for some of the chattels they then took over. I have in my hand an inventory of a dilapidated farm in the township of Reach, Ontario county, and I find that this particular soldier settler paid as much as $70 for a secondhand wagon, $75 for a secondhand top buggy, $20 for a roll of wire fencing, No. 9, $25 for a secondhand set of harness, and so on all through the list. These articles were of very poor quality and cost him $585 on October 10, 1919. As I read this bill, it contains no provision to take care of that excessive cost of chattels to the soldier settler. Before we proceed any further I would like to ask the minister what is the policy of the government with regard to giving the soldier settler some relief in respect 227
to the cost of his chattels. Just to voice my sentiment with regard to the 40 per cent clause I will give a few of the items of live stock this particular man bought and the
prices he paid:
1 bay mare, 10 years old $250
1 Holstein cow, 6 ye^rs old 150
1 Holstein cow, 5 years old
2001 Yorkshire sow and litter
And so on. Anyone who knows anything about farming in the last ten years will realize that tha* is pretty expensive live stock for a settler to have to pay for. I feel that this 40 per cent clause is going to afford some relief, but I would like to know what the policy of the government is to be in regard to the chattels.
have his permission to do so. It is the case of Henry Cox, Port Perry, Ontario; 81 acres, part of lot 8, concession 2, township Reach, Ontario county; file No. 5644; district loan No. 524; regimental number 3032549.
Is the hon. member sure that these were paid for by government moneys? While it is some years back, I am very sure from memory that a maximum was fixed on each animal at an amount considerably below what he has given, and there was no case in which anybody was allowed to pay that. I fancy these are some of the soldiers who indulged in a bit of luxury.
No; this is the original communication from the Soldier Settlement Board. The inventory is in accordance with requisition No. 12093 covering chattels turned over to this particular soldier with the property purchased from a Mr. Dodsworth.
friend. A good many more of us might have had a guardian at that particular time. The men came back here, thousands of them; what were they to do? We did not want them in the bread lines in the cities; we were glad to see them get back on the land. Indeed, we all encouraged them to go on the land, and now to say that this man needed a guardian is not expressing very noble sentiments, in my opinion.