Mr. ROBB:

I will have this ease looked

into and1 give my hon. friend whatever information we have with regard to it. I am not finding fault with the soldier; I just want to say that I think in this case he fell in among Philistines or thieves. But that was not the general policy of the administration at the time, because a special arrangement was made with the agricultural implement people under which the implements were purchased at a discount which amounted to 81,220,572.

Mr. HARRIS:

Was there a rate of discount set?

Mr. ROBB:

There must have been.

Mr. HARRIS:

It seems strange that there should be a rate of discount when every item on this inventory happens to end in even money-$5, $10 and so on.

Mr. ROBB:

We will have it looked into.

Mr. HARRIS:

What is the minister's policy in regard to these chattels?

Mr. ROBB:

This bill provides nothing for

chattels.

Mr. HARRIS:

Has the government any

legislation in view?

Mr. ROBB:

No further legislation. When

we have the bill here I will arrange to have a representative of the board present so that he may answer any questions.

Mr. NEILL:

While there may be individual cases of hardship in connection with chattels, as mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Harris), I think it will be found on examination that the men themselves do not want a revaluation of chattels because the chattels are worth more to-day than when they were purchased. I think that is the general feeling.

Mr. HARRIS:

Because the duty was taken off.

Mr. NEILL:

There we go, into the tariff

again. We cannot start any discussion without somebody on my right bringing up the question of the tariff. I want to keep away from the tariff. As I say, the men do not want their chattels revalued, for that reason; but they certainly do want their stock and land revalued. I regret very much to see the change from 60 and 40 per cent to 40 and 20 per cent, because it seems to me it was tantamount to a pledge given to the soldiers of this country last year when the present Minister of the Interior moved concurrence in the report of the soldiers' committee. It happened

in this way: The committee made certain recommendations, one of which was this 60 and 40 per cent provision, and they also recommended some other items in connection, I think, with interest charges. When the matter came up for concurrence the minister moved an amendment to strike out the paragraph referring to the interest charges. His language-I have it here-was: That means the acceptance of the balance of the report. The leader of the opposition then raised the point of order that there could be no recommendation for the expenditure of public money by a committee, and later on the Speaker decided that it was out of order. But we had it on record that a minister of the crown was willing to concur in this 60 and 40 per cent provision. That went out to the country; members went home and told their constituents that that was going to be done-at least, that it was the pledge of the government. I have not heard the explanation of the minister now-whether he looked further into it, or what it is, I do not know. It seems to me there will be some difficulty in offering an explanation of that change of front. What is the policy, may I ask, as regards the revaluation of land?

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

In reference to the incident of last year when the report of the committee was brought down in the House, if my hon. friend will look at Hansard I think he will find I stated on that occasion that as nearly as I could estimate, if the recommendations of the committee were all carried out it would involve a reduction in the collection of funds alone to the soldiers of some $38,000,000. That may have been a rough estimate. So far as the stock valuation was concerned I was prepared to accept the recommendation of the committee, reserving the right during the recess to make an investigation into the whole matter. It is quite true that the report of the committee was to the effect that there would be a 60 per cent reduction on stock purchased in 1920 and a 40 per cent reduction on stock purchased in 1921.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What is the meaning of accepting a recommendation with the reservation of a right to review?

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

Well, I

think I made it perfectly clear on that occasion, I refused at that time to sanction the recommendation of the committee with respect to the land values.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

No, the interest.

Soldier Settlement Act

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

Yes, with

respect to the interest; and there was a reservation that the matter would be thoroughly looked in: o by the government and legislation brought down at this session. If hon. members will look at Hansard they will see that that was the statement made on that occasion.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

There is no such thing

as accepting a recommendation for a specific reduction and then reserving the right to review it; the two are absolutely inconsistent. The minister would be quite correct, of course, in saying that the government would think it over during the summer, but he cannot put that statement alongside of another statement to the effect that the recommendation was accepted.

Mr. NEILL:

I have Hansard here and I

will quote what the minister said. His reservation referred entirely to the interest charges. Here is his language:

It is pointed out to me that the evidence all goes to establish that in so far as the live stock is concerned-purchased and given to the soldiers within the period mentioned-there is an actual reduction of 60 per cent over the prices prevailing as against those established in 1921. That being the fact I am not disposed to take serious objection to that adjustment. I believe, however, from what I have been able to gather-and I must confess that it has only been from the committee and the Soldiers' Settlement Board itself, with whom I have not been associated for over a year-that a serious state of affairs seems to exist with respect to the extension of the interest payment period.

That is all that is said about the sixty per cent, which is a total acceptance of the statement.

Mr. ROBB:

With all due respect to my hon. friend, the minister did not say that he accepted it, but that he did not take serious objection to it.