Hear, hear.

Mr. BENNETT:

There is no necessity

of applauding the sentiment. Mr. Chairman. It is a sentiment I am sure that anyone who analyzes the figures and realizes the productiveness and the amount of new wealth that those hard-headed and hardworking men and women have produced in western Canada during the last few years will recognize as sound. For that reason may I venture to suggest, not in any censorious sense, that we should all use our combined efforts to assist the minister in making this legislation as practicable as possible, limited in its application for the first year to a reasonably small sum of money, and if it does not succeed let us all bear our part of the responsibility for endeavouring at least to make it as good as we can.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to authorize advances to settlers on crown lands.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. STEVENS:

Was this on the agenda for to-day, may I ask?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes.

Mr. 'STEVENS: It is pretty late. Could we not adjourn now?

fMr. C. A. Stewart.]

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It is just a

short resolution.

Mr. BENNETT:

Will the minister make

a short explanation of this measure? It is of considerable importance.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I shall be

glad to do that, but perhaps we might first go into committee.

Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) :

The resolution is for the purpose of the introduction of a bill to meet the demand made upon the government when this whole question of the revaluation of soldier settler lands, as well as stock and equipment, was before a committee of this House. Hon. gentlemen who were in the last parliament will remember that that committee reported that a revaluation of the land, in certain cases at least, should be undertaken. Last year we did not meet with the demand of that committee in its entirety, but the House met it to the extent of a reduction of forty per cent on stock and equipment of settlers who had settled between certain dates, and a reduction of twenty per cent in the case of settlers who had settled between certain other dates. That reduction has not yet been completed, but I have tentative figures that would indicate that it will cost the government between five and six million dollars.

The proposal this year is that in certain sections where injury appears to have been done to the settler through having purchased land during the period of inflation, redress will be given if he can prove that the price paid for his land is higher than it would be if he were purchasing under ordinary circumstances at the present time. The regulations that will be thrown around the revaluation will seek to prevent redress being given to the man who may have suffered through his own neglect or incompetence, or whatever it may be, directly attributable to himself. To put it concretely, it is to give redress to the man who had bought his land, say, at $40 an acre, while the prevailing price in the locality at the present time is perhaps not more than $25 or $30 per acre for similar land.

A good deal of discussion has taken place to-night that pretty well enlightens members of the House with respect to the injury done to some of the soldier settlers. Some of them, of course, have had to abandon their lands, and it is impossible by legislation to give redress to them. This measure applies only to those who are still on the land and are still

Soldier Settlement Act

endeavouring to meet their payments and secure the home they undertook to provide for themselves.

It is proposed that every soldier who is located on the land shall have the opportunity of writing to the Soldier Settlement Board indicating that in his opinion the land on which he is located bears too high a valua-' tion, and that he is desirous of having a reduction made. Inspection will be made by the Soldier Settlement Board, and if in the opinion of the board's representative the valuation is too high, having in mind all the circumstances that surround the case, and the reduction the board's representative offers is reasonably satisfactory to the soldier settler himself, no further action need be taken. We anticipate that in a great many cases, far more perhaps than the number that will need to bo dealt with no reduction will take place, because we know of innumerable localities in which the land purchased by the soldier settler is more valuable to-day than when the purchase was made. In such cases, of course, there is no redress to be given. If an agreement can be arrived at between the person who is suffering injury and the Soldier Settlement Board through its representative, an adjustment will take place on that basis. But in the event of a dispute arising between the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler, recourse will be had to the tribunal created for the purpose, as provided for in the bill, and its decision in the matter will be final.

Mr. BENNETT:

What about an appeal ?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I was going to quote the exact wording of the provision:

If the board and settler do not agree upon the amount of depreciation in value of the said land the board shall refer the matter at issue to the district arbitration committee for determination, who will thereupon fix a * convenient time and place for hearing. Upon the hearing of all evidence submitted the committee shall decide upon the question in dispute and its decision shall be final.

Mr. BENNETT:

The committees are appointees of the minister and therefore political tribunals.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

It says further:

The minister may appoint district arbitration committees having jurisdiction in such soldier settlement districts as may be necessary, each committee to consist of three members, one of whom shall be an official of the Soldier Settlement Board and one a representative of the veterans' organisation in the district.

The members of the district arbitration committee when appointed shall have all the powers and authority of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.

Mr. BENNETT:

The minister appoints

them all, or rather he selects them.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

They are

selected from different organizations.

Mr. BENNETT:

The minister selects a representative from those organizations, that is the difference. I suggest that the district or county court judge be the tribunal. If you are going to make this thing absolutely devoid of any semblance of politics, if you are going to create a fair tribunal, do as they do under the Railway Act in cases of this kind, take the matter out of the hands of arbitrators and appoint a district or county court judge to deal with it. Fairness and absence of political pressure are, in my judgment, vital, in order that this scheme may not work any injustice to anyone entitled to consideration. I suggest that to the minister.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

My hon.

friend' suggests that the third member of the tribunal be-

Mr. BENNETT:

No, I suggest the elimination of these arbitration committees and the substitution of the district or county court judge. For it will be remembered that the county court judges especially in western Canada where many of these farms are, hold their sittings in small sections of the community.