Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I have no. particular objection to raise, because the whole object in this connection is to avoid expense.

Mr. BENNETT:

I know.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

All I am anxious to do is to provide satisfaction. I really have no desire to make these appointments. I can readily turn that over to some other power, and when the bill comes up I shall be glad to amend it in that way. That is really all I have to say about the matter. It is a very simple process for revaluation of the soldier settlement lands. I simply want to point out it is not a wholesale revaluation; necessity for consideration would have to be shown before .consideration would be given.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am strongly of the

opinion that a revaluation of these lands is imperative.

Mr. CAHAN:

Will the hon. gentleman

speak louder?

Mr. BENNETT:

I was observing that in my opinion, from personal observation and inspection of many of these lands, a revaluation is imperative. The circumstances and conditions under which that revaluation may be made I find it difficult to describe. Fairness is a thing to be aimed at, and I cannot

Soldier Settlement Act

contemplate the setting up of district arbitration committees without abuses resulting, the same abuses that have brought about the purchasing of land at too high a price and its appraisement at too great a value. The very circumstances alluded to this afternoon by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar),, that brought about the payment of excessive prices for land or its valuation by appraisers who were apparently desirous of assisting in the sale, may bring about the very reverse condition if you create tribunals that would be subject to pressure such as I have indicated, which we all must know from our own observation is something to be considered. I venture to suggest that unless we can enlist the services of a district or county court judge in matters of this kind, so that we shall have the advantage of trained, skilled minds accustomed to deal with evidence, of men who have not the remotest interest in the ultimate result, I fear that in a problem of this kind the revaluation will not be effective in accomplishing what is desired. By eliminating this provision and permitting the application to come from the settler in the first instance, and then having the revaluation proceed without expenses-because the district court judges and the county court judges hold their sittings in the smallest sections of their counties-it will not be any more difficult to present the case for revaluation-it may be done by the settler himself before a sympathetic district court judge- than it would be before a district arbitration committee of three, or of .two if they agree, and I submit that the results-

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Does my

hon. friend suggest it go to the judge at once?

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, so as to obviate all this difficulty that is experienced in respect to arbitration. Speaking from some little experience with respect to arbitrations when we used to acquire rights of way for railways, in days when I was more actively associated with that class of work than now, I can say that the amendment to the Railway Act which vested that jurisdiction in county court and district court judges brought about a very great improvement. Not only have the difficulties that used to 'be experienced1 in connection with arbitrations to fix the value of right of way greatly disappeared, but we have much better results by reason of the county or district court judge settling these matters. If the minister will be good enough to consider and if possible adopt the suggestion I make, the result will be very advantageous alike to the community as a whole and to LMr. Bennett.]

the settler himselJf, because in a given community there will be a uniformity of treatment which might not, and in very many instances would not, be experienced if the arbitration was fixed as provided by the resolution. I am convinced from my own observations, from visits to farms and from discussions I have had with the settlers, that the conditions under which these farms were purchased were such that the price was greater than the value warranted. We must face this matter fairly, and although it involves this Dominion in a loss that loss must be borne by the Dominion as a whole. It is unfair that the prices at which lands were then bought should be continued. Many men, as has been mentioned already, found it no longer possible to remain on the lands and had to abandon them because they saw no hope in the future. From my observations I certainly came to the conclusion that it was my duty, had this resolution not been upon the order paper, to urge the government to consider it as a measure of justice and fair play to men who acquired lands at the height of the market, under conditions which made it impossible for them to carry on their contract. They do not desire to be the victims of these circumstances. They do not desire charity, but they wish the country to bear a share of the loss occasioned by reason of the high price paid for property acquired at the very peak of the boom in farm lands consequent upon the high price paid for wheat shortly after the war. But it is not all a loss. It is wrong to assume that it is a loss to the state, it is a gain to the state, for the simple and obvious reason that we have been able to place upon lands men who have become more or less accustomed to living upon farms, men who had left cities, and they have made a very valuable contribution to the wealth of the state by reason of the experience they 'have had in farming and the life they have lived upon the farm. Measured from one standpoint, therefore, I do not regard it as a loss; it is something the state might fairly assume. . If we can approach the matter from the standpoint of absolute fairness and have this revaluation made by a tribunal whose duty it is to do that class of work in connection with railway corporations, in regard to rights of way and matters oif that sort, a tribunal of judges who are dealing with questions of this kind every day, I am sure we will extend a measure of relief to a deserving portion of the population and will do general justice to the exchequer and to the state.

Soldier Settlement Act

Mr. DUNNING:

Do I understand the

suggestion to be that the district court judge would be the arbitrator in all cases, or would the hon. friend still leave the provision providing for the board and the settler themselves to reach an agreement? Would 'he merely have the district court judge substituted for the arbitration committee, or would he have the district court judge hear all cases?

Mr. BENNETT:

I would substitute the district court judge in every instance, for the reason that the matter of arriving at an agreement involves at times the raising of questions by one of the parties that a judge would not consider, and in other eases the elimination of factors which should be considered. If we have uniformity within the district, and if the district or county court judge determines in every instance the measure of decrease in value, then I think we have eliminated every possibility of complaint as to the method pursued to reach the desired end.

Mr. DUNNING:

How would the cost be dealt with?

Mr. BENNETT:

In my judgment the cost would be very trifling in a matter of that character. In the appeal board, my hon. friend will remember, the government itself has provided that . a aoldier's friend may assist in the presentation of an appeal, and it might be that some such arrangement would be made in this case. The settler does not require a lawyer to present a case of that character. It sometimes may be very much better done by the settler himself or by his friend than by a trained solicitor for reasons that will at once appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and to my hon. friend. Courts are always considerate of a man who appears to present his own case, allowing for all the difficulties under which he must labour, whereas if the case is in the hands of an inexperienced solicitor the. settler might suffer.

Mr. CAHAN:

I presume the Minister of the Interior has obtained from his representatives in the west a fairly accurate idea as to what is the general rate of depreciation in the value of those lands. I was utterly astonished in the lobby this afternoon to hear soma western members state that the depreciation in the case of some of the lands was at least one-half, and perhaps greater in other. If there has been a general depreciation of one-half, it means a loss to the treasury of $50,000,000, and if that is the real prospective loss it will come as a great shock to many people who believed that the settlement under the Soldier Settlement Act was really of general benefit to the whole country.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I think my hon. friend is unduly alarmed. Perhaps the most aggravated case is in the constituency of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward)

In Manitoba undoubtedly serious loss will be experienced in the revaluation of land in the district between the lakes, but I would like to stress the point I was trying to make in speaking previously, namely, that in the majority of cases there will be no revaluation at all and that in many cases the land now occupied by the soldier is more valuable than it was when he purchased it.

Mr. CAHAN:

Does the minister not think that under the terms of the arrangement proposed by the resolution nearly every settler will contend that there has been depreciation and proceed on the idea that the time now has come to make a raid upon the treasury to secure the benefit of the alleged depreciation?

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

The raid was made at the time the settlement took place.

Air. CAHAN:

Possibly that was all wrong.

I am not here to vindicate or support anything done by any previous administration; as a new membeT of this House I am not called upon to do that. But, in view of the provision made here that every settler may apply, no specific terms being expressed as to the ground on which the revaluation should be made by the arbitrators or by the district judges, what is the opinion of the Minister as to the prospective loss?

Air. STEWART (Edmonton):

One factor that will cut down the number of cases to be dealt with is that a very large proportion of the men who were unable to carry on are now off the land. The fact that their land was valued too highly was one of the contributing causes which forced them to leave it.

Mr. CAHAN:

W7hat proportion of these men have left the land? I understood from the hon. member opposite that a great number of them were still on the land.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

There are 21,600 odd still on the land.