Mr. CAHAN:

How many left?

Mr. BENNETT:

Not more than 25 per

cent.

Air. STEWART (Edmonton):

I think not.

Air. STE\TENS: About 29,000 went on the land.

Air. STEWART (Edmonton):

I think 29-

000 all told went on the land and of those 6,800 have made failures up to date.

Soldier Settlement Act

But the fact remains that there are 21,600 odd still on this land, and you cannot discriminate and say that only John Smith in such and such a locality may apply for revaluation. All must have the opportunity, but that does not mean that all will be dealt with. They will have to show cause why they are entitled to any revaluation. I am somewhat impressed by the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr Bennett). I may say frankly, without reflection on my legal friends, that I am always somewhat wary about the cost of courts and court actions and I was trying to avoid that. But it is important for the settler and for the country that a most impartial tribunal should make the decisions. I am thoroughly in accord with that suggestion.

Mr. CAHAN:

That is fundamental.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I am ready to give serious consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion if it will avoid expense to the settler himself and to the country, but ion the other hand I am just a bit fearful about these courts. I want to do the thing that will bring about a result that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

I want to impress upon my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) the fact that while this proposition may and undoubtedly will run into a considerable sum of money, to speak of a fifty per cent reduction in connection with the 21,000 soldier settlers who are on the land is away beyond the mark. I rather think not more than twenty per cent of those on the land to-day will have their land1 subjected1 to revaluation, in some cases perhaps a fairly considerable reduction, in others, rather a small one. That may be a wild guess, but I am giving my hon. friend my opinion in the matter so that he will not be unduly alarmed at the amount of money involved in this reduction. It is important that every one of the 21,600 odd soldier settlers should be kept on the land if it is humanly possible to keep them there.

Mr. STEVENS:

I want to join with the

hon. member for West. Calgary in saying that I think something of this character is necessary. I appreciate also the very difficult task facing the minister in drafting proper legislation. There are two points which strike me, first, the one referred to by the hon. member for West Calgary, namely the securing of a tribunal that will have the confidence of both the settlers and the public. That I think can be achieved by substituting for the appeal to the board as suggested in the resolution an appeal to a county court judge.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

My hon.

friend is now talking about the appeal. My

hon. friend from West Calgary suggested that the matter should go directly to a county court judge. In a case which can be amicably settled between the representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and the settler, would he be satisfied with such a settlement?

Mr. STEVENS:

I would not be prepared

to express an arbitrary opinion offhand. I appreciate the difficulty. I was going to make another suggestion. Having achieved some understanding on that point, I still see a difficulty, that which perhaps is in the mind of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George. It is this: Unless you have some

rule or fixed principle upon which that revaluation is to be determined, no matter how clever or just may be the tribunal,, there is a danger of doing an injustice to the public at large. Before I entered this board of legislators some fifteen or sixteen years ago, I was for some years city alderman and we had before us the problem of a new assessment scheme. This may seem a little aside from the mark, but I want to offer the idea to the minister. The question of assessment, whether it is the assessment of land or property in a city or the country for taxation purposes, or the assessment, as is really meant in the case of this property, for revaluation purposes, is always a very difficult thing to arrive at. I remember being much impressed, although I do not know that it was ever carried out in any instance that came to my attention, by a suggestion that was made that when an appeal was entered against an assessment and the price was fixed, as a final test of its justice, if the taxpayer objected that he was still being unjustly treated, the land should be offered for public sale at that figure. That is, if a man claimed that his property was too highly assessed and he intimated that the price oujffit to be fixed at a lower figure, he should be subjected to having his land sol'd at the assessed figure before it would be. reduced any more under appeal. If we applied some such principle as that to this revaluation it might safeguard the country against unfair reductions. For instance, a man who has a farm applies for revaluation and the question of revaluation is in the air, is in the district. There may be in the same district land much poorer in quality or for some reason not worth as much as other land in that district and entitled to revaluation. But the very fact that you lower the price of A's land will warrant B in asking you to lower the value of his. That is going to be the chief difficulty. But if B is faced with the risk of having his land offered at public sale at the figure suggested, let us say, by the court, he may think twice

Soldier Settlement Act

before he will make application, for revaluation or insist that he has been unfairly treated.

Mr. BENNETT:

He has to make an

affidavit on forms supplied by the board.

Mr. STEVENS:

I confess very frankly

to the minister that I have not had time to give this very much thought, but I see a great danger and I think it is what is in the mind chiefly of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and others, namely, that by the very fact that we are revaluating, this will spread over a large and extended area and into a very large sum. I would suggest to the minister as my contribution to this debate, first, that as nearly as

11 p.m. possible we should submit these things to a county court judge or some court in existence rather than to a board of arbitration, and, second, that some principle such as the one I have suggested should be applied to prevent the undue influence of local sentiment from entering into this question of revaluation.

Another point that occurs to me which I will just refer to, rather in support of the measure than in criticism of it-and1 I want my criticism to be taken as friendly-is this: We are not going to lose all the amount that will be represented in the figures of reduction in valuation. A large number of soldier settlers are leaving the land now, and every farm that is abandoned by a soldier settler and thrown back on the Soldier Settlement Board means an immediate loss. The board must take the stock and machinery, all of which is greatly reduced in value when it is put to a forced sale, but which if it were in a going concern would still retain a major portion of its value. So that ever}' man who leaves the land causes a serious loss to the country. If by any means we can keep those men on the landi, we will minimize the loss. Furthermore, and of course it is of very great importance, we will assist in building up happy and contented homes, which should be our main object.

Now, in British 'Columbia there are quite a number of people who bought land at high prices. I have in mind some very fine chaps who are striving and struggling earnestly to make good. I know some who have been already driven off their farms. They are those who see the margin of profit reduced to such a low point that they have no hope of paying off the principal sum. But if the property of those who are still holding on were revaluated so that hope might be revived, I think the great proportion of them would stick. On

the other hand, if that last hope is removed,

I think you will find in the next few years a great many will abandon the land, and in all probability the actual loss to the country in dollars and cents will be greater by the absence of this legislation than by wise and careful application of it.

Mr. WARD:

Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as a new recruit to this principle? I might recall his remarks of three or four years ago on this very question, but I refrain, for I am very much pleased to have him with us to-niight.

Mr. STEVENS:

What did he say then

different from what he says to-night?

Mr. WARD:

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. Chairman,

I should like to support the attitude taken by the member for West Calgary, but it does appear to me that our difficulty in this very serious matter is due to the fact that in the first instance these lands were valued by some practical man.

Mr. BROWN:

No, that is the trouble.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

They were not

valued by a county judge, anyway.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

They were certainly not valued by a practical man.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

I am inclined

to think there were some practical men around at the time these lands were sold,

Mr. FORKE:

Mr. Chairman, how would

the hon. member like a farmer to inquire into some legal matter?