Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

I should like a

farmer to inquire into a matter about which he had special training; and I should like to have a matter of this kind investigated by a man who by special training has qualified himself for the work. I am sure if we are safe in trusting all our other disputes to a county judge, we would be equally safe in trusting him with this. We ought to be just as safe as we should be with anybody else under our system. It does seem to me, however, to be a suggestion that should work out with justice to all concerned. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Ward) who so severely reflects on county judges. Possibly one has done something to him which he does not like. At any rate his argument is not well founded.

Mr. CARMICHAEL:

This resolution is

one that meets with general approval, but I am not just sure what the minister intends. If I followed his remarks, I understood him to say that every soldier was to have the privilege of having his land revalued if he so desired; and at another time he stated that it was not the desire to have a wholesale revaluation of soldier lands. I am not sure how he proposes in the forthcoming bill to safeguard the Soldier Settlement Board from a very considerable flood of applications for revaluation of lands.

Section 3 of the resolution proposes three conditions to be complied with by the applicant for revaluation: first, that the application shall be supported by an affidavit; second, that the applicant shall give a written statement setting forth his belief as to the present value of the land and the reasons therefor; and1, third, that he shall give the names and addresses of any persons whom he suggests as witnesses to the present value. These three conditions may be fairly satisfactory, but it seems to me that they do not adequately safeguard the Soldier Settlement Board from an inordinate number of applications. With regard more particularly to conditions in western Canada-I am not sure that the same would not apply elsewhere-we have a small local governing body known as the municipal council, which is composed of seven men representing a nine-township unit, that is, a small area of land eighteen miles square. I would suggest to the minister that every ap-

Alleged Fraudulent Companies

plication from a soldier settler should be submitted to that small local body. They are practical farmers. Each farmer councillor represents .a little over a township, and 'he knows fairly well every parcel of land within that compass. He knows its fair value, and he is acquainted also with the soldier settler. He knows whether the case is a worthy one or not, or whether the land has depreciated as a result of indolence on the settler's part. I would urge the minister to incorporate in the bill a provision that throughout the country every application shall be supported by a resolution duly moved and passed by such a small local governing body, whether it be known as municipal council, township council, county council, or whatever the nomenclature may be. So far as the west goes we call them municipal councils.

It may be urged that these small local bodies are under provincial jurisdiction. That is correct. But I have had considerable experience in one of these councils, and if there should1 be any objection to a small body such as this handling such cases, all that is necessary is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the provincial government to send out a circular letter to the municipal officials, requesting that they give every support to such a movement. I am sure that such support would be given.

I suggest to the minister that in section three provision be made in this respect. Otherwise I fear that it will be necessary to move an amendment to the bill when it is brought down to ascertain the views of the committee on the point. I make that suggestion now.

As to the board of arbitration, I am not so sure that the district court judge is the proper officer to handle such cases. I am not so sure, again, that if it comes to a case of arbitration the municipal council is not the most logical body to settle any dispute. They are, in my opinion, better than anyone I can think of in the whole district. They know the lands, they are in touch with the situation, and I have no doubt they would give a fair decision if the matter were left to them.

Mr. STEVENS:

As there will likely be

considerable discussion of this important resolution, I would suggest that progress be reported. I think the Prime Minister will agree that the discussion so far has been constructive and helpful, and an adjournment now would be justified.

Progress reported.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I do not know whether

any hon. member in the House is particularly interested in having order No. 6 retained any longer on the order paper. I move that it be discharged.

Mr. BENNETT:

Let it stand until the

leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) comes back.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Very well.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Friday, March 26, 1926