HIGH COST OF LIVING.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) laid on the table of the House the second report of the Special Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel, and other necessaries of life, and as to the rates of profits made thereon by dealers and others concerned in their production, distribution and sale, also as to the rentals of dwelling houses in industrial centres of Canada, and rates of return of capital invested therein, . etc., as follows:
Your Committee since their appointment on the 30th Cay ol May last have held thirty-six morning, afternoon and evening sessions, heard and considered the evidence given under oath of sixty-six persons representing various producers, manufacturers, wholesale, retail and consumers' organizations from various parts of Canada; also have received numerous petitions, resolutions and other communications, all of which have been considered.
Your committee have been engaged almost continuously from the 5th day of June last to the present date in obtaining all information possible from witnesses and all available sdurces, but have not yet reached a point in their investigation that would warrant them in submitting Anal conclusions. There has come to the attention of your committee evidence in regard to undue profits being made on certain commodities. Your committee in order to provide a means by which a recurrence of such may be prevented and chat the public may be protected against unfair practices in trade recommend to the consideration of the House and the Government that legislation be enacted at this session of Parliament creating a tribunal with power to investigate mergers, trust, monopolies or organizations of any kind or nature, which tend to limit facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, or preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or fixing a common price, or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage, or transportation, or enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation, or preventing ot lessening competition in or substantially controlling within any particular district, or generally, production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation, insurance, or supply, or otherwise restraining or injuring commerce or unduly enhancing the price of the necessaries of life, also with regulative power in connection with discriminations In price between different purchaser of commodities, exclusive purchase and sale arrangements, Intercorporate shareholding and inter-locking directorates and unfair methods in commerce.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. -ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of lustice) : About three days ago the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) referred to an order of the House dated April 7 last:
Eor a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other papers concerning the parole or pardon of one Charles MoMillen, one Pearson and one Heaton, sentenced to a certain'term of imprisonment in the Alberta penitentiary.
I have the return, but it is only fair to say at once that it contains only a statement ^ as to the policy invariably adopted in this regard, namely, that correspondence in connection with paroles is confidential and cannot, in the public interest, be brought down.

Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: I desire to lay upon the table of the House the French copy of the Re-classification of the Civil Service, also the report to accompany the Classification of the Civil Service of Canada.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate) respecting the Canadian Western Railway Companv- Mr. Bonnell.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate) for the relief of William Elmer Roome-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate) for the relief of Gertrude Slater-iMr. Pedlow.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What amount of coal has been purchased from P. D. Sonier by the Justice Department for the Internment Camp at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and at what price?
2.	Is the Department aware that the said Somer deals in candy and ice cream and not in coal?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	81 tons at $4.30 per ton and 156 tons special screened at $4.55 per ton.
2.	The department is advised that Mr. Sonier was agent for the Joggins and Minudie Mines at the time the coal was purchased.


DOCTOR B. E. GOODWIN, M.O.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough);

What has been the remuneration paid toy the Department of Justice to Doctor B. E. Good-wm, M.O., of the Internment Camp at Amherst, Nova Seoti-a, during- the past three years?
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: None.


CANADA FOOD BOARD-REPORTS BY CONTROLLER McFALL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres):: With regard to question No. 2, the Prime Minister yesterday said that he would inquire into this matter, and I should like to know the result of his inquiry, as this is a most important question. Last year I made a similar request concerning the report on milling industries, a month before the end of the session, and never had that report until after the session was over. I would like to get the answer to this question before the end of the session. It has been on the Order Paper a long time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will answer my hon. friend's question at three o'clock.


SHELL TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
OliL-BEARING LANDS IN NORTHERN ALBERTA.
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Some weeks ago I moved for the production of papers in connection with the Shell Oil Company, and a return was tabled by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). I have here an extract from the New York Sun of June 15, and I find the following in correspondence of some length regarding the development of resources in Canada. I shall not read the whole item, but I shall quote a few lines for the purpose of ascertaining whether the statement made is true, because it conflicts with the answer given me through the return. The correspondent states that Alberta is a province of great promise, with an abundance of coal, oil, etc., and proceeds:
British interests, including Sir John Cowans, Quartermaster-General of the Imperial Army, a*d said to be connected with the Shell Transport and Trading Company, have made advances to the Dominion Government looking to exclusive oil exploration and exploitation rights over a vast area in Northern Alberta.
This is the paragraph to which I wish particularly to call the attention of my hon. friend:
In return for such rights and certain tax exemption and other privileges, the company purposes to provide the necessary funds and

to share net profits equally with the government, the shareholders being entitled, however, to 6 per cent cumulative preferential interest. Preliminary surveys are now toeing made.
I know, Mr. Speaker, from the answer already given to me, that the scheme has not received the favourable answer which the company expected from the Government, but what I desire to ascertain now is whether the same company is making the preliminary surveys in the province of Alberta in connedtion with these o.il and coal deposits?


Arthur Meighen: There are no negotiations proceeding between the Government and the company, and I am not aware that they are making any preliminary surveys. If they are I do not know what the position in that regard can be.


THE BRUCE REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: I desire to ask the Government a question with reference to disclosures contained in a book, a copy of which I hold in my hand, entitled:
Politics and the Canadian Army Medical Corps. A History of intrigue, containing many facts omitted from the Official Records, showing how efforts at Rehabilitation were baulked. By
Herbert A. Bruce, M.D.,
F.R.C.S. (Eng.)
This book contains the famous Bruce Report about which so many inquiries have been made in this House, and in view of the contents of that report and of the other disclosures made in this volume, I desire to ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to take any action, by inquiry or otherwise, in connection with those disclosures?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I am not aware of any reason why there should be any inquiry. Possibly there may be some memoranda to be laid upon the table of the House and I shall inquire as to that.


PROHIBITION.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 107, to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof.
Robert Laird Borden: The Bill in question is entitled: "An Act to Confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919 prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transiportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof." The principal provision of the Bill, apart from certain amendments which it establishes, is as follows:
The Orders in Council marked "A" and "B" in the Schedule to this Act are hereby declared to be valid and are ratified and confirmed, and declared to have the force of law according to their terms.
The principal reason for the introduction of the Bill is to be found in one provision of the Order in Council, which I find on page 6 of the Bill as printed:
These regulations shall be construed as supplementary to the prohibitory laws now m force, or that may be hereafter in force m any province or territory, and shall continue in force during the continuance of the present war, and for twelve months thereafter.
There was some doubt, owing to a difference of opinion on the construction of the War Measures Act of 1914, as to whether or not the concluding portion of this paragraph was operative in law-that is to say, the provision that these regulations should continue in force for twelve months after the war. The Bill was passed by the House of Commons, and it was amended in the Senate by striking out these words and therefore absolutely defeating the only purpose for which the Bill had been introduced into, and passed by, this House. In other words, the Senate struck out the words from the Order in Council:
and for twelve months thereafter.
The net result of that is of the most extraordinary character. It would have been far better, and more direct, if the Senate had simply rejected the Bill altogether, because that would have brought about the precise result which follows from the action they did take. And, if this House should assent to the amendment proposed by the Senate this House would be denying the principle which it affirmed when it passed

this Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Rowell, the following resolution:
This House doth disagree with the Senate Amendment for the following reasons:-
(1) The Senate Amendment destroys the principle and purpose of the Bill. The Orders in Council are valid during the continuance of the war in any event and without any confirming Act; and' possibly they may be valid for the period of twelve months thereafter as mentioned in the Orders in Council. Therefore the

Bill as amended by the Senate does not give the Orders in Council any greater validity than they now possess while on the other hand it expressly limits their possible operation.
(2)	In view of the difficulties which confront the' country during the period of readjustment and having regard to dangers of unemployment and to the conditions of unrest which prevail throughout the Dominion, the reasons which justified the passing of the Orders in Council continue to exist during demobilization and will continue to exist throughout the period covered by the Bill as passed by the House.
(3)	The Bill as passed by the House is in the interests of the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada, and it will tend to prevent waste, promote thrift, conserve resources and increase national efficiency.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers):: Before the motion is adopted I would ask the Prime Minister if any legal opinion has been given upon the point raised in the Senate, that it was beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to interfere with interprovincial trade. I understand that point was raised but I have not heard what has happened in consequence.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that the Deputy Minister of Justice has given an opinion which justifies 12 noon, the legislation as passed by this House.


Jacques Bureau: Would it be possible to have a copy of that opinion laid upon the Table so that it will be available for the use of members? The question is an important one and the opinion given will prove of interest.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to meeting the hon. gentleman's wishes. I shall procure a copy and lay it upon the Table.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: I have heard so many members on both sides of the House privately approve of the action that was taken by the Senate that I feel it my duty to say now that I also approve of the action of the Upper Chamber, and that I am opposed to the present motion.
Ihe House divided on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden, which wa6 carried
on me lollowmg
Allan,
Anderson,
Argue,
Armstrong (Lambtoi Arthurs,
Baldwin,
Ballantyne,
Blair,
Bolton,
Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brien,
Buchanan,
Burrell,
Calder,
Campbell,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charlton,
Charters,
Clark (Red Deer), Cockshutt,
Cooper,
Copp,
Cowan,
Crerar,
Davidson,
Davis,
Douglas (Strathcona), Duff,
Edwards,
Fielding,
Foster (York),
Fripp,
Fulton,
Green,
Griesbach,
Guthrie,
Halladay,
Harold,
Hartt,	,
Hay,
Henders,
Hocken,
Hunt,
Keefer,
Lang,
Loggie,
Long,
Mackie (Edmonton), Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (Halifax),
division:

MacNutt,
McCurdy,
McGibbon (Muskoka), McGregor,
Mclsaac,
McMaster,
McQuarrie,
Maharg,
Manion,
Martin,
Meighen,
Mewburn,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Mowat,
Nesbitt,
Nicholson
(Queens, P.E.I.), Nicholson (Algoma), Nickle,
Pardee,
Peck,
Pedlow,
Redman,
Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Mackenzie), Richardson,
Robb,
Rowell,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Sheard,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Antigonish & Guysborough), Sinclair
(Queens, P.E.I.), Smith,
Stacey,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lanark), Sutherland,
Thompson (Weyburn), Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tolmie,
Tweedie,
Whidden,
White (Victoria), Wigmore,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wilson (Saskatoon), Wright.-105.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As there seems to be some doubt in the mind of the right hon. gentleman as to the legality of the continuance of the Orders in Council after the war, might I ask whether an opinion has been obtained from the Department of Justice upon the subject?


Robert Laird Borden: Messrs.
Fafard,
Fournier,
Gervais,
Jacobs,
Kay,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Lapointe
(St. James), Leduc,

Lemieux,
Marcile (Bagot), Mayrand,
Murphy,
Pacaud,
Papineau, .
Pelletier,
Power,
Prevost,
Savard,
Seguin,
Vien.-34.

The Whips state there were no pairs for this Vote.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of tne Interior) moved third reading Bill No. 95, to assist returned soldiers in settling upon the land. He said: As this Bill deals with the public domain. His Excellency the Governor General has given his assent.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 153, to amend the Canada Grain Act, was read a second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Stock-taking; disposal of surplus; application of proceeds:
Mr. CRERAR:: 
Mr. ROBB:: Has my hon. friend the rates for Montreal and Port Colborne?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not before me the rates for Montreal and Port Colborne. These are transfer elevators; I am not at the moment able to state with certainty what the rate is.
The figures which I have given rather put in a different light, the remarks of the hon. member the other day as to exorbitant profits and as to the robbery that was being carried out in these elevators. I stated the other day that the Grain Growers had stated to the Board of Grain Commissioners some years ago that if the Board would guarantee them against shortages in their elevator, the board could take all the overages that would arise. But at the same time we said, "if you are going to hold us responsible for the shortages that- may arise in the elevator-and we are responsible for them under the Act-then it is but fair that you should not appropriate all of the surplus? How is the matter to be worked out? For instance, in two years that I recall, we had overages in wheat in our elevator and shortages in oats; would the Government take all the surplus in wheat and hold us responsible for all the shortage in oats? These facts have to be taken into consideration in any treatment of this question.
With respect to screenings, I do not wish to amplify what I stated the other day; but let me restate it briefly. In all cases where the screenings cleaned out of grain amount to over 3 per cent, a separate return is made to the farmer for the value of the screenings and a charge of one-half cent a bushel is made for cleaning. Where the screenings are under 3 per cent, no return is made to the farmer, but no charge is made for cleaning the grain.


Mr. MORPHY:: If that can be done with screenings, why can it not be done with overage in wheat?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: For this reason; the hon. gentleman must bear in mind that when this grain is unloaded out of cars into the terminal elevators it is unloaded and weighed under the supervision of Government officials. The weight is thus determined, not by. the Terminal Elevator Company, but by the official weighmaster of the Government in the elevator; and the same applies when the grain goes out. In the season that the grain growers handled
28.000.	000 'bushels of grain they had a surplus of wheat of 63,000 bushels. When you attempt t-o assess 63,000 bushels against
28.000.	000 bushels received from all over the West, you will see that it is impossible to work out the suggestion that the hon. member has made.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is 8132,000 which the elevator people have which does not belong to them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not correct to say that the value of the surplus does not belong to the elevator, because that was taken into consideration, as I have said, in fixing the tariff to be charged for handling the grain. The grain commissioners in the past have, I think, regard to the value of the surplus as a part of the return for the service given by the elevator in handling the grain.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Why do you give back the screenings?	.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is a regulation of the Board of Grain Commissioners-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is a regulation that is viong then.


Air CRERAR:: -because some cars carry dockages of as high as 20 per cent, and there is a certain value in the screenings.
There is another item in respect to profits made by these elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur that I wish to present to the committee. This again is an extract from the report of the auditors, Price, Waterhouse and Company, which I had only for the first time an opportunity of going over this morning. It says:
Applying the combined earnings of all companies to the total investment of all (elevators being valued at cost and land on a basis of assessed value) we obtained the following results :
Average percentage of returns excluding screenings and overages,
Season	Per cent.
1912-	13	
11.361913-	14	
6.761914-	15	861916-16	
14.061916-17	
10.62
In 1914-15, it will be noticed the percentage was a little over three-quarters of one per cenlt. The last two years mentioned in the Auditor's Report, it will be remem-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The shortages have been very few during the past ten years.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. member give us any there were?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Canadian Pacific elevator D was one year short 37,000 bushels of wheat, representing a value of probably $40,000.


Mr. KEEFER:: Does that elevator clean its screenings?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I asked the .hon. member a question about his own elevator.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Our elevator has been short on two occasions, on oats, but over on wheat each year -we have been operating.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the shortage?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the figures before me, but if my memory serves me aright the shortage on oats was 5,000 bushels one year and 3,000 bushels the other.
Air. 'NIICRLE: During the last year or so I have heard a complaint from shipowners

that they are held responsible for shortages. They allege that the grain is weighed into the boat by Government weighmasters at Port Arthur or Fort William and weighed out at Kingston into the elevator. They have nothing to do with the weighing, and yet there may be a shortage. Is there any explanation of how the shortage occurs?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I know of no explanation. It is one of those things that it is somewhat difficult to find an explanation for. What the hon. member states is perfectly correct. The grain is weighed into the boat 'by Government weighmasters, an official certificate of weight is given, and it is weighed out of the boat at the other end by Government weighmasters, but yet there may be a discrepancy of several thousand bushels. In some cases it may he due perhaps to a temporary breakdown or-difficulty with the weighing appliances at either end, or it may be due to some of the grain being lost in transit through moisture or something of that kind. The anomaly exists, and it is difficult to explain. There have been occasions when grain loaded at an elevator in Port Arthur, and given a Government certificate of weight, on being transferred to Fort William, a distance- of only six or seven miles, showed a discrepancy of several bushels when weighed out.
Mr. NlfCKLE: It is strange that the shipowner should be held responsible for that shortage, when he has nothing to do with the weighing in or the weighing out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe some arrangement has been made within the last year whereby an insurance fund protects the shipowner against loss.


Mr. NIOKLE:: That arrangement exists
to-day?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe so. I have
nothing further to say at this stage of the proceedings. I do not charge the hon. member for Vancouver with anything worse than perhaps not having studied his facts sufficiently, but nevertheless the farmers of Western Canada were placed in a wrong position by his remarks in the House the other day, and I thought it only due to them and myself to say what I have said.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, the other day I discussed the resolution which preceded this Bill and I drew attention at that 259
time to certain very flagrant abuses, and also to what I characterized as pernicious practices on the part of the terminal elevators at the heads of the lakes in;handiing grain entrusted to their care. During the course of my remarks I pointed out to the House the enormous quantities of overages that occurred in these terminal elevators at each annual weigh-up, and I named a number of elevators.
Among others, I cited the case of the United Grain Growers, or, as it is characterized in the official report of Price, Waterhouse & Company, the Grain Growers Grain Company. This morning the exMinister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), undertook to justify these overages. He said that the figures I had given to the House the other day were entirely inaccurate and alleged that I did not know what I iwas talking about. As nearly as parliamentary etiquette -would permit, he,intimated that I had not been truthful in my statements. Without any desire to delay the House unduly I wish to do two things. First, I am going to justify absolutely and beyond any question of doubt the figures I gave the other day, and I shall perhaps amplify them somewhat. Secondly, I must insist upon securing the attention of the minister (Hon. Mr. Maclean) to the danger I *fear, that this Bill will not only perpetuate 'but will actually increase these abuses. These two things I purpose doing in as brief a time as the importance of the subject will allow.
My hon. friend from Marquette attempted to justify these overages. IHe said it was necessary to allow overages in order to offset possible shortage, as any elevator might have a shortage. I shall not argue that point from an: academic standpoint, but I intend to give to the Committee the experience of five years' operation of his own company, and others, as set forth in this report of Price, Waterhouse & Company, who made a careful detailed and special audit of every elevator at the head*of the Lakes. That document, Mr. Chairman, is not only authentic, but it was prepared with the distinct object of showing whether these abuses did occur tor not, and whether the Grain Act as applied and administered was a fair Act-not fair to individual operators, but to the (shipper and to the farmer generally. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) cast some rather sarcastic remarks in my direction this morning, and he insinuated that I had picked out the Grain Growers Grain

Company especially. I cited the other day the Consolidated Grain Company, the Empire Elevator Company, the Thunder Bay Elevator Company, and one or two others, and at the time I said I had in my hand a list of all the various companies and that they were equally guilty. The hon. gentleman advances the argument that overages are necessary to offset shortage. I think I state his argument fairly. If I am not stating it fairly he can correct me; but I think I repeat his words almost exactly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman, 1
am sure, does not wish to misrepresent me.
Mr. STEVEN'S: Not at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What I said was this:
That if the elevator company had to carry the liability of shortages-and they have, under the regulations of the Grain Act today-then they should not have all the overages taken from them. On the other hand, if the Government are willing to assume the liability for shortage, I have no objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will take it exactly as the hon. member says. He says that if the Government are going to deprive the elevators of the overages then they should offset the shortages. I am going to show that if the Government took every ounce of overage of the elevators-and I will cite his own elevator as an illustration-the elevators would still have out of screenings a very ample reward and insurance against any possible shortage. I will take his own figures and ask the Committee to follow me, because I do not believe the House really appreciates the significance of this, one-half of one per cent which is allowed in this Bill on overages. I will quote figures to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that if that clause passes it will be an iniquitous piece of legislation, and I cannot put that too strongly. The Grain Growers' Grain Company in a period of five years had overages of 357.000 bushels.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the total volume of trade handled?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman will bear in mind that a very large portion oi the screenings was paid over to the farmers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, indeed; not in the amounts here given. My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. I will read the figures again. In screenings and "scalpings"- which is a pretty good name: 1912-13, $15,164;	1913-14, $30,226;	1914-15, $47,024;
1915-16, $80,279; 1916-17, $51,032. Will my hon. friend say that that was rebated to the farmers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will say that in all cases where screenings were over three per cent, a return was made to the farmers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say to the hon. gentleman, on the authority of Price-Waterhouse's audits under my hand, that the figures I have read were the excess left with the elevator company after making all Recounts. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that every word I have said is actually, absolutely, and incontrovertibly true. But further: In these same years the overages for the same elevator were: $72,000, $33,000, $54,000, $94,000 and $132,000. Those figures, ,added to the ones I have given, are net surplus retained by the elevator after making all accounts to the farmers. The hon. gentleman interjected a remark .that would tend to mislead the House. He says that they must account to the farmer for these things.
I say, Mr. Chairman, on the authority of this report, that it is the practice of all the elevators at the head of the lakes not to account to a farmer, or not to account to a shipper, who consigns his grain to the elevator when there is a dockage, unless the farmer or the shipper directly demands an accounting, and I say further that this is seldom done in practice. Let me give an illustration. I walked out of the House the other night after speaking on this subject and a gentleman came up to me and said: " Stevens, you are absolutely correct; 1 shipped to the Grain Growers' elevator three carloads of wheat; I was docked at the shipping point one per cent, and I was
docked at the elevator four per cent, and it was good wheat, high-class wheat; that meant a dockage in round figures of $300 or $325." I said: " How much did they account to you for?" And how much, Mr. Chairman, do you think it was? The dockage amounted to approximately $325, and he got back a cheque for, I think, $2.50. Certainly the elevator's account, but they account upon their own responsibility, they account upon the practice which is followed, and the figures I have submitted to the House show beyond all peradventure that these dockages and overages are absolutely unjustified on a sound business principle.


Air. MAHARG:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question, not with the intention of confounding him or anything of that sort?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend had better take his seat. He has got to get up pretty early in the morning before he can confound me on any of these statements.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not desire to contradict the hon. gentleman, I merely desire to ask a question for the information of the House so that members may follow the situation intelligently. I want to ask for what year was the return made to the gentleman to whom the hon. member refers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tell the hon. gentleman why I will not give him the information. That gentleman said to me: " For God's sake do not tell who told you that, because I am living in the midst of them and they will crucify me." That was the expression my informant used. My hon. friend (Mr. iMaharg) would like to trace my informant up, but he will not do that on anything he gets from me.


John Archibald Maharg: I did not ask the gentleman's name.


The OHAHUMAN:: Order.


John Archibald Maharg: The hon. member is putting me in the wrong. I did not ask for the name of his informant.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Vancouver ((Mr. Stevens) has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now the question of
whether these overages are legal arises. It has been intimated to the House that these overages) are permissible and that they are correct according to the Act. I will show you that is not so. I am not giving my own figures or my own opinions, but here is section 123 of the Grain Act and it declares as follows:

No person owning, managing, operating, or otherwise interested in any terminal elevator shall buy or sell grain at any point in the Eastern or Western Inspection Division.
And in section 136 we find this provision occurs:
Every terminal warehouse man in the Western Inspection Division shall pay or make allowance to the owner in all domestic grain, of a commercial value in screening.
and so on. My contention is that these clauses show the intention of the Act to be that a clear accounting shall be made. The figures show that no such accounting is made, and these excessive overages and screenings are secured by what I call absolutely fair and unsound-and I go further and say-dishonest business methods.
In connection with the operation of terminal elevators this Parliament in 1912, I remember very well, debated the question at length. It was a question in the opinion of many members whether we should allow any terminal elevators to operate privately or to have them all under the Government. There was a tendency towards Government operation, but in framing this Act we thought we were safeguarding the public and in doing that we made it absolutely illegal-I repeat we made it absolutely illegal-for terminal elevators to engage in the buying and selling of grain. I have quoted you the section referring to that. Now what are the facts? I find, Sir, in looking through this report, that a very considerable amount of dealing in grain occurred by these elevator companies, and in order to be properly seized of the nature of these transactions, we should remember this:	Grain is committed to the elevators
in trust. They are warehouse men, they are storage men, and the farmer and the shipper entrusts his grain to them as I entrust my money-what little I make from-time to time-to a bank, or you entrust your goods to a warehouse in the city; and it is just as iniquitous a practice for a bank to take funds, or a bank teller to take funds, belonging to a customer and use them for his private use, or for a warehouse man having package goods in his warehouse to take them out and deal and trade in them, as it is for the grain elevator men to trade in the grain entrusted to their care at .the head of the Lakes. I say there is no difference in the morality of the cases cited. At any rate we put a provision in the Act for the purpose of safeguarding the public.
It was well known that gambling in grain was a common practice, and my hon. friend who has been taking so much interest in

toy remarks to-day, was .one of the individuals who moved'in the city of Winnipeg a few years, ago. that dealing in options should be made a criminal offence,-that is that not merely dealing in options in the terminal elevators, but dealing in options at all, should be made' a criminal offence. I shall not discuss that but T would remind him that it is certainly clear that in the operation of a terminal elevator, to which 'is entrusted the grain of the shipper, that dealing in options is certainly a wrongful practice. What do we find? We find that a number of elevators., including, the one operated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) dealt in options. That is, they took the grain belonging to .other people, and sold it, knowing that overages would occur at the end of the year which would make good the shortage of that grain. They dealt in the grain that other people entrusted to their care, contrary to the law. Here are some figures from this report


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman but he is making a statement that is absolutely and positively at variance with the facts, and he knows it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give my hon. friend facts enough before II get through. Now then, here are the losses on options reported by Price, Waterhouse & Company, the auditors who prepared this report for the Government:
Grand Trunk Pacific Losses on Options.
1913-	14	$11,0701914-	15	
8,8001916-17	
3,730

In 1915-16 the United Grain Growers, Limited, incurred a loss of 111,675 and in 1916-17, loss of $24,060 in connection with trading in grain. Total $35,735 in two years.
The Consolidated Elevator Company in 1913-14 lost $2,340 and in 1915-16 lost $30,041. in 1916-17-$1,700 in trading in grain. Total loss, $34,080 in three years. There are other causes, but this is sufficient to demonstrate the point I am driving at, and it is this: if we do not properly safeguard the people's interest there will come a time when these operators will become so bold that they will use this grain recklessly; they will make losses that they cannot offset by overages ; and the first thing you know, Sir, we will have a collapse of elevators at the head of the Lakes with huge scandals, because of the impossibility of their making good the losses of the grain which they

had illegally, contrary to the Grain Act, taken from these elevators.
Now I come to another point. Two or three hon. gentlemen, who spoke on the subject the other day and to-day intimated that the profits on the fees were not sufficient for these elevators. Let us approach that question in an economic and scientific way. What are the functions of these elevators? I have already intimated that they have a quasi-public function to perform-that is to care for, to forward, and to store the grain of the farmers of the Great West. That is what they are there for, and the function which they exercise is a public function. Is it right, Mr. Chairman, that bodies representing a business of that type shall make huge profits? Am I not correct in saying that the operators of elevators of that kind would be making a fair profit at 7.8 per cent, and that if they did so they could not complain very much? Yet they have intimated to the House that the fees are so small they cannot make legitimate earnings. What are those fees? They are as follows, and I am not sure whether they have not been increased :
| cents per bushel for elevating, insurance and 15 days storage.
%o cents per bushel per day or one cent per mopth.
Cleaning l cent per bushel.
Drying 4 cents per bushel wet, and 1J cents for tough.
We find in summing this up that these elevators at the head of the Lakes took, in overages, and in screenings, in the period under survey, five years, about $8,000,000, or to be more exact, between $7,500,000 and $8,000,000. In the years subsequent to this their revenues are on that ratio, or are very much increased, and as near as I can gather them without the detailed figures before me, outside of the five years to which I -have referred, in the last eight years, approximately, $15,000,000 has been wrongfully and illegally appropriated by the elevators at the head of the Lakes.
Now, we might proceed to another phase of this question. The hon. gentleman, this morning, insinuated that I had deceived the House, that I had not been truthful in my statement, in that I stated the other day that the Grain Growers' Grain Company had realized from their elevator at the head of the Lakes, or from the elevator operated by them at that point, 211 per cent, or deducting the loss they made that year gambling in grain which belonged to other people, 187 per cent. He quoted certain figures to prove it. I will quote these figures
and I will explain them, and I defy my hon friend to show wherein I am inaccurate in the slightest degree. Let me apply these figures also to the reasonableness of the fees charged. In the first place, I am going to quote the averages for five years-. I do not want to burden the House any more than is necessary, but for five years the Grain Growers' elevator, or the elevator operated by them, earned out of fees- legitimate, honourable fees-7.73 per cent, or nearly 8 per cent; including screenings. 11.81 per cent, and including overages, 18.85 per cent. The hon. gentleman asked this House if those earnings, were not reasonable. They are not reasonable, but the unreasonableness of them will be drawn to the attention of the House when I point out that these figures are based upon the cost of the elevator. They did not have one single dollar invested in the elevator. The elevator belonged to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and there was not one single dollar of the money of the Grain Growers' Company invested in that elevator. This figure is based, as all the others are, upon the assumption that these profits were earned by a company owning an elevator and making the necessary allowance therefor. What are the facts?
The facts are that the Grain Growers' Grain Company leased an elevator from the Canadian Pacific Railway. According to Price, Waterhouse' and Company, an ample working capital allowance for an- elevator is $50,000 per million bushels capacity, or, in the case of this elevator with a 2,000,000 capacity, $100,000 of working capital. I am absolutely safe in saying that the Grain Growers' Company did not (have invested $100,000 capital in the operation of this elevator. But, we will allow them exactly the same as any of the other elevators to which I shall refer in a moment. The earnings of this company on this -leased plant-not owned-were as follows:
Elevator revenue	$238,37-5
From screenings	 51,032.
Prom overages	 156,901
Total		.. $446,30-8
That represents the earnings of this company. Now, we have the operation and management expenses, including necessary provision for capital, and the statement is as follows:
Operation and management.. $136,345
Depreciation.. ..		 29,955
Rent	 68,290
Total	$234,590

1 do not know why they should be allowed depreciation, because they did not own the elevator, but we will grant that they paid it and we will -allow them $29,955. Deduct $234,590, representing the expenses, from the earnings * of $446,308 and you have $211,718 net earnings of the company for one year. This, with an- invested operating capital of $100,000, which was every sou marquee they had in it, brings an unquestioned result of 211 per cent. After deducting the loss made in the sale of grain belonging to other people, amounting to $24,059, you have earnings of 187 per cent.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Has my hon. friend forgotten the war tax on that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is^for the year 191617. Whether they paid -the war tax on that I do not know. The statement I am using does not show that. Naturally they ought to pay the war tax and if they did so it would have to be taken from this. But, there is no point raised in- regard to it.
I affirm that my attitude on this point is sound. Let me come to some other cases so that my hon-. friend will not feel lonesome. Take the Grand Trunk Railway elevator here. I will show the members of this committee some extraordinary figures in connection with the elevator. For five years the overages and screenings were as follows:
Overages	$8-36,324
Screenings	 332,174
Total	$1,168,498
A sum almost equal to the cost of their plant.
When the hardworking farmer or the hardworking citizen, whoever he may be, who is trying in these times to get along on a decent, honest profit, sees that these enormous profits have been made, is it not enough to make his blood boil? I do -not think this House should tolerate the practices to which I have referred, certainly they should not be perpetuated by this Bill. Not only are these profits made, Mr. Chairman, but they are made out of the very essentials of life.
I gave the overages the other day in the case of the Empire an,d Thunder Bay elevator. This company earned, in the years 1912 to 1917 inclusive, the following amounts and the following percentages respectively on capital: 28.50, 33.88, 10.75; 37.82, 43.54. Are these earnings not unreasonable for the class of business which is involved? The Thunder Bay and Empire companies are associated.

The overages of the Western Terminal Elevator Company for the years mentioned were the following: $60,871, $59,813, $10,182, $56,234, $94,590. The percentages are very similar to those of the preceding case.
As to the overages of, the Port Arthur Elevator Company, listen to these figures, Mr. Chairman, for the years I have mentioned: $185,193, $51,153, $50,369, $112,716, $388,057. These are the'overages, without the screenings, which the Port Arthur Elevator Company secured illegally, wrongfully from a moral standpoint. I lay it on the minister that action should be taken against these elevators to have them return to the exchequer of this country every cent illegally taken in overages. The minister and the Government must take cognizance of this matter. I -tried to bring it to the attention of the House; in February, from time to time 'but -I was prevented from doing so, or asked to let it stand, until private members' days had passed. I am not to-day going into a very detailed analysis of the matter, ibut( -I am trying to demonstrate the salient point that .this $15,000,000 that I have spoken of, every cent of which will foe found in the figures that I am quoting, -should foe returned to the exchequer of this country. If it is possible to find the legitimate owners of the money, it should be paid to them; if not, it should be credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This thing should not be allowed to pass without action. It involves a matter which is gripping at the heart of the nation and Parliament dare not perpetuate the grievance as is proposed in this legislation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has the hon. member the figures for the Government elevator?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have, and I will answer my hon. friend's-what shall I call it, spurious argument-in regard to that.
In the case of the Fort William elevator, the overages for the years 1913 to 1917, inclusive, were $12,698,	$77,788,	$292,373,
$281,534. The Committee will note that in every single case that I have quoted the amount of overages shows a steady increase.
I	am informed, though I cannot give the figures, that the last two years outstrip any of the former years in this respect.
The percentages of the Port William Elevator Company are as follows: In 1913-14,
II	14; in 1914-15, 17 08; in 1915-16, 59-90; 1916-17, 50-65. Are these fair earningsi? Am I to- be asked, as I was asked in the Cost of Living Committee, to hush up on these and other things? Is it reasonable that in view

of figures which show such abnormal earnings in this time of stress and trial, we should keep our tongues silent and allow a thing of this kind to be embalmed in a statute? So far as I am concerned, I am willing to walk out of this House and never enter it again if silence is the price of a seat in Parliament.
Now, the case of the Ogilvie elevator is not so flagrant as the others, but here are the figures, commencing with the year 191213: $88,192, $83,249, $50,378, $208,674, $89,385.
Now, the member for Marquette has been hashing around the Government elevators and he wants me to give the figures. Let me direct the attention of the committee to the argument upon which this request of his is based. Forsooth, because under the administration of this Act as it has been carried on so far the Government elevator shows a surplus, ipso facto, all these surpluses and screenings retained illegally by -the elevator become the proper possessions of the companies concerned. That is the argument.	'


Mr. M. CLARK:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? I know nothing about this matter, not being interested at all, but I should like my hon. friend to explain how far he is right in using the word " illegally." Is that which he has referred to not done absolutely under the regulations of the Government's Grain 'Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a proper question, and I will answer it presently; my hon. friend will not find that I am trying
to evade it.
, Now we come to the Canadian Government elevator, which is probably the largest elevator at the head of the lakes. I do not blame the minister in this connection, because I am quite certain that his time has been so fully occupied that he has not had an opportunity to analyze this voluminous report; but being somewhat of an accountant I have taken the trouble to analyze it and I am going to give the minister the benefit of the figures. I commend these figures to him, even if those which have preceded them have made no impression.
In 1913-14 the overage in the Canadian Government elevator was $85,645.; in 1914-15, $120,107; 1915-16, $394,713, and in 1916-17, $562,219-equally as bad, exactly the same process as in the case of the others. Yet hon. gentlemen expect this House to take them seriously when they tell us that the farmer is accounted to for everything that is over. I ask hon. gentlemen if they are going to allow a suggestion of that kind to
impose itself upon their intelligence in the face of these figures? The point I make . in all my argument is that under the clause of the Bill which provides that one-half of one per cent of the surplus may be retained, under no consideration should pass this House. Not only should no overage be allowed, but the amount of return on screenings should be limited to what might reasonably cover any possible shortage.
I now return to what the member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) has suggested- that possibly I am not warranted in designating these things as illegal.


Michael Clark: The question I really put to my hon. friend is: Are those things done under the regulations of the Grain 'Commissioners who are the appointees of the Government?^


Henry Herbert Stevens: Regarding futures, the auditors, Messrs. Price, Waterhouse and company report:
The attorney to the commission expresses the opinion that the selling of " futures " in connection with overages falls within the prohibition of the Grain Act.
The clauses referred to are, I think, clear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no direct statutory legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We might as well debate this outright. I am not ignorant of this matter; I am well acquainted with the facts. There are at Fort William three grain commissioners appointed by the Government. One of the commissioners has absolutely opposed this practice for years. The permits were issued, illegally and wrongfully, when one member was absent and two present, and the Government can take any responsibility they like in regard to this. As regards the Grain Commission, I have no hesitation in saying, on my responsibility as a member of this House, that the Grain Commission passed that rule allowing these permits, without the unanimous approval of the board being obtained. That is the fact. It was done as an administrative act, by a majority of the commissioners, because the Act does not permit taking those overages and confiscating them. I have no desire to attack the Grain Commission, but the minister might as well, in face of this urgency, look into the records of the 'Grain Commission, and he will find what I have said to be true. I have no desire to enter into that question, and there is really no controversy on the question at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps the hon. member will tell us the name of the commissioner who dissented from this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to tell my hon. friend anything at all. My hon. friend, when he was speaking, did not treat me with much courtesy, and I have no intention of involving any commissioner in trouble. I leave that to the minister, who can take the record of the Grain Commission and verify what I am saying, and that would be a very desirable thing to do. I say further, if, in face of this report, the Government puts through the clause which will perpetuate this practice, it will be doing something which, in my mind, is not only contrary to the best interest of the country, but inimical to real respect for law and order of this country.
This thing is too serious to allow it to pass. When I tell the Committee, after quoting so many figures and no doubt wearying the committee, that elevator after elevator at the head of the Lakes, has taken enough out of overages to pay for the elevator, it is about time we sat up and took some notice of these facts and made some effort to remedy them. I am not going to pursue this question any further.
I had no intention of speaking to-day, had not the accuracy of my figures been questioned. All I can say is this, that every statement I have made can be found in this report; that every figure I have produced is a figure based upon an audit made, under authority of an Order in Council, by Price, Waterhouse and Company, and I leave it to the Committee to judge as to the desirability of passing the Bill in its present shape.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not want the Committee to be scared and to imagine that 1 am going to take up an hour or two on this question, because I have no intention of doing so. I want, however, to point out to the Committee one or two things which I should like the Committee to take into consideration in order to show that this company, that my hon, friend has singled out to give the percentage of profits, is not the sinner to the extent that some of the others are, had he figured this out on the same basis as the others would have been figured out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Archibald Maharg: My hon. friends may smile, but he that laughs last, laughs best. To make a fair comparison between this particular company that my hon. friend has singled out and other companies, you must take the cost of a 2,000,000 bushed plant on which to base your percentage of profits, so as to be fair to all concerned.
I can go into a business in connection with [iMr. Crerar.]
grain, the commission business for instance, and I need not invest $500 in it. All I need do is to rent an office and secure a desk or two, and a typewriter, my investment being probably $100 or $150, and may carry on a business according to the rules of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, on a commission charge which is sanctioned by the grain commissioners. I might make thousands and thousands of dollars in one season doing a straight commission business under regular charges, although I might not have $100 invested.
^ou must take a little broader view to get a proper basis on which to make a fair comparison. I do not know what kind of an elevator this 2,000,000 bushel elevator referred to is, and I cannot say what it would cost, but the approximate cost of such an elevator to-day would be in the neighbourhood of $900,000., This is not mere talk; I went to the trouble, just in order to inform the Committee, so that it will have the whole matter before it, of telegraphing Mr. C. D. Howe. This gentleman was the chief engineer of the Board of Grain Commissioners during the entire time of the construction of their elevators. He has been chief engineer for us and several other elevator companies at the head of the Lakes, and his figure is approximately $900,000. Let us take the auditors' figure of $100,000 which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has given us, as being the amount of working capital required. He is satisfied that they did not use that amount, so that that shows he is willing to read a little more into it than the auditors put in, to throw in a little on his own account, and that is indicative of something more. Let us take his figure of $211,000, and add the $68,000 they paid for rent for that building, and that gives us an amount approximately- not taking into account odd dollars and cents-of $279,000. Without taking into account the loss they made, but taking the entire amount, $279,000, and divide it into the capital expenditure of $1,000,000, and what do you find? You find in the neighbourhood of 27 or 28 per cent. Now, the Committee will notice that figures given by the hon. gentleman in connection with the other companies were based on the cost or value of the building-and these companies own the plants regarding which he gave the figures-and not on any rent they might pay. To make a fair comparison, you have to take the probable cost of the building, and this shows that while some of the other companies made 50 odd per

cent, in the case of the Grain Growers' Grain Company the percentage would be between 27 and 28 per cent. I think that is only a fair comparison to make. If they had owned this plant themselves, that would have been the actual condition, but they do not own it. Consequently, they have paid in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent on the cost of the building, and the balance is all charged up against the $100.000 of working capital. My hon. friend turned very indignantly on me when I simply asked him what I considered was a fair question, because this Committee cannot judge unless it knows the facts. Until one year ago, or it may be two-time goes so fast-when we had the annual meeting in Winnipeg with the Board of Grain Commissioners for the fixing of charges, percentage of screening to be retained by the elevators, and so on, we got them to reduce the amount of screenings that could be retained before a return had to be made to the farmer from 5 to 3 per cent. If this gentleman's returns had been made before the charge was reduced to 3 per cent, there could be absolutely no complaint.
If they were made after it was reduced to 3 per cent there would be cause for complaint, that is, if the figures given verbally to my hon. friend are correct; but unless this House knows whether it was before or after that the change was made from 5 to 3 per cent, we are not in a position to judge. That was the information I wanted. I was not trying to corner my hon. friend. We would have given almost anything to have had the hon. gentleman use exactly the same argument twelve or thirteen years ago that he has used on the floor of this House to-day. We tried our best then to get redress but it was not forthcoming. It is exactly what we farmers have maintained for years and years, in the old Parliament Building and in the city of Winnipeg. Hon. gentlemen may smile, but I would ask them to look up the records of the Canada Grain Commission to see what we have been asking for; I think those records contain almost verbatim reports. So this is nothing new, only that it was in a more intensified form twelve or fifteen years ago. The company with which the hon. member for Marquette is associated has asked for these reductions to be made. That company belongs, fike the other organizations, to the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which is the organ they speak through. We have asked the Grain Commission to make a change in these charges. We asked for the confiscation of the overages years and years ago. We knew what was being done; it is not a
new thing. Just so long as the present regulations exist my hon. friend will be able to make the same argument with regard to all the other companies that he has made in regard to this particular company.
I expect that at the end of this year the company of which I have the honour to be the president will have something similar to show. I do not know yet, but if they have not got it the only conclusion I can come to is that they have not been attending to their business. They will not have been dealing fairly with the shareholders and the customers if they have not got it. You can smile if you wish, but that is an honest statement, absolutely. It is simply working according to the regulations, and nothing else. We have exactly the same regulations in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, where you have to make a certain fixed charge. The Board of Grain Commissioners can tell you that we have tried to have the present basis of a cent per bushel changed to a dollar basis, that is, a percentage basis, so that the unfortunate man who might have to sell his wheat at a certain time of the year when he could only get 60 cents or 70 cents a bushel would not have to pay as large a proportion as the man v ho sells his wheat for $1 a bushel. But we cannot get the change made; it is the same story all down the line. These people were handling grain on commission. We k iow it. We have also made money out of it, but it has come from our own people and gone back to them. As the hon. member for Marquette says, it is not an earning but a saving, which if these companies had not been in existence would have gone to other companies and so would have been lost to the farmers. I am not attempting to refute the hon. gentleman's argument at all. We know this has been going on, and it will continue to go on until the regulations are changed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman consider what has been going on a bad practice morally?


John Archibald Maharg: If we had not considered it a bad practice, we would not have attempted to get it remedied. The managers of the company my hon. friend has referred to have been fighting for just the same thing we have been fighting for, but if the regulations are not changed the same conditions will continue to exist. These people are not stealing; not at all; they are just taking everything that the regulations permit them to take out of the business. The regulations allow them to take those screenings and they take them. Would you have

' those screenings go to the United States, which buys a large amount of our screenings and have a lot of good wheat go with it for them to take out. The company would not be conducting their business properly if they allowed that. I suppose the hon. gentleman would think it an awful thing to make $300,000 or $400,000 on grain on a commission of one cent a bushel, but that is what the companies are doing; that is what the regulations allow them to do. We have consistently asked for the commission to be reduced, and it has been reduced to a certain extent, but it needs reducing a whole lot more. We also used to pay a cent a bushel for oats, but we have got that charge practically cut in two. The charge for barley has also been cut down.


William Sora Middlebro: The figures given by my hon. friend from Vancouver refer to dockages at the terminal elevators. Suppose a farmer ships his grain from an internal elevator. Is there a dockage there and also when the grain comes to the terminal elevator?


John Archibald Maharg: That will require going into the regulations just a little further. When the farmer brings his grain to the initial elevator his grain is docked if he sells it to the elevator. It is tested exactly the same as at the terminal elevator; the farmer is present and sees the grain tested. If he special-bins his grain and ships it himself the elevator is allowed, if I mistake not, on-e-half of one per cent for invisible shrinkage; that is what the regulations allow as a protection against loss in transit, and that is the only dockage made against the farmer. So the idea that he is docked at both ends is a mistaken one, except to the extent I have mentioned.
The hon. member said that overages were increasing. Of course, they are. The greater the volume of business, the greater the amount of overages. My hon. friend was not fair to the hon. member for Marquette when he said that that hon. gentleman had said they had to have this one-half of one per cent. He did not say any such thing. He is not asking for that. We have recommended that the charge be cut in two. You can take it all if you like. We 4 p.m. are not kicking; all we want is that every last cent shall go back to the farmer, and the sooner my hon. friend can assist us in bringing that about, the better we shall be pleased with him.
My hon. friend said that the figures of the Ogilvie people were much less. There is a good reason for that, and you will find 
it in the evidence that was given by tne manager of that company before the High Cost of Living Committee. He told where a certain amount of their screenings goes, which accounts for that company not having so much left. My hon. friend ' made another statement that I think is unfair to some of the companies.
I do not know what the practice is with the other companies, and I do not pretend to speak for them. I can, however, speak for our own company, in regard to the last year and during the time that we have been in business. In every case where there is an excess of 3 per cent, a return is made to the farmer. It is just possible, if you thoroughly investigate the return of the screenings, given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, you will find that a large amount may have been returned to the farmer, that is, he may have been given credit for it. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but I know that this happens.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at these figures I
quoted. These figures were the net, absolute, final return year by year to the elevators, after all rebates and reductions had been made.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not doubting for
a moment the sincerity and truthfulness of the hon. gentleman's statement, but it is just possible that those returns for screenings are not made out in a warehouse receipt at all. They are not recorded the same as certificates for grain. No warehouse receipt is given. They are simply given credit on the out-turn of the car, and that is the only record kept of this, and it is quite possible that that has not been taken into consideration. I do not know with any certainty just how far they went into it, for there is no registered record. We asked to have that done and they assured us that it would be impracticable. An elevator would get probably a thousand of those certificates. One certificate might call for a hundred pounds of screenings and another for five hundred pounds, while others might be for three or four hundred pounds, probably at different prices. The dealer would buy a number of these certificates and the terminal elevator company would then have an endless amount of trouble in making out these returns, while the cost in connection with it in most cases would probably be more than the screenings were worth. We considered this question with the Board of Grain Commissioners and that was the argument advanced by the terminal companies. There

is no certificate given for these screenings. It is just possible that that accounts for a lot of money received for these screenings that the elevator company has already given the farmer credit for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a cent.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not saying that it
does, but it is just possible. I think the committee can see for themselves that, unless the Government have been doing things illegally and taking something they should not have taken, my statement in regard to overages is absolutely right. The Government, according to the figures given for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre have, I believe, the largest amount for overages of any of the different elevator companies. We cannot think for a moment that the Government have been stealing any of the grain, nor do I think that there has been any stealing whatever. It has just come about in the way'I outlined. There are half a dozen or more ways in which it can be accounted for. If the wheat is poor the grain will be docked. For small wheat probably one or two per cent will be docked. It can be cleaned out and can go into the lower grade of grain, and not into the screenings. So that it is possible, without the least dishonesty, for some of these overages to accumulate in this way.


James Alexander Robb: Before this debate proceeds further it is due to the House and the country that the minister, who is primarily responsible for the administration of the elevators, should make a statement in answer to the charges of the hon. member for Vancouver. The terminal elevators are operated under the Grain Act assented to on 1st April, 1912, and are controlled largely by the Board of Grain Commissioners, who consist of three members appointed for a period of ten years. The country was told that these commissioners would be experts thoroughly informed on the trade. We find that the commissioners appointed were: Mr. Staples, who was formerly a member of this House from the province of Manitoba, and a supporter of the government of that day; Mr. Boyd, a lawyer of Montreal, who had been president of the Conservative Association in that city, and who I think had been twice candidate for the Conservative party, and Mr. Jones, I think, a practical man.


John Archibald Maharg: That is the present board. On the original board was Dr. McGill.


James Alexander Robb: Dr. McGill had been on the board and had resigned to become secretary of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. -It is well to see how these men were appointed. It was provided that every officer employed under the authority of the board should be appointed by the minister on the recommendation of the board. The weighmasters, who have much to do with this work, are appointed by the minister, upon the recommendation of the board. These appointments are therefore made by the minister upon the recommendation of the board to him, so that obviously the Government are primarily and substantially responsible for the administration of these elevators; and if the charges made to-day by the hon. member for Vancouver are correct, we have never had in this House a more complete attack upon the Government by an hon. member who has loyally supported the Government of the day ever since he became a member of the House. In view of these considerations, therefore, I submit to the minister and to the committee that before the debate proceeds any further we are entitled to a statement from the minister concerning the administration of these elevators.


Francis Henry Keefer: Regarding this matter, having lived for twenty or thirty years at the locus in quo, I may be able to contribute something to the debate. In the early days very little wheat came down and the rates were higher than now. The trouble in this whole matter is not that any one company has made overages. As the hon. member for Maple Creek says, they cannot do otherwise. The Government elevator is making overages and in that respect I do not think it would be quite reasonable to attack the member for Marquette because he is president of or holds some office in a company that has made money. They have all made money. Let us see how they made the money. The principle, as I understand it, is this-those more conversant with me business will correct me if I am wrong: In the first place, three-quarters of a cent is allowed for handling the grain in and outr of the elevators. In addition to that the grain in some cases has to be cleaned. In order to grade the grain for market purposes and to ascertain how much cleaning is necessary there is the inspection, and then arises what is called the dockage. Sometimes that dockage is 1 per cent, sometimes 2 per cent, and sometimes 5 per cent, or more. Dockage up to 5 per cent used to be allowed to the elevator for cleaning, and all over and above that had to be accounted for to the farmer. In the early days that was not so bad, because the volume of

wheat coming down was not so great. I remember well when the first bushel of wheat came down to Port Arthur. There was no elevator. We loaded into a warehouse in sacks and thence to the steamer in sacks. Then it began to increase to one jnillion, then to seven and nine millions, twenty, fifty, and a hundred millions, and so on. As this volume increased the dockage was reduced, it appears, from 5 to 3 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


Francis Henry Keefer: I cannot answer that question. Some one more versed in the matter will be able to say. I have been advocating on behalf of my district, its entire abolition. Because I believe it will be for the welfare of the elevator and for the welfare of the farmer to do so. The direct result would be if we abolish altogether this question of overages, that the producer will have private independent elevators at the head of the Lakes competing one against the other to buy his wheat, instead of waiting till it gets further East. There are two classes of elevators at the head of the Lakes; there is the terminal elevator and the private elevator. The terminal elevators are making money in this way because they are not allowed to speculate in wheat, but they get this surplus of wheat on their hands at the end of the year. How do they get it? The first reason, as has been mentioned, is the invisible shortage, which I think is something like thirty bushels to the car.


John Archibald Maharg: Thirty pounds.


Francis Henry Keefer: I accept the hon. gentleman's correction of the slip, thirty pounds to the car. That goes to the elevator. The Committee can readily see that when there is a large volume of wheat coming down if you multiply the cars by thousands there is going to be quite a surplus on hand from that invisible shortage. In that case the elevator operators are allowed to do just as the miller did in the olden days who got his toll for grinding wheat; it is the same thing exactly. But now is the time to straighten the matter out, and it is not quite reasonable to be throwing around insinuations that anything improper has been going on; that is what I do not like about this thing. It is the regulations that makes such a thing possible, and now is the time to rectify it .
In addition to the invisible shrinkage there is the dockage. My wheat comes down and it is inspected. The man looks at it and docks me three per cent for dockage.

Dockage has no reference to anything in regard to a ship, but that percentage is docked by reason of dirty wheat or because of some wheat being of inferior quality. Now up to that point the elevator company takes that wheat, brings it into the house, cleans it and makes the best use of it, gives ninety-seven per cent back, and retains out of it three per cent damaged wheat or other matter which is what the screenings will amount to. After cleaning these screenings there will doubtless be some good wheat which may be added to the good wheat, if the elevator chooses, instead of selling it as screenings. It is this system which results in these terminal elevators necessarily having these overages at the end of the year and which is contrary to the principle of the Grain Act, because they are not supposed to be speculating in wheat, and they must sell it or get rid of it. Therefore, they have a self interest in this matter to a certain extent which ought to be disassociated from the warehousings business. As the hon. member from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) pointed out, the farmers have been steadily wanting to bring about a change in these methods and that is the reason, as I understand it, they went into the elevator business themselves. They are making money out of it, they cannot help doing so, but we should change the overage system. If three-quarters of a cent is too low for elevator charges, it would be better to increase it. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says: " Protect us against wheat going off, or anything of tnat kind, in case we have a loss." It is hardly reasonable to ask that. The common carrier is not protected. He makes his contract and he gets "so much per" as the saying is for carrying out that contract, freight, or whatever it is, and he has to deliver the goods in the same condition in which he receives them. Why not have the terminal elevator in the same position as the common carrier. If three-quarters of a cent is not sufficient remuneration, let it be increased. Originally, it was not deemed advisable to make an increase. When there was but a small quantity of wheat coming down, a charge of three, four, or five cents a bushel for handling would seem large, but a higher dockage given for cleaning would not seem large, because there was a smaller volume coming to the elevator. Now that there is a large volume coming the price can be reduced subject to what I suggest, abolishing the principle of overages. The elevator operator should not have that wheat which does not belong to him, at the end of the year. If the price

of three-quarters of a cent is not sufficient to fairly protect him, why not increase it. They can get along then. The minister is moving along the right line, but I do not think he has gone far enough. I would like to see him sweep the whole principle out and have no overages whatever.


Michael Clark: Before the minister replies, I would like to say a word or two if I may. It seems to me that the speech of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Steven^) displays those qualities which I, as an old colleague of his, have long admired, of energy and courage, but is calculated, nevertheless, to arouse feelings and fears In the public mind which an understanding of the case would scarcely justify. I say that subject to correction because I am not at all sure that I understand the question myself. But I am going to take the liberty of putting the situation to the committee as it appears to me, after listening to every word that has been uttered to-day.
I want in the first place to clear up this thing as far as I can as regards the Grain Growers' Grain Company. That company, as I understand it, is simply a co-operative company by which the grain growers employ members of their own body in order to get the profits, whatever they are, for themselves. Well, the principle of co-operation has nothing wrong in it and, as far as profits from overages or anything else is concerned, so long as they go back to the farmers I do not think there will be any kick on their part. One of the misfortunes that might easily arise from the citation of figures running into the millions would be the use, in connection with those figures, of the very strong language which my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has employed. One of the misfortunes that might easily arise, and that I am not at all sure is not meant to be caused to arise, is the impression that individual grain growers are becoming millionaires in the West. Now, in the Grain Growers' Company there are 35,000 shareholders. We were told by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in reply to a very pertinent question from the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), that that company with 35,000 shareholders has a paid-up capital of two millions and a reserve of a million and a half. If one divides the figures 35,000 into $3,500,000, then each of those grain growers would be a capitalist at the present moment, in reserve or in paid-up capital, to the magnificent extent of rather over $100. I think neither the Committee nor the country would
think that the grain growers are vastly criminal in being in possession of that sum of money each in paid-up capital and reserve in these times of profiteering. If I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected, but that is the way the figures work out, so far as I have been able to work them out. If I am right, then I think I am safe in making the assertion that the grain growers are not becoming millionaries so far as the proceeds' of the operation of this elevator is concerned. What they are doing with the grain is exactly the same as any other grain grower is doing who hands his grain to a private company or to a private individual. The case would be more serious, much more serious, in the case of farmers, or grain growers who were selling their grain to private companies, because in that event whatever is made through these overages is going into the pockets of private individuals, and there some question of profiteering might arise. But I contend that no such question arises in connection with the company to which my friend from Marquette belongs, and nothing which has transpired here to-day reflects in the *slightest degree upon the character of my hon. friend or any of those who are associated with him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: Now I want to go a little more closely into this matter and see what there really is in the charges which have been brought, and, I may say, enforced upon the attention of the Committee by the use of very strong language. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) said that $8,000,000 have been taken as the result of overages in a period of five years. I did not take notes but I think that was my hon. friend's assertion. Now it appears from the statement of the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), and 1 think there is no doubt it is in accordance with the facts, that in the elevators where those $8,000,000 have accumulated, through overages being the system, good or bad, m those elevators, the charge for handling the grain is three-quarters of a cent a bushel. At the United States point of Duluth, where a large amount of grain is handled, the charge for handling that grain is li cents a bushel. I am told, incidentally, that they take overages there as well. So that, it would appear that the grain grovrers who are operating at these elevators are not getting on so badly at that, when compared with the grain growers of the United States who sell their grain at Duluth.

But, I want to give another view upon this question. In the five-year period during which it is alleged 8,000,000 bushels of grain have been accumulated through this terrible system of overages, probably a billion and a half bushels of grain were handled in the elevators concerned. If the difference between f cents a bushel and li cents a bushel be multiplied by a billion and a half it will be found that the charge for handling alone would have resulted in a perfectly proper legal payment, according to the charge at Duluth, of a profit of not 18,000,000 as the hon. gentleman alleges, but of $12,000,000 representing the extra three-quarters of a cent per bushel charged at Duluth. I think I am right in that statement; I think every figure ,1 have given in reaching my conclusion is absolutely correct. If the people at Duluth, on the same amount of grain, are paying for the actual handling of the grain $12,000,000, where only $8,000,000 is being made in overages on a smaller charge, then I must say that it would not appear that there is any good ground, in the general view of this question that I have endeavoured to take, for the extraordinarily strong charges which have been brought against the people operating these elevators, and who have been receiving what my hon. friend frofn Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) seems to consider the legitimate profits of a properly conducted trade.
I do not know that I need to say anything more. Indeed, I do not know that I can because I think the whole case is summed up in those salient figures and facts. But, I do want to say this: That if the short statement I have made is correct, although my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) worked himself into a state of indignation which the case did not call for, I very much question if the words " robbery," " illegality " and other strong language of that kind really applied. Let me say this: My hon. friend and I are old friends and he knows I am the last man to apologize, any more than he would be, for robbery or illegality. If there be a public grievance, if there be a public wrong, and my hon. friend points it-out to me, as long as we have seats in this House I will join with him in doing whatever I can to assist in the removal of that grievance. But I do not see, putting the case as I have just put it, that these strong terms of his need be applied.
One point I want to make, and it has already been made by the hon. member for Chateauguay and Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). If there has been robbery, if there has been

illegality, it has been carried out by, and according to the regulations, of tire Grain Commissioners, who are the appointees of the 'Government of this country. Certainly the indictment, judged by the strength of the language used in preferring it, w.as a tremendous indictment, because, in effect, it was a straight charge of illegal practices and robbery carried out under the auspices of the Grain Commission. We have all had a great deal to say against commissions, but I do not think there has ever been anything quite so strong said with reference to any individual commission as that which the hon. member for Vancouver has said against tnis particular commission. He, perhaps, did not mean it or see what he was doing until I asked him about it. The way in which he has done his duty is heroic in the extreme, and I admired his independence. I will be looking for him one of these days on the cross benches. I want to make it perfectly clear, if illegality and robbery have ' taken place under the auspices of this commission it is really a charge against the Government of the day. I leave the point at that; I do not urge it myself for a moment. As I have examined the case, I think the language is too. strong and therefore that the chEfrge is too strong, but I would repeat that if the charges lie at anybody's door they lie at the door of the Grain Commission, and I would join with my hon. friend from Vancouver in asking the Government either to explain the matter, or alter their legislation and clean up doings of this nefarious kind.
Mr. STEVEN'S: My hon. friend attempts to justify the charges made. I ask him: Does he consider that spread over a period of five years, the terminal elevators, performing a quasi public service, are earning too much when they get from 35 to. as high as 60 per cent and in one case 75 per cent?


Michael Clark: Percentages are usually
deceptive. I have not the figures to show whether the percentages are as stated or not. I have given such figures as it has been within my power to give but without an analysis of the figures I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend's question. I am concerned with cleaning up a public grievance, doing all I can to put it right in the minds of the Grain Growers' Company and the private companies, and putting it right in the public mind as leading to the possibility of misconception that the grain growers, forsooth of all men, are making millions in these times of war and post war difficulties.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Chairman,
there is no gainsaying the fact that the public are in a rather nervous and critical frame of mind at the present time, and I can hardly think that the discussion here this afternoop is going to remove many of the thoughts and suspicions that exist in their minds. I could not help but feel during the debate that has taken place, although I was not m the House when the original resolution came up, that there has been a great effort made to convey to the House that the transactions that were taking place should not be designated by such terms as stealing, robbery and illegal because they were done under the cloak of legislation passed Parliament and that the statutes of this country evidently permit things to be done the commission of which in private life would be considered as illegitimate, as illegal and liable to bring the parties who were practising them within the reach of the common law. It appears to me that it is up to this Government to see that remedies are provided and that they are provided immediately. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statements which have been made in regard to overages. I have before me a paper published in Western Canada which gives the overages for the year 1917. According to this statement, the overages in fourteen elevators were as follows:
Bushels	Pounds
Wheat	 848,9'50
Oats	syoisot
Barley	 27,000
Flax		7S7
Mixed grains	 3,690,027
This aggregates an enormous sum which, according to the consensus of opinion, does not go back to those who should get the benefit of these overages.
The United Grain Growers' Ltd. has been mentioned	frequently this	afternoon.	1want it to be distinctly understood that I am not here	to	condemn	that	company.
It was absolute necessity that caused the farmers of the West to form that organization. The farmers were being deprived of their rights; they were being held up; they were suffering great injustice at the hands of dealers in grain in Western Canada. But the explanations that have been given this afternoon by some hon. members who are or have been connected with that company will hardly satisfy the public. The United Grain Growers Ltd. are to-day out to make profits the same as any other incorporated company. You may say that 35,000 farmers of Western Canada are members of that company, and that the profits
go back to them. That is all very true. But I have known other companies to be incorporated under similar circumstances; and you often find that the outsider who sometimes furnishes the largest Amount ol grain on products to the company does not receive the proportionate benefit that a smaller producer or non-producer receives because of his being a member of the company. However, I am not going into that question in detail. I want to point oul that these overages are unjustifiable, particularly in view of the fact that we have Government elevators in this country. In 1912, when the revision of the Grain Act was before Parliament, I took strong objection to certain features of the Act and particularly to the provision with regard to the screenings, which are a source of enormous revenues to the elevator companies. I brought the matter up in 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1917, but no effort has been made to remedy the difficulty. My contention then was and is to-day that hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost to this country as a result of the effort to realize a small temporary profit on the sale of the screenings, resulting in their distribution wholesale throughout the country. All along the railway lines of Canada, from one end of the country to the other, you will find masses of noxious weeds growing along the rights of way, caused by the dropping of seeds out of the cars which transport uncleaned grain over these lines. Scarcely a farm can be found in the old provinces or in the new that has not been poisoned because of the distribution of weed seeds by this and other means. Only two days ago we had representatives of some of the large milling corporations before a committee of this House. According to the sworn evidence which was there given, it has been for years the customs of these milling companies, some of which have a string of elevators all over Western Canada, to take the screenings of these elevators and mills and run them in with the bran and shorts and other mill feeds. Before wheat can be milled for the manufacture of flour, every atom of weed seed must be taken from the wheat; it is absolutely necessary that the wheat shall be as clean as possible. The custom has been to run these screenings through duplex grinders which are supposed to grind the stuff down fine, and the millers are then permitted, by Act of Parliament, to run this stuff back into the bran and shorts provided that not more than 2,500 vital noxious weed seeds are left in each 100 pounds of bran and shorts. You would think that gives them

enough latitude. But they can in addition grind as much of these screenings as they see fit, provided they destroy the vitality of the weed seeds and provided they have sufficient protein, fat and fibre in their bran and shorts to comply with the Feed-stuffs Act. The statement was made the other day by the head of one of these big milling firms'that the quality of their bran and shorts had been improved as a result of mixing these ground screenings in with them. We all know how impoverished and how thin the bran is that we get from the milling companies to-day. Pure bran is perhaps the most valuable feed that is used in connection with the production oi dairy products; it is fed more largely by the dairy men than any other food except hay and ensilage; and it is only fair to those engaged in dairy farming that they should get this product in a [DOT] pure state, not in an adulterated state, as is permitted under the present law. But although the millers are permitted to have 2,500 of these weed seeds in a sack of bran or shorts, they go much further than that. I happened to pick up the report of the Inland Revenue Department for July, 1918, the day the millers' representatives were here, and 1 found that two of the men who were present on the occasion of the examination of the millers before the committee were representatives of two of the big firms mentioned in this report. This report of the Dominion analyst shows that on no less than eight occasions during the month covered by the report, these two big companies had exceeded the limit which I have mentioned. I am not going to go into the matter in detail; I will just mention one case, that of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, in ordei to show the extent to which this adulteration takes place. In this case, 864 lamb's quarters, and 96 tumbling mustard seeds to the pound were found in excess of the amount permitted. The report of another inspector shows that 1,392 lamb's quarters, and 768 tumbling mustard seeds to the pound were found in excess of the amount exempted. The remarkable thing is that this has been going on for years, and although reports setting forth these facts have been filed in the department from year to year, these men say that in not one instance have they been prosecuted for violation oi the law. They have become so bold that they now openly admit that they are running these screenings in and that they do not think there is any danger in doing so. But several departments, under this Administration, as well as under previous Governments, have been aware of the 
fact that live stock in very large numbers have been poisoned and have died as a result of being fed with this adulterated stuff that is being sold to the farmers. The people of Canada are advised to practise rigid economy. I reiterate what I have stated on several occasions with regard to this, namely, that hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost to the people of this country as a result of the carelessness we have shown in this regard. Screenings are something that must be taken care of by the Government through the Grain Commission at those elevators, and they must be cleaned and recleaned to the extent that there will not be any danger of feeding the stuff to livestock nor any danger of having the farms of this country contaminated by the foul weed seeds that have for years been distributed in this way. But some hon. members will say: What will these big milling companies lose as a result of this? See what the farmers of Western Canada will lose as a result of it. We had an admission from the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to-day that in some instances as much as 20 per cent of the grain shipped out to elevators consists of weed seeds. If that be the case, there is no reason why screens cannot be put into the separators which thresh this grain so that the great bulk of these weed seeds may be taken out. I know threshers in the West and elsewhere, who are paid by the bushel, would not like to do that, and they will permit the screens to get clogged. But it is absolute carelessness on the part of the farmers of Western Canada to permit that condition to continue; they are paying freight rates on this dirt being shipped to the elevators, and in the end this will react against them. It is not in our interest nor in the interest of the public generally that this should be permitted. The screenings of the elevators should be screened to the finest possible degree so as to eliminate all these weed seeds. I find to my amazement that even during, the past year, notwithstanding the fact that we had so experienced an agriculturist as the hon. member for Marquette at the head of the Department of Agriculture, this thing has been allowed to continue, and that instead of stamping it out, it has been encouraged to the extent that the Government have been purchasing thousands of tons of these screenings and selling them to the farmers of this country through the Department of Agriculture. They have not taken the precaution to see that that stuff was ground

at the elevators, where there is ample provision for grinding it, but it is being dis- * tributed throughout Ontario and the other provinces to whoever may be so foolish as to buy it. You can understand people engaged in poultry or sheep raising or something of that kfnd, when feed is so high, buying this stuff and feeding it, and as a result, many of these noxious weeds are spread throughout the country. I find that up to December 1 of last year alone 8,094 tons of this stuff had been purchased, and to my amazement I find that wild oats constitute nearly 11 per cent of this unground stuff that is being shipped throughout Canada and that the Government have entered into a contract to purchase from the Elevator Company at $35 a ton. I believe the allowance made for screenings to the farmers for the excess over 3 per cent is $15 per ton. Yet it is turned over to the Government at $35 per ton. I realize that that seems rather remarkable, but this is for recleaned screenings, without the bulk of the fine black weed seeds which undoubtedly constitute a considerable part of it. But it is the part that should be eliminated and can easily be eliminated by the threshers on the farm and that should be destroyed by the farmers when threshing takes place; if not there then at the elevators and mills.
Let me quote from a bulletin issued by the Inland Revenue Department with regard to bran and shorts under date of January 20, 1919:
We have for months past been receiving numerous complaints with reference to the adulteration of bran and shorts, and have had samples of the same that certainly justify the complaints. The bran is adulterated by mixing with oat hulls and all sorts of rubbish. Shorts, in many cases, is simply bran, re-ground so as to make it fine.
And so forth. There is just another feature of this to which I want to refer very briefly. The Department of Agriculture had the present director of experimental farms investigate the matter several years ago. He went into it very thoroughly and presented a very interesting report. Referring to this matter, he states regarding the millers:
If he grinds his screenings fine enough to destroy the vitality of all the noxious weed seeds, the miller is within his legal lights in mixing this pulverized material with his byproducts, provided that such admixture does not alter their chemical composition to such an extent that they no longer comply with the requirements of the Feeding Stuffs Act	-
The Dominion and provincial Departments of Agriculture receive each year many complaints of the death or serious injury to the health of
animals which the owners of the stock attribute to the feeding of bran, shorts and chop-feed.
It is quite well known to all the stock men in this country that such is the case.
Jif go, many animals die as the result of the feeding of this stock. This being so one can understand how many animals which do not die have their vitality seriously impaired from eating it, and the product does not give the results which the purchaser expects it should. When I brought this matter up last in 1914, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) made this statement in reply to my argument on that occasion:
The Provincial Governments have their parts to do in the matter, and they are moving in that direction; the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion and the departments of agriculture of the several provinces co-operate in this work. Whatever can be done by the Grain Board, and-after they have mapped out their work in this matter-whatever can be done by Dominion legislation to diminish this pest, will he done. And I hope to he able, at the next session of Parliament, to give a fairly clear idea as to what we think can be done by the Grain Board and through Parliament in this direction.
I have been waiting patiently, expectantly, to see if something would be done, and I must say that when the present amendments to the Grain Act were brought down, without any provision being made for taking care of this stuff at the elevator, I was disappointed. I can only say that I believe the minister has not fulfilled his duty in respect to the farmers and grain growers of this country in reference to this matter. What would you think of the medical authorities of a country pretending to be attempting to stamp out disease by providing isolation hospitals, putting those afflicted with a disease in them, and at the same time collecting the germs of the disease and mailing them out over the country? You concentrate this stuff at the elevators when you reclean the grain, and there is no reason why it should not be destroyed at that point, after you reclean it to such an extent that no injustice will be done to the party who has supplied the grain. This is a matter that I know has not received much attention by Parliament, and it is one that will be passed over lightly by many hon. members. It is a question in which some of the great corporations of this country are vitally interested, and it is also one that affects every individual farmer in this country, because in the days to come, you may rest assured that agriculture will have to be carried on on a scientific basis in Canada. The hope for the future rests pri-



marily on Canada's vast agricultural domain.
Live stock raising is the only hope for our farmers. You may exploit the soil to your heart's content, but the day will come when you will have to replenish the fertility which you have taken out of it, and this can only be done by entering upon a system of farming of which live stock will be the main feature. You may not call it stealing or robbery or illegal to pass out this poisonous stuff to our farmers, but I think if we had Webster here to-day he would have to change his definition of stealing. He would not say that it
5 p.m. -was taking something from some one without his consent; but, by Act of Parliament; that might be his definition. I am sorry to have to say these things. I have waited patiently for years to see some reform made. If one-half of what the hon, member for Vancouver has said is true, with regard to overages, I do not see how action can be delayed any longer. It is a remarkable thing that I have not been able to get a copy of the audit that was made of the elevator companies for these years referred to, although I have endeavoured to do so, and knew that such an audit existed.
I contend that this is too important and vital a question to be passed over lightly oven in the last days of this session. Even if it means our remaining here a little longer than was anticipated, I think the mill feed regulations should be changed, and we should prohibit the adulteration of bran and shorts by the millers. There is no justification for permitting him to adulterate as at present permitted by the regulations. He should also be prosecuted where he has so often violated the present law. It cannot be adulterated without his knowledge and consent. Consequently, there is no justification for it. The big millers the other day expressed their astonishment that they were violating the law in this regard. They also expressed the view that it would be justifiable, and in fact the part of wisdom for the Government, if what I expressed was true, and I showed conclusively by Government reports that it was true, to prohibit the running of that stuff back into their bran and shorts. I heard of several cases this past winter where stock have died as a result of eating this poisonous stuff. Let me quote two cases from the Agricultural Gazette published by this Government. They are from a report made by the Director of Experimental Farms when the hon. member for Marquette was Minister of Agriculture:
[Mr. Sutherland.!
A case has recently been brought to our notice which corroborates this (the poisoning of stock). A sample of shorts was sent in for analysis, the farmer complaining that as a result of feeding it, two of his pigs had died. Large quantities of finely ground mustard seeds were found in the sample. A reply to our request for a statement of symptoms ran as follows:
Herd is another case:
A sample of shorts was received at the laboratory from a farmer. He and his neighbour had bought some from the same lot and each had given one feed to their pigs. The meal was eaten, and in a few hours all the pigs-eight belonging to one man and ten to the other-were dead.	An analysis1 of the
sample showed 1.7 per cent by weight of whole Wormseed Mustard seeds in addition to those which had been ground.
I will not weary the House by citing further cases, but would simply say that the record's of the various branches of the Government are loaded up with information which goes to show that they have absolute knowledge of the correctness of the statements, which I have made here this afternoon, and I must say that it does not reflect very much credit upon the Government that steps- have not been taken to provide redress long before this.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The statement just made by the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) is an extremely interesting one, and I am not disposed to find any fault with it whatever. In fact, I think this is a subject which should have had the consideration of the -Government long before this. Of course, if it were not for the great quantities of noxious weeds which a-ppear on Canadian farm lands, the question of dockage, and, therefore, the question of overage, would not arise. My attention, however, had never been drawn to this matter, and it never entered my mind that it should be dealt with this session in the amendments to be made to the Grain Act. It may be that this is a matter that comes under the Department of Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over the subject of noxious weeds. I can only promise my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that I shall direct the attention of the proper department to this, subject at the earliest opportunity, because I think it is clearly a case for immediate action and legislation.
Now just a word on the general subject we have been discussing this afternoon.
I think that altogether too much heat has been aroused. The matter of overages does not involve the question of illegality or robbery or dishonesty at all. It is not in contravention of the Grain Act that the elevators obtain these overages. My hon.

friend quoted from the Auditor's Report to the effect that the sale made by elevators of these overages constituted an offence under the Act. The report states that to be the opinion of the counsel of th* auditors, Price, Waterhouse & iCompany. Now il am not disposed to accept that opinion as being correct and, if it were a correct one, I would say: Amend the Act so as to make the sale legal, because it would be absurd to allow the elevators to earn these overages and then say that they shall not sell them, or that if they attempt to sell them it will be illegal. If it is illegal to dispose of these overages, it should be made legal, so long as overages are permitted.
My hon. friend (Mr. Robb) seemed very anxious that I should make a defence of the Government in this matter. I do not think the Government are obliged to make any defence in this matter. I do not think the Government can be properly or justly accused of maladministration of the Grain Act, nor do I think the grain commissioners are open to accusation. There is no country in the world which handles the grain business with a greater degree of efficiency than Canada. There is no country in the world which has such an elaborate and almost perfect system as ours for handling grain. There are overages, of course, and with the high prices that have prevailed for wheat during the last three or four years the overages have been higheT than usual, measured in dollars and cents; and when you have a big crop and the elevators are handling a vast quantity of wheat the overages are laTge. In 1915 there was a very small wheat crop and the elevators only made 1 per cent, clear of overages and screenings, upon the capital invested. Counting screenings, they made 4 per cent, but taking their elevator charges, screenings, and overages, they made only 8 per cent. Hon. gentlemen will realize that the immense overages which have occurred during the period of five years referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) are not a permanent factor in the grain trade, because conditions during those five years will not remain constant.
After all, what does " overages " mean in actual practice? It means, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said, a system established by usage, by which the elevator man receives a part of his elevator charges in kind, just as in the days when I was a boy the millers kept in payment for their services a portion of the grain sent to their mills to be ground. That has obtained in this country for years and years
and everybody is aware of the practice.
It may be wrong, or right. I am disposed to feel, in regard to this, as in regard to other matters, that gradually we shall reach what will be a perfect solution of the whole problem, aifd very likely in the course ol two or three years we shall have a cash-tariff for elevators. Many representations-were made to the department this year on this particular issue, and in view of these and the report of this auditor, I felt bound to introduce .some legislation at the present session, although possibly it might well have remained over until next session. Indeed, I am quite willing now to drop the Bill if many hon. gentlemen think that this should be done. I had personal interviews with representatives of the Council of Agriculture, which body I think at least represents the grain growing farmers of the West. I was also interviewed by those representing the elevator interests, who informed me that they were quite willing to-abolish overages absolutely and establish a cash tariff. This they are willing to do to-day. Some of the representatives of the Grain Growers of the West, however, stated to me that they preferred that the elevator should, in part at least be paid for their services by overages. As has been pointed out, the elevator charge in Canada is J of a cent per bushel for the services that have been mentioned this afternoon-lower than anywhere else on the North American continent save the port of Baltimore, where it is a little lower. This charge of I of a cent needs to be increased or supplemented if the elevators do not receive some of the overages. I desire to deal with this matter in some way at this session, but I am not prepared to ask Parliament, in face of the representations made to me, to enact that overages should be absolutely abolished and a cash tariff established. I do not presume to say that the abolition of overages might' not be the proper thing to do, but I do not propose to do it at this session because I do not personally know enough	about	the question;
and at least until the Grain Growers in the West, who are more interested than any one else, make representations to the department to have overages absolutely abolished, I will not take such a step. At any rate, I would like further time to consider the matter. In this Bill is contained a clause (No. 2) which provides for a maximum of overages of | of 1 per cent. I intend to ask the committee to make it I of 1 per cent, which would reduce it somewhat. After, say, one season's experience, and after we have had

an opportunity to see how it works, we shall be in a better position to deal with the matter. I hope my suggestion will be received favourably by the committee because there are some portions of the Bill which it is desirable to enact. However, if there is very much opposition to it I would prefer letting it stand altogether. I am afraid that members of the committee fear that these overages are obtained by some subterranean and dishonest method. The hon. member for Huntingdon would apparently throw the blame on the Government or on the Grain Commission. Well, the Grain Commission has absolutely no more to do with the creation of overages than has the hon. gentleman.


James Alexander Robb: What I said was, that if the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver is correct, then the Government are primarily responsible, because all the employees who handle the grain are appointed by the Government.	_


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is quite true that they are appointed by the Government, and their work may be performed with absolute accuracy and efficiency, and still you might and would have overages. Now how do overages occur?


Rodolphe Lemieux: How does the minister come to reduce the one-half to three-eighths of one per cent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In a purely arbitrary manner, and in a spirit of compromise. One-quarter has been suggested by some. Representatives of the farmers have said that it should not be reduced to the point where the elevator companies would ask the Grain Commissioners to increase their tariff rates. I do not consider myself competent just at the moment to determine the exact jpercentage to allow, and the percentage of three-eighths was just reached arbitrarily. How do overages arise? It is a very complicated matter, particularly for a layman, to attempt to make an explanation of. I shall read to the committee the report of the auditors upon this point which will make it clearer than I could possibly state it. Before I dio so, however, I may say that the grain is inspected as ,it arrives at Winnipeg.
A sample of wheat is taken from every car and is placed in the hands of our inspectors. The inspection at Winnipeg is a very severe one. A small quantity of wheat is taken from a car and is put through a very fine sieve, and the inspectors determine the proportion per bushel of deleterious matter in the wheat. That is done with scrupulous 
care by a special officer of the Grain Board and the process is carried out with accuracy. The inspector can measure yvith precision the amount of deleterious matter or defective wheat in the sample. He finds, say, on the average, one- per cent of dockage to be made by reason of foreign matter in the wheat. Later on all this wheat goes to the terminal elevators at the head of the Lakes. That wheat is all mixed up, and it goes, in large quantities, in chutes from the elevators directly on board the ship. It is impossible to inspect the wheat while going out of the terminal elevator, with the same degree of accuracy as the inspector at Winnipeg inspects the wheat, and in the main that is the reason for the overages. The auditors in their report set forth their views as to the cause of overages:
(1.) In cars of high grade grain which contain a small proportion of foreign matter, the inspector almost invariably places a dockage of 1 per cent.
The inspector gets that dockage of one per cent by inspecting a small sample, and which inspection he therefore can carry out with accuracy; but when wheat comes to the elevators at the rate of millions of bushels a day, -I imagine that cannot be done, and consequently the inspection there is not of so severe a character. The auditors say further:	-
(2.) The dockage is not stated in fractions. For instance, if the inspection showed a percentage of foreign matter of from 2% to 3% a dockage of 3% would he placed on the car.
Of course that would he another source from which the elevators would earn a dockage. Let us suppose that the actual dockage was 2J per cent. As a matter of fact the dockage would foe three per cent in the inspection report, whereas in actual practice the elevator, would not find that quantity of deleterious matter to clean from the wheat, and of course that would account, theoretically at least, for the difference between two and seven-eighths per cent and three per cent. The report goes on -to say:
(3.) While the percentage of dockage placed on the car, as the -wheat arrives at the elevator, is estimated to eliminate all foreign matter, it is a fact that the grain leaving the elevators contains a certain small proportion of dust, although the grain is " commercially clean." '
That is, the inspection at the terminal elevator is not so severe and thorough as the inspection at Winnipeg. The auditors go on to say:
(4.) It was noticed that the overages occurred chiefly in the higher grades of wheat. An explanation which has -been offered is that the cars on which the 1% dockage is placed

are mostly of high-grade grain on which the actual dockage -would be less than 1 per cent. It would also seem to be a fact that in an average season the crop is mostly high-grade grain.
(5.) It would appear that under the present tariff any efficiently managed elevator should show an overage. It might be possible for an elevator by not using sufficient care in recovering good grain from its screenings, to show a deficit of grain at the end of the season, but, in such a case, the revenue from screenings should be above normal by reason of a quantity of good grain being left therein, thus commanding a higher price.
Such are the reasons given by the auditors for the creation of these overages. I am not attempting to defend the system; it is an old one that has grown up and it may not be satisfactory to the grain-growing and the elevator interests; but in the past amendments have from time to time been made, and, as I have already stated, in my judgment the time will soon be reached when a cash tariff for elevator services should be put into effect. To that, as previously stated, the elevator people do not object; the only objection I have had to it came from the farming interests in the West, who prefer paying for a part of the elevator charges in this way. As a matter of fact this loss is largely borne by the grain dealers, because I would imagine that in 75 per cent of the cases the farmer sells his wheat to the country elevator, or some grain dealer, and the loss, if any, is not suffered by the farmers, but, in most cases, by the grain dealers.
Mr. ,A. K. MA'CfLEAN: Perhaps three-eighths of one per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps threeeighths of one per cent.
I suppose a great deal more might be said about this matter by me, but I feel there are a great many other gentlemen in the House who understand the subject much better than I do. However, I wish to protest against the suggestion that these overages occur through illegal or dishonest dealings. The Committee at least should not have that impression, and I would submit for its consideration that for the present at least we might make what is probably a step forward this session and fix three-eighths of one per cent as the proportion, instead of one-half of one per cent. Then at the next session of Parliament the matter could be further considered, particularly with the idea of ascertaining what would be the view of the grain producers of the West in the matter of establishing a cash tariff for elevator charges, and abolishing overages altogether.


James Alexander Robb: Of course the minister will always keep in mind that any charges made against the department came from his sup-* porters on that side. We on this side made no charges.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, but my hon. friend left the impression on my mind that the overages were due to the administration of the Act.


Mr. RENDERS:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion this afternoon, and I certainly appreciate very much the fact that we have had hon. members, representing other provinces than those in the West, springing up in this House in defence of the farmers' interests. For a number of years we have been making representations to Parliament asking that arrangements might be made whereby we would obtain something like an equitable method of handling our grain, and we have made progress. It has not been all discouragement that we have met with. Some times the battle has been severe and the progress not very marked, but nevertheless progress has been made-progress that has been of great advantage to the,farmers of the West. A number of statements have been made this afternoon, startling statements, from which it might appear that there were serious difficulties in the way and that great losses have been sustained by a certain class of people by reason ol those difficulties. But, Sir, when you institute an analysis and get down to the real facts in the case, those statements are not as serious as they appear to be on the surface. There is loss, we admit, and we have-felt it all along. For years we have been trying to overcome that loss and we have been moving towards a solution of it, and I am sure the impetus that has been given to the movement to-day will help us materially in getting a more satisfactory adjustment of matters in the future.
Let us look at the situation for a moment. Some years ago we had a warehouse commissioner, whose duty it was to supervise the operation of the warehouses through which this grain passed. We felt at the time that there was a great deal of looseness in connection with the warehousing of the grain, and that opportunities existed in connection with that warehousing for taking from the farmers a percentage of grain of which they should not be deprived. We are now moving towards a system of more definite supervision. Some years ago we secured the appointment of the grain commission with the idea that the work of supervision should be in the hands of men

who had no direct interest whatever in the grain or in the warehouses, and who would carefully watch the operations that took place in connection with those warehouses.


Francis Henry Keefer: When was that commission appointed?


Richard Coe Henders: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like this clause to stand. My attention has been directed to something in the drafting which would make it appear that the clause does not bring about the very thing that I expected it would and I would like a little time to look into it.


James Alexander Robb: You might have a surplus at one elevator and a shortage at another. Is the minister providing for that? There might be a surplus of one grain and a shortage of another and there would be no way of balancing the account.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The idea was that the elevator should remain the- owner of a certain portion of the actual overages and that the rest should go to the Grain Board. If there is a shortage in any one elevator of course there will be no overage. It might be that there will be a shortage in one grain but a surplus in all other grains handled at the elevator and the result will be a net overage. I am very glad that my hon. friend has suggested the matter. It should be thought over a little more careful ly. I am going to allow the section to stand.


William Folger Nickle: I know nothing about the Grain Act but it does occur to me that- if the minister is correct in his statement

that a grain inspector can determine to a nicety what the dockage should be, and if the figures of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. StevenS) are correct as to the percentage of profit that these elevators have made, as to the dockage and otherwise, and if the whole of the expense is paid by the dockage, the Government might well consider a very radical reduction in the amount that the elevators should be allowed to retain. One is staggered by the figures given by the hon. member for Vancouver this afternoon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I propose to move, when the clause is called again:
That all the words after the word "found''. In the twenty-second line down to the fust word In the twenty-fifth line " such " he struck out.
It would then read in this way:
If a surplus in any grade of grain is found such excess surplus shall be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners.
I propose to strike out the words:
-in excess of i of 1 per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in the elevator during the crop year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) was out of the House a moment ago when I was speaking on this clause. I stated to the committee that as far as I could learn the grain growers, or a great number of them, were not favourable to abolishing all overages and establishing a cash operation for elevator charges. I got that impression at least and I cannot accept an. amendment such as the hon. gentleman proposes at this session at least without having an opportunity of learning a little more about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You still have the
screenings.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 5-Board of Grain Appeal:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This clause provides for the establishment of a Board of
Appeal.	,
The member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) referring to this matter the day before yesterday, directed attention to the fact that in the resolution as it first appeared on the Order Paper, Fort William was mentioned as the seat of the board. I trust that I have not been guilty of offending the sensibilities of the people of Fort William, but I must confess to being responsible for the elimination of any mention of Fort William as the seat of proposed Appeal Board. The first draft of the Bill did provide that Fort William
should be the seat of the Appeal Board, but I did not consider it advisable to name any place as the seat of the board; I thought that the matter should be left open to the department, that they should study it carefully and decide whether the board should be located at Winnipeg or at Fort William. Naturally, there is more or less rivalry between these two points; each has its friends.


James Alexander Robb: The information I have from grain men is that very few appeals have been going to the Survey Board. Before we pass legislation creating three new commissioners with salaries and all the necessary staff of private secretaries, stenographers and messengers, the ministers should give us some information as to how many appeals there have been during the last two years and how much work these new commissioners will have to do.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Personally, I have had a great deal of difficulty in reaching the conclusion that it was necessary to have an Appeal Board. However, the view in the West was very strongly in favour of the creation of such a board. The administration of the Grain Act costs the country nothing; in fact I think the treasury has a surplus this year on that account of about $80,000. If the creation of this board will cause the grain producing interests of the West to have greater confidence in the thoroughness of the inspection, I should not be disposed to find fault with the establishment of an Appeal Board. It should not be a very expensive body to carry along; although they must be properly paid, they need not receive very high salaries. At any rate, the grain interests, one way or another, will pay for it; the cost will not fall directly upon the Dominion treasury. The number of surveys held for the year ended August 31, 1918, was, at Winnipeg, 292; at Calgary, 119; >at Toronto, 9; at Montreal, none.


James Alexander Robb: That is a total of 429. If the minister creates a board of three commissioners, expert men, who will devote all their time to this work and thus be prevented from engaging in any other business, he will have to pay them fair salaries. I do not agree with the minister that the cost will not be borne by the country; the expense is upon some one, and it may fall upon the producer. The minister almost committed himself to the view that the creation of this Appeal Board was hardly necessary, and I am inclined to agree with him; he should pause before being stampeded into this course of action. We have heard stories in this House about expert

men being appointed to different positions, but no matter what Government is in power, it is some Government favourite who is lobbying for the position and it is some Government favourite who gets it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that is not correct. The only people who have been pressing for this board are the grain farmers of the Western Provinces; no one else has asked for it.


James Alexander Robb: Well, some of them may have an eye on the plum, though I am not saying they have. Under the present system the members of the Survey Board are appointed, onedialf by the Grain Exchange, the men who handle the grain and who have put their money into the business, and the other half by the Ministers of Agriculture of the provinces which are more particularly interested, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. If that is not satisfactory to the grain growers, what would the minister think of appointing the Grain Commission? We are told that they are not very busy men; let them do this work. We know that some of them are good lawyers, but if they are not expert grain men, let them appoint a Board of Appeal from among their different inspectors. In that way we could work an economy and probably meet the views of the western men who want a change.


Richard Coe Henders: This request came, as the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has said, from the farmers. The farmers did not make the request without giving the matter careful consideration. They experienced some difficulties in connection with the operations of the Survey Board, and after full consideration of the matter they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to have an Appeal Board the members of which would be separated entirely from the men directly interested in the handling of the grain. The Survey Board was not so separated. While they were appointed as my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) states, the members were selected from men who were directly interested and employed in the grain business. It has been felt for years that the farmers have not had that confidence in the Survey Board which would encourage them to make an appeal to that board, even though they felt they were not getting justice. It has been their view that in appealing to this board they were appealing to men who were directly interested and whose decision might be more or less influenced by that interest. In view of this circumstance, and
[Mr. Robb.}
of the experience of Minneapolis in this regard, we felt that we were justified in asking the Government to appoint an Appeal Board which would be Independent of any grain interest and the business of which would be to give that work full and careful attention.
We believe there will be a large number of appeals, when confidence is inspired as to the ability of the Appeal Board to handle this work. As regards the qualifications of the men who shall sit on this board, there is not very much in the remark made by my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Robb), that the farmers may perhaps be looking for a plum on this point. The farmers realize that the man who is going to qualify for this position must be one who has gone up through the different grades, through the inspectorate. To be properly qualified for this work, he must start at the beginning of the business and go up step by step, so that he will have a thorough knowledge of grain, and very few farmers claim that they are in a position to qualify for an appoints ment of that kind. They were not looking to any personal interest when they made this request; they were looking to allay a state of dissatisfaction and unrest that has arisen in the country because they believed the parties on the Survey Board might have a direct interest in the grain they were surveying, and the feeling was that justice might not be done to the producer by that arrangement. Consequently, they had made this request for an Appeal Board. Furthermore, as has bee.n stated by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. A. K. Maclean), there is no reason why this Committee should demur against the establishment of this board. It is no charge on the country; the farmers who are making the request for the board are the ones who are paying and who expect to pay for it.


Air.   McAIASTER@: I do not address the Committee as a man who knows much about grain, but I do address the Committee with the hope of being able to raise again the standard of economy. Any minister of the Crown who spends $100 "or $1,000 of the people's money at this time, unless the need is dire, is derelict in his duty to the Crown and to the people of this country. What is the proposal here? Last year there were 429 appeals. A court is-now proposed to be constituted comprising a chief justice at $7,000 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does the hon. member say?
Mr. MoMASTER:	He will not be called
chief justice-that is metaphorically speak-

ing-he will be called chief commissioner, or some name like that, but he will be the head of this court at $7,000 a year. There will be two puisne judges or assistant commissioners at $5,000 a year. There we have $17,000, and before you give those judges the necessary accommodation to sit in, the necessary deputies, clerks, stenographers, messengers and Stationery, there will be an annual charge to this country of not much less than $50,000. That will be more than $100 for every appeal and under the Act, and the costs which can be collected are not more than $5. I see the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Hen-ders) shaking his head. I would be glad to know in what connection I am wrong.
Is my arithmetic wrong? The hon. member maintains a discreet silence.


Mr. MAH  AEG@: He is waiting for the
hon. member to get through.
Mr. MoMASTER:	The hon. member for
Maple Creek offers some remark. I take it, with those authorities from the West sitting silent, that my arithmetic is right. The minister should be economical. He springs from a race in which extravagance is not a distinguishing feature, and he has had an education which would induce him to have some regard for economy in the spending of the people's money. I make an appeal to the minister-and I hope he will heed itr-to stop this useless extravagance.


John Archibald Maharg: The point is this. If
the hon. members who have spoken against the establishment of this Appeal Board are anxious that the money that should go into the pockets of the farmers, should go into the pockets of millers and grain dealers, all well and good-
Mr. MdMAlSTER:	I rise to a point of
order. The hon. member for Maple Creek has no right to impute unworthy motives to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The interests of the farmers of this country are just as dear to me as they are to the heart of the hon. member for Maple Creek.


John Archibald Maharg: I said if the desire-I
did not impute any motive at all.


Mr. McMASTER:: The inference is there.


John Archibald Maharg: No. I know the desire
of the hon. member is the other way and I want to put him right. If his desire is to be on the side of the grain men and millers particularly, then, of course, he is against the Appeal Board, but if he wants the men who produce the grain to get full
value out of it, we want him to support the establishment of this Appeal Board, because that is what we believe it means.
It is all very well to say that there are only 429 appeals in Canada. I think I gave the reason the other day when I said that the survey board was entirely too cumbersome a board to get together; that time would not permit; that the members were not available; that they were scattered in different parts of the country. For the information of members who are doubtful, we can take Minneapolis, which does not now handle nearly as much grain as Winnipeg. The average number of appeals at Minneapolis runs from 40,000 to 60,000 each year. If a condition like this should arise-and it will arise if we have a sample market established in Winnipeg, we shall be on the same basis as at Minneapolis, and it is because we believe a sample market is coming that we are anxious that this board should be appointed.


Richard Coe Henders: In reply to the hon.
member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) let me say that we are and have been for the last year operating under a War Measures Act, and that has interfered very much with the number of appeals that would have occurred. Let my hon. friend not forget that. Under ordinary circumstances there would have been hundreds and hundreds of appeals, "where there are only a few thi^ year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Calgary Survey Board:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This provides for the continuance of the Survey Board at Calgary for any grain which might be west of that city.


John Archibald Maharg: It seems to me that we are getting along very quickly. I was under the impression that the discussion arose on clause 4.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We passed that.


John Archibald Maharg: I was not aware of it, because I know that I wished to have something to say in regard to clause 5. If it is not out of order, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the method of selection of this Board of Appeal.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am quite sure that by unanimous consent the hon. member will be allowed to refeT back to clause 5, but the discussion will have to take place after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.

After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock. On section 9-annual licenses:


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: I want to insert in this section a paragraph which is now in the Act but which was dropped in the drafting of this section. I therefore move to amend this section by inserting after the word " shall " in the fifth line of the said clause the following sub-paragraph:
"(a) require all track-layers and owners and operators of elevators, warehouses and mills, and all grain commission merchants and primary grain dealers to take out annual licenses " and to re-letter the remaining subsections of said clause.


James Alexander Robb: Will that apply throughout Canada or only to the western division?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Only to the western division.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-examination of witnesses, etc.:	.
John Archibald Maharg: Which hoard is referred to in the phrase " The Board shall "?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Board of Grain Commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I might call the attention of the committee to the fact that " Brimary Grain Dealer " is defined in section 1 as follows:
' Primary Grain Dealer ' means any person, firm or corporation which contracts with the producer to purchase or handle grain for commerce, in any manner for which license (other than a license for a Primary Grain Dealer) is not required under the provisions of this Act.
This is to ensure that the dealer must take out a license and obtain the bond required by statute before he engages in the business.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-delivery of grain deemed a bailment, not a sale:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is merely declaratory of what is now the law.


John Archibald Maharg: It is to prevent grain in special bin being taken possession of and sold, or options purchased against it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Maharg, the Committee reverted to section 5.

On section 5-Board of Grain Appeal:
John Archibald Maharg: There are just two things in this section with which the Canadian Council of Agriculture do not quite agree. There has been sufficient discussion, I think, for the Committee to know just how the Survey Board is appointed, namely, six members by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and six by the Premiers of the western provinces. This section provides that the Board of Appeal shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council, of course, is the proper authority to make the appointment, but we think better results would be obtained if the chairman of the board were appointed upon the recommendation of the Ministers of Agriculture of the Prairie Provinces, and the other two members of the board on the recommendation, respectively, of the Grain Exchanges and the Canadian Council of Agriculture. These would be merely recommendations to the Governor in Council. The other method has worked very satisfactorily, in so far as that was possible, but we think a little latitude should be allowed in recommending the appointees for these positions. I should like to hear what the minister has to say.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The suggestion ol the hon. gentleman had been before me prior to the discussion of this Bill. Personally I think the method here provided is preferable to that he suggests. The Minister of Trade and Commerce at present is responsible for the administration of the Grain Act, and that being so, I think he should be responsible for naming the members of the Appeal Board. As a matter of practice the department would, of course, request all interested bodies to suggest names of persons for appointment to the board, and I think the department would always be found willing to give careful consideration 'to any nominations that might be made by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, the Grain Exchanges, or any other interested parties. The department's only interest would be to see that the appointments made were satisfactory to all interested parties, because if they were not satisfactory, it would simply mean more or less worry and anxiety for the department.
I think, therefore, there should be no difficulty in the Governor in Council making appointments which will be satisfactory to every person concerned. It is a bad practice for outside persons to name the personnel of bodies created by a statute

which is being administered by the Dominion Government. I took this position when some representatives of the 'Council of Agriculture were before me some two or three months ago, and I think they were fairly well satisfied with my suggestion. I would prefer leaving the section as it is.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not want to have to press our views too much, but I think that if we had had the recommending of the Board of Grain Commissioners it would be differently constituted. However, if the minister does not wish to change the section I will not press the matter. With regard to the location of the Appeal Board, this is of more vital importance to us than all the rest of the amendments put together. Failing to have the board located in Winnipeg, we should feel that the amendments were practically of no value to us, It may be possible that we place too much value on ' the Appeal Board, but it is our hope not only that it will achieve success in the matter of the actual inspection of grain, but that, working in conjunction with the laboratory carried on by the department, we shall be able to secure other information which so far has not been available-at least, that has- not been afforded us. We have been trying to get certain information and the laboratory has not been able to furnish it, at least it has not been made public. We would like to have the Appeal Board situated in Winnipeg in order that they may be right on the job where the grain is marketed, sampled and inspected. There is another reason that has not yet been advanced, and that is that we expect, before long, that a very large amount of our grain will go through over the Transcontinental road. In that event it will not go anywhere near Fort William, and once a car leaves Winnipeg on that route it will be beyond the reach of the Appeal Board entirely. I cannot, therefore, see how the Appeal'Board will operate successfully in any place other than where the business is done. If the sample market is established in Winnipeg there will be no possibility of success in having the board anywhere else, as that is where the inspection will be carried on. The inspections will be held continuously throughout the day, the same as in Minneapolis, and under no condition could the work be successfully carried on in any other place than where the grain is inspected. To cover this point I wrould like to move an amendment to subsection 12-or will the minister be disposed to make the change?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I very deliberately declined to state the place of residence of the
board, and I would not be disposed to designate any particular place. I assume my hon. friend was going to move that the clause be amended by stating that the board should be located at Winnipeg?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are just two
places where the board could be established,-Winnipeg and Fort William. Many people claim that Fort William is clearly the only place on the continent for the board, and they talk of the very erroneous views of western members on this question. I suppose it would be possible to find members of the House who would take the very opposite view and say that Winnipeg is the only place. Eventually, when the board is established, it must have a place of residence, and that I think should be determined by the Governor in Council after due investigation. I think the Governor in Council should be trusted in the matter. We shall make ample investigation before that determiiiation is reached, and altogether I think it would be better not to have the place designated in the statute.


Mr. MANION:: I shall not take up much time on the question now. I spent twenty minutes the other day in laying before the House certain arguments which it will take the minister some time to read if he did not listen to them on that occasion. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Maharg) states that the sample market is to be at Winnipeg, and I want to call his attention to the fact that a sample market is to be at Fort William also. By statute a sample market is established at Fort William as well as at Winnipeg, and if the argument in regard to the sample market holds good for Winnipeg it holds good for Fort William also. I laid before the House the other day letters from transportation and grain men and farmers advocating Fort William, so that the hon. gentleman's dogmatic assertion that Winnipeg is the only place for the board is open to question, I think the minister's position is the right one and this matter should be left to the Governor in Council to decide.


Richard Coe Henders: I desire to put before
the minister the views of farmers of the West on that point. I contend that they are the ones who are directly interested in this grain until it passes out of their hands. It is their property and until it goes out of their hands they ought te/have something to say with regard to the methods used in handling it. Having fully con-

.sidered the matter the local associations have made pronouncement on this question, and are unanimous as to where the board should be located. They are in touch with the very source of the grain. The matter has been carried from there to the district organization, which is a larger body, and they have also dealt with it. Thence it has gone to the provincial organization, which has also reached a decision; and all these, through the Canadian Council, have come to a definite conclusion in the matter. They concur in the opinion that so far as farmers directly interested in the grain are concerned, Winnipeg is the only place in which to have the board. If I had to make a choice to-night between the Appeal Board located at Fort William and the Survey Board as it is located at Winnipeg, I would consider it in the interests of the proper handling of grain in Canada to retain the Survey Board rather than take the Appeal Board at Fort William.
Mr. M1 AN ION:	The hon. member says
that the farmers are the people who are altogether interested in the wheat. The hon. member for Maple Creek (iMr. Maharg) agreed with me when this subject was last under discussion a few days ago that fifty per cent at least of wheat is sold by the farmer at the loading platform or the country elevator. That is on Hansard. In view of that fact does the hon. member (Mr. Henders) not think that fifty per cent of those interested in grain are other than farmers?


Richard Coe Henders: That does not affect
the case in the slightest. That grain is not settled for until it goes through certain processes. It must go through Winnipeg and get a certificate, and it is handled more quickly and directly in Winnipeg than anywhere else. The inspection by that board is not an additional sample; it is on the work already done by these samplers. This Appeal Board deals with appeals against the inspector's work and consequently it must be on the same sample that the inspectors had, and no other. The owner of the grain has the right, if he is dissatisfied, to have it re-sampled at Fort William. That takes time, and in very few cases is it necessary. But ninety per cent of the work done will be based on the same sample taken by the samplers originally.
, Mr. MAHARG: It is perfectly true that approximately 50 per cent of the farmers . grain is sold before it reaches Winnipeg; 
.but that is absolutely no argument that the Appeal Board should be located in any .other place than Winnipeg.
The farmer has every opportunity of having every bushel of that grain, if he is not satisfied with the inspection, forwarded to Winnipeg to be inspected. In fact all of it that is sold on the track is inspected at Winnipeg. In the case of grain that is sold by the load the farmer also has a right to take a sample of that grain and have it surveyed at Winnipeg if he likes. As I say, the two arguments presented by the hon. gentleman have absolutely no bearing on the matter at all. What the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) has said correctly represents the feeling. Furthermore, it is urged in a letter which I have just received that rather than have the board go to Fort William we would like to have the proposal withdrawn altogether and leave matters as they are under the old Survey Board. There is no division of opinion among the Western farmers on the subject, absolutely none. We have no interest in the city of Winnipeg. The persons we are interested in are the farmers back in the country. Then, as to what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) says about the receipt by him of letters from farmers, if it had been a matter of getting letters from farmers' organizations all over the country we could have procured such numbers that the minister would have to have them brought in in a wheelbarrow. We speak for the farmers throughout our organization numbering some 75,000 or 80,000. I would like to know the proportion of farmers' local associations that were appealed to to support this change, otherwise we cannot take it for granted that there are very many in favour of it.. The fact that there are one or two ought to show that there is no demand for it.


Robert James Manion: I want to assure the hon. gentleman that there were more than two.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not want to press my views at all, but we feel very strongly in this matter. I do not want to be obstinate but that is the way we look at the matter. We would much prefer, if the minister cannot see his way clear to accept our request, to have the thing withdrawn altogether and leave matters with the old Survey Board as now constituted.
Mr. A. K. MAiCLEAN: The hon. gentleman will see how difficult it is for me to determine where the board should be located, whether at Winnipeg or Fort William, without having an opportunity of

hearing all that is to be said in favour of either place, then weighing the evidence, and reaching a proper conclusion. I thought the only fair way to deal with the matter was to provide for the establishment of the board, and give power to the Governor in Council to determine the location later, after looking into the subject. I can assure my hon. friend that every consideration will be paid to all interests in the matter, and the Governor in Council will not reach a conclusion without looking into it very carefully.


John Archibald Maharg: The original amendments to the Grain Act that were presented to the House provided for the location at Fort William, so that evidently somebody had taken action in order to reach that decision. It does not seem to me that the argument of the minister about not having time to consider this matter is altogether conclusive, when the original resolution placed on the order paiper a few days ago specified the city of Fort William.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I believe that, is quite correct. That, however, was some months ago, and as soon as I saw the, draft of the Bill to which the hon. gentleman refers, I immediately determined we would not fix the place by statute.


John Archibald Maharg: The minister said there were only two places to choose from and that it should not be fixed by statute, but he has fixed the city of Calgary by statute. I think provision should have been made at other places. There are two other points where, if we are to trade with the United States, much more grain will come through than at Calgary. The minister's argument is not conclusive that the location of the Appeal Board should not be fixed by statute, when he has determined upon Calgary as one of the places.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is quite true that Calgary was fixed before, but that was done in order to secure inspection of grain bound for the Pacific Coasr-, not for American. shipment. At least that is my understanding of the matter.


James Alexander Robb: Are we to understand from the dialogue between the minister and the western representatives that this is going to be a movable commission, that it will spend so many months in Fort William and Port Arthur and so many months in Winnipeg?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman must not get that impression.


Jacques Bureau: It will be an immovable commission.


Richard Coe Henders: I have additional matter to bring before the committee, arising out of amendments to the Grain Act. There has been a strong feeling growing up in the West against certain practices that have obtained in connection with the handling of our grain on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. In order to correct these practices the Grain Growers last winter introduced legislation into the provincial house, thinking that was the proper place to apply to for a remedy. Upon the introduction of the Bill, however, it was found to be ultra vires, and they were assured that the matter should be dealt with in the Federal Parliament, it being interprovincial, or rather federal, in its character. The Canadian Council, having considered the matter fully, decided that it should be brought before this House in connection with the amendments to the Grain Act. Consequently, that is my reason for bringing the subject up at this time. It was thought at first that a Bill covering the whole question should be introduced, but upon reconsideration it was decided that the best way to proceed would be through amendments to the Grain Act. Under the circumstances, I wish to place before the committee a statement, following that up by a recommendation that we have to offer. In order to be as concise and brief as possible, I would like to present our view's on this question in manuscript form:
Speculation in Wheat.
For some years the protest against questionable kinds of speculation in wheat has been widespread and persistent. This protest had reached an acute stage hy the end of the year 1915, and producers of grain, through their various organizations, were making strenuous efforts to have this abuse controlled1. Conditions changed at that time, which change was brought about by the war, making it necessary to establish a fixed price for grain. With the fixed price there came also a regulation of charges to be paid to grain handlers in order that a reasonable living might be given to all parties directly Interested in the* handling of grain, while at the same time it precluded the possibility of speculation. In this way the pernicious practice which was. in vogue, and which was the cause of such serious complaint amongst producers, was eliminated, and because of these fixed prices the evil referred to has been obliterated. Now the war is over, and there is an agitation for a return to old conditions by the re-establishment of an open market, it is very desirable that such legislation be introduced, as will guard against the evils that had grown up to which I have already referred.
To quote from the views expressed by the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association at their convention, I give you the following:-

" Viewing with a large measure of concern the restoration of conditions which make possible speculation in the handling of our chief food products, this association desires to call the attention of the Government to the serious evil which has crept in along these lines, and to ask that provision be made in the Grain Act that will eliminate this improper speculation."
The United Farmers of Alberta express the same concern and desire to voice their protest against " scalpers and speculators taking toll which frequently amounts to more than the profits of the producer." They demand that legislation be .passed confining the dealing in all exchanges and elsewhere to cash grain and sales for actual future delivery of grain and grain products1; and that steps he taken to provide the necessary credit to finance all farmers who have grain for sale until such time as it is possible for them to market the same. To speak more specifically, this concern is not a matter of narrow prejudice against a usage which may be comparatively harmless. It is the protest of a large proportion of our people, including many who are thoroughly familiar with the conditions and who know the nature and the effects of the evil against which they protest. It is a protest against a spurious form of business which has been preying upon the legitimate grain business of the country and has come to constitute a serious blot upon the business and general life of our times.
What, then, are some of the things against which protest is made? Negatively, we do not protest against nor make an attack upon, the Grain Exchange. With the important and legitimate work carried on by the Grain Exchange there is a very strong desire to co-operate. It is the illegitimate and indefensible modes of dealing that in some cases are carried on in connection with the exchange that are aimed at. The exchange itself, for the protection of its legitimate operations, should be the strongest supporter of this1 contention; and many of the members of the Exchange are co-operating with us in the desire to overcome this difficulty. We are not attacking those legitimate and common forms of dealing in grain known as "hedging." It is recognized that hedging is a necesary and perfectly legitimate practice. Nothing therefore that may ibe said in support of my proposal has any reference to that practice. There is no intention or desire that it should in any way be interfered with. Let that fact he fully recognized.
The thing complained of is the speculative trading in futures in which there is no actual or potential exchange of values, which often does not in any sense or in any degree represent actual wheat; the paying of a sum to be treated rffe a " margin " and the adding to that sum as the market advances in order to hold the " deal," and the frequent manipulation of the market which is occasioned in connection with these operations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The association protests against this because it is stock jobbing?


Richard Coe Henders: It is not jobbing at all; it is speculation in margins. They put up a small sum of money and speculate in margins.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the
Grain Exchange is in sympathy with the demand made by the farmers?


Richard Coe Henders: Some of the members
are, but the exchange as a whole are not.


Jacques Bureau: The complaint is against certain associations who deal in grain in connection with the Grain Exchange?


Richard Coe Henders: Certain practices which have grown upon the Grain Exchange.


Jacques Bureau: Would the hon. gentleman give me a concrete case, as an example, so that I might better understand the
matter?


Richard Coe Henders: Parties go upon the
market, simply put up a certain amount of money, so many cents a bushel, and deal in margin. If the grain goes up they put in more, while, if the grain goes down, they reverse the operation. They are simply speculating in margin, they have no grain, no intention of having grain but, by their manipulation of the market, we contend that they mislead the public in regard in grain values. The statement I was reading proceeds:
It has for years1-apart from the Period ol fixed prices-(been the common experience that when the wheat 'begins to come in in quantity early in the season there are those who find it to their advantage to use every effort to depress the market; and the " hammering " process *begins and is usually effective in running the price down, to the disadvantage of the producer. The chief burden of this depression is borne by the farmer who is hard up-the man who is starting or who has not yet secured stable financial standing and must dispose of his crop to meet current debts. The fact that he is compelled to take a price often ten cents a bushel lower than would otherwise foe paid is tremendously important to him. The well-established or wealthy farmer who can hold his grain for a later rise in price is not so seriously affected; but the man who has difficulty in keeping his head above water has his lot made very hard by this operation.
It may be argued that there usually is a lowering process which occurs naturally when a large quantity of grain comes on the market: but the artificial hammering of the market by a gang pf irresponsible speculators with the sole object of raking off for themselves a maximum profit is the evil of which we complain, and the nature of this evil is very serious. It is1 not to be wondered at that the elimination of this class of so-called purchasers is urgently demanded by the producer. The only wonderful thing in the situation is that there are still to be found some men who support and defend their retention in the business system of the country. This system of speculation is equally objectionable from the moral point of view. It enables individuals who have no interest in the grain trade hut a gambling interest to draw out of it hundreds or even thousands of dollars for which they have given no value either in grain or in service; and from other individuals it takes hundreds or thousands of dollars for which no value is given-in other words, they are robbed of the money they put into it. It may be serve that it serves them right; they should not be so foolish as to be led into this

game. The answer is that no community has any right to permit in connection with any legitimate business the existence of anything that constitutes a standing temptation to many individuals-a temptation which many of them are unable to resist. The argument in this respect is exactly parallel to that used in connection with the existence of the licensed bar. This was an institution which constituted a standing temptation to many individuals, a temptation under which many of them fell; and the movement for abolition of the bar was strongly supported by the contention that no community had any right to tolerate such a mantrap. As a result the bar has been banished, and, it is to be hoped, permanently.
Numbers of grain men who know the whole grain business say that they would just as soon advise a young man to start the whiskey habit as they would advise him to begin option operations on the Grain Exchange. They claim that these operations were of exactly the same type from a moral point of view as betting on horse racing, and quite as demoralizing ; and the map who begins it is in a fair way to go directly and rapidly to utter ruin. The victim sees somebody clean up in a single deal a few hundred or a thousand dollars. He is convinced there is a good chance of making " easy money." He has no intention of going into it heavily or permanently ; he thinks he can try it for once and he puts in a few dollars. If he loses he tries again. If he wins he is encouraged to make another attempt. He goes in deeper- often he is tempted to use money other than his own and in scores of cases his moral sense is utterly ruined and he is willing to do anything in which there is any hope of getting somebody's money for himself.
Here is an example:-A farmer goes in and expects to help out his income by gathering in a few hundreds or thousands. Instead he loses a few hundreds. He has sense enough to pull out and to keep out, but the inordinate greed of gold and the desire to make up his loss has gripped him hard, and the next thing is he is caught seeking to cheat another farmer out of $*200 on a carload of cattle, his moral sense is so ruined by his experience in grain speculation. Here is another:	A man has run upon
unusually good fortune and cleans up several thousand dollars. He thinks he is satisfied, but the temptation returns. He goes in again and loses all. He is sure he can make it again. He borrows a little here and a little there. He goes in heavily with others' money. There is no come-back. In despair, he turns on the gas jet and ends his life.
A third example: An experienced grain dealer owres a certain firm $50,000. One day he comes into the office and asks for $25,000 more. The firm asks why. He answers that with it he can win back and pay up his debt. After a sleepless night the manager decides to advance it. In a few days the dealer comes back and1 pays in the $75,000; but the firm is wise enough to remark at once, "That is the last money you will have from us." Common report has it that the next gamble of that dealer was in the erection of a provincial parliament building.
Another example: A young man makes $5,000 in land. He is advised that there is a system by which he cannot fail to win out on the Exchange. He studies the system. He is sure it is infallible. He puts in his money and loses it, and is soon anxiously hunting up the Attorney General, who, he expects, will get it back for him. It may be said he wTas a fool; perhaps he was; but that is no reason why toleration should be extended to a species of vicious speculation which exists to ruin just such fools.
A last example: A young farmer came down a few years ago and cleaned up $3,(MM). Visiting at a friend's home he was strongly advised to get away and tamper no more with the business. He declined the advice and in two days lost the whole. He then went home and next season returned with a sum of money in his pocket>
He had decided to risk that amount and no more. He went in and at first lost, but later gathered in some $4,000 or $4,500. Again he plunged, and in a few days went home several hundred dollars in debt.
These are simply a handful of examples out of scores and hundreds which might be cited; and it is the present system of unchecked speculation which makes these examples possible. I wish to say that the system which makes that kind of thing possible, and not only possible but probable and easy for some men, is an outrage on honest business, a foul blot upon twentieth century morality, a monstrous and crying evil that should not be tolerated for a day. I have to say that the man who knowing the necessary concomitance and effects of the system still continues to support and defend it has a code of ethics which is utterly unintelligible from the point of view of square dealing and common business honour. This system of speculation ought to be opposed from every point of view. It has nothing to commend it. It belongs to a condition of things which we should have outgrown. Its spirit is the spirit of the get-rich-quick artist. Its tendency is to belittle and scorn the just methods of regular business. It belongs to the age of the western mining camp and the gambler's den. It forgets that we have entered a new century, with saner ideas, nobler purposes and higher justice. It is a blot on twentieth century business and should be abolished.
I am opposed to it because it seeks to rob the farmer, and what injures the farmer strikes at the well-being of the nation. I am opposed to" it because it tempts men to evil and drives them to ruin. I am opposed to it because I believe nine-tenths of the people of this country are opposed to it. If it could be submitted to a vote of the people-the common, plain-minded honest-purposed people of the country-I am convinced without any suspicion of a doubt that they would banish it absolutely and at once.
The statement is sometimes made that the speculative system does not affect the farmers, and some of the advocates of the system will even go so far as to say that the farmers profit by it. I have already made reference to the fact that the farmer is directly affected by the process of hammering the market in the fall months, and that the farmer who is affected is the farmer who is least able to bear it. In addition to that it should also be mentioned that during the years immediately preceding the stopping of speculation by establishing a fixed price there was a rapid increase in the number of farmers who were getting into the habit of going down to the city and spending weeks or months in hanging round the exchange and participating as free lances in the trading there. There are many who lost and some who gained. The total effect was in no sense advantageous, and the loss in moral deterioration was one to be regretted from every point of view.
The farming population are the losers in the long run both in finance and in morals.

This practice had become very serious some few years ago. Bucket shops were opened in the different towns all through the western provinces; blackboards were put up, and this kind of gambling was carried on. We were able to exert sufficient influence to cause these places to be closed up and the operations to be confined to the Grain Exchange. We hoped that we would be able to eliminate the outside element that was operating in this connection, and thus prevent the masses of the people from being contaminated or endangered by this business. What was the result? Instead of trading out in the country, they came by scores, even by hundreds, to the Grain Exchange, and it was no uncommon thing to look up at the gallery and see them there, with their eye on the blackboard, watching every trade. All this is injurious in its influence and its tendency. These men were not spending their time profitably; they should have been engaged in production; they should have been taking care of their stock and making ready for next year's crop. These practices are a blight on our whole system of trading.
The objection is urged that the elimination of speculation would have the effect of restricting and narrowing the market, that the freedom and facilities of trading would be seriously interfered with. It is said that buyers not having the present freedom of selling would have to buy on a wider margin and the price to the farmer would be lower.
The answer to this question is not far to seek. The market will have all the actual grain that it had before. There will still be all the opportunity for selling that is warranted by the actual grain supply, and so far from being a disadvantage the nearer approach to actuality will make for greater fairness all round, since there will be no fictitious values, fictitious wheat, or fictitious deals, to complicate the situation. The trading will be on the basis of the actual conditions and not on the basis of millions which have no existence. That is the kind of condition and the kind of business which honest men desire for their trading.
As regards the lowering of price necessitated by the narrow market, it is enough to say that the lowering will never be great enough to equal the loss through the hammering of the market which is the constant practice of the speculating class of grain dealers. No grain man of reputation will voice the opinion that a loss of equal magnitude will be incurred
It is possible that with regard to this the position may be taken that has been taken [DOT]before-that it is a very complex matter, and that only the few-those who have been personally in touch with the trade-are qualified to express an opinion. With that view I take direct and unequivocal issue. It is quite true that some phases of the business as it is carried on to-day are obscure and even mysterious ; but it is not true that the general principles of grain dealing are beyond the comprehension of the average man. The principles involved are principles which obtain in

other lines of business. The effects of this undesirable form of trading are abundantly manifest, and the average man has a perfect right to demand that means be taken to avoid and prevent these results. I take the ground that if the transactions are so mysterious that any man cannot pronounce upon them, then the time is ripe for cutting out all the mystery and putting the grain business back on the simple basis of value given for value received.
I wish to present the following as a resolution of the difficulties enunciated and discussed in the remarks I have just presented :
(1)	No person shall hereafter contract or agree, whether orally or in writing, for the sale for future delivery of wheat or any other grain or any product of grain wherein the actual delivery of the commodity sold is not in good faith contemplated or intended by the contracting parties, and any such contract or agreement shall be null and void.
(2)	In any prosecution under this section, evidence that the seller does not have in his possession, actually or potentially, the commodity sold, or that it is contemplated iby the parties-
(a)	that an option only to purchase the commodity is conveyed by the seller ; or
(b)	that from time to time money shall be advanced by the buyer or seller as margins in case of an advance or fall in the market price of the commodity; or
(c)	that settlement, either partial or complete, shall be made by the parties before the time for delivery expires, upon the basis of a payment of the difference between the contract price and the market price of the commodity sold,
shall establish a prima facie case that the contract is in violation of the provisions of subsection one, of this section.
(3)	This section shall not be construed to prohibit the owner, manager, or the duly appointed officer or employee of any elevator of* elevator company, warehouse or mill, or the owner of grain or his agent, from buying or selling grain, or any product thereof, in good faith for future delivery on the open market, to protect purchases or sales made by him or it in the usual or regular course of its business in handling grain, or the products thereof.
(4)	Any person, whether acting individually or as a member of a firm or as an officer or employee of any corporation,. who shall be found guilty of being a party, either directly or indirectly, either as principal, agent, or broker, to any contract made in violation of subsection one hereof shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or more than one thousand dollars, and, in default of payment of any such fine, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
The purpose I have in view is to eliminate that spurious speculation on the grain exchange. I think the argument put forward should convince the average man here that we are not trying to interfere with, but that we are endeavouring to encourage, grain business along every legitimate line, so that the most can be made out of it. As producers of grain, we claim

that these practices that have crept in are injurious to us and are a moral blot on the people of this country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not thoroughly acquainted with the question of the operations of the grain exchange; indeed, the fact of the matter is that my experience has been very limited as regards the operations of any exchange. The hon. member has brought, forward a question that is not a new one, namely, speculative dealing in shares. That question has been raised in every country, I suppose, at one time or another, and frequently legislation has been introduced attempting to control such speculative dealing. I am not very hopeful of that Utopian period ever arriving when you can absolutely prevent speculative dealing in shares on margin or otherwise. In the western country from which my hon. friend comes, I have not the slightest doubt, there are as many men ruined and, perhaps, as many suicides over dealing in land as there have been over dealing in shares on the exchange. Speculation is speculation, no matter what the thing is you are buying or selling. When I say this, however, I do not pretend to say that my hon. friend's argument this evening is not without merit. In the first place, I would be disposed to doubt very much the jurisdiction of this Parliament to prohibit speculative dealing or trading in shares. The fact of the matter is that grave doubt exists as to whether this Parliament had jurisdiction to enact the Grain Act. When you are dealing in shares, whether upon margin or by actual purchase or sale, you are dealing in property, that is, in something which represents title to some property. That, I think, would be a matter which would fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. But I have not given it any consideration, .and I am not expressing a definite opinion.


Richard Coe Henders: Supposing I were dealing in shares and the shares were represented by a certificate. A certificate must represent value in some way or other. How can you get value for a certificate when you handle 100,000,000 bushels of grain in a day and the total actual grain handled in that day may not amount to more than 10,000,000 bushels?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose if all the purchasing orders on a grain exchange in one day were to be filled, it would be difficult to find the grain, and I presume, on many days that is true. I just want to point out to my hon. friend first that there
is grave doubt as to the jurisdiction of this Parliament to legislate upon the subject. At the moment, speaking offhand, I do not believe we have jurisdiction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Unless we make it a criminal offence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Unless we make it a criminal offence, yes. Dealing in futures in grain has some advantages. For instance, no Canadian miller will go out on the market and sell flour in advance unless he has been able to purchase grain at a certain price covering the period in which he purposes selling his flour. There are certain months of the year in which he cannot buy the actual wheat, and he goes upon the grain exchanges and he buys wheat months ahead at a certain price; and knowing the price the wheat will cost him and the cost of converting that wheat into flour, he can proceed to sell flour to the trade months ahead. If he were not able to do this, that would be a great disadvantage to the miller and possibly a great disadvantage to the public. Furthermore, as my hon. friend has admitted, we have at Winnipeg what is known as " hedging," which is dealing in futures. It takes a great deal of money to handle the grain crop of
Canada from the first of Septem-
9 p.m. ber until the beginning of spring.
I should imagine that the grain dealers in the city of Winnipeg have more than the entire capital of the Canadian banks lent to them at one time or another -probably there would be a peak load, anywhere from $100,060,000 to $150,000,000. This is a very large amount to be involved in trading in grain, and the banks, to protect themselves, insist upon the practice of hedging, which, as I understand it, is this, that every time a customer of a bank sells wheat upon the exchange, he must buy	the same quantity,
and similarly if he buys he must sell. My hon. friend says that is all right. I think it is all right myself, because if this practice did not prevail I do not think the banks would give the credit they do to the grain dealers of Winnipeg, and if the grain dealers of Winnipeg did not get these vast credits it would adversely affect the commercial interests of the country. I fail to see any difference between hedging and speculative buying. I admit that in hedging the intention of the buyer or seller is different from that of the man who is buying or selling shares on margin.
My hon. friend was good enough to mention this matter to me a few. days ago, and



to say that he wished it discussed upon the second reading of this Bill. I then informed him, as I do now, that I should not like to consider his suggestion at the present time, for two reasons: First, I doubt our jurisdiction in the matter, and, secondly, it is extremely doubtful whether it would be wise for us to attempt to legislate upon the subject. At all events, I should not like to commit myself to it without knowing very much more about the matter than I do at the present time, and without giving it a great deal of serious study. I think it would be a very serious matter, indeed, for us to consider legislation of this kind at this time. I am sure the committee appreciates very much, indeed, the motive of my hon. friend in bringing this matter up for consideration, and I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen feel that his contention is not without some merit. However, I do not think it is a fair subject for legislation at . the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 138, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 4-special certificate in case oi doubt.
Jacques Bureau: When the Bill was. in committee the other day I submitted to the Solicitor General the case, for instance, of a child born of a Canadian father in the United States who had become a citizen of that country and who afterwards came back to Canada and was re-naturalized as a British subject. I asked what citizenship the child would have if he came of age while his father was on Canadian soil and a British subject, and the answer was that this case is provided for subsequently. Now I think we should enumerate all possible cases so that there shall be no doubt as to the nationality of a man. I also urged that a certificate of naturalization should not be granted to a man from a couniry under whose laws he could not foreswear allegiance to that country. I cannot see what cases these special certificates are intended to cover. There should be no doubtful cases. We have a law that says under certain conditions a man can become naturalized. When those conditions do not exist he should not become naturalized. I do not think there is

a doubtful case unless it is a political case, that could not be provided for in the law. The conditions should be determined by statute.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This section has been the law for a long time in this country.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an answer. We are consolidating our laws on this subject, and we should make them better if we can.


Hugh Guthrie: My remarks were a mere preliminary. There ' are many cases in which it is very difficult to state definitely just what citizenship a man is entitled to claim-cases, for instance, arising from the fact that we have wars and treaties and conquests, or arising out of questions of marriage and divorce, where and when the ceremonies took place, cases of children born on British ships in foreign waters, or on foreign ships in British waters. Serious doubt arises in many of these cases, and the courts are not always able to determine them. In cases of this kind power is given under this section to the Secretary of State to grant a certificate to remove the doubt, if he is satisfied as to all the other requirements and conditions- The saving clause is that if he does grant a certificate it is not an admission that the person to whom it was granted was not previously a British subject. There may have been rights or obligations which had arisen prior to the granting of the certificate, and those rights or obligations would not be interfered with.


Jacques Bureau: Some of these cases are already provided for in the Bill-the birth of a child on a British ship in foreign waters, for instance.


Hugh Guthrie: I merely instanced that as a difficult case. In case of doubt or difficulty power is given to the Secretary of State to settle that doubt.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, "in his absolute discretion." The same objection that I made the other day applies in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: In a doubtful case a man cannot demand a certificate, the certificate is a discretionary grant.


Jacques Bureau: The doubt may be in favour of the contention that he is a British subject; but supposing the doubt is the other way?
Mr. GU*THRIE: Then I suppose the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion would refuse a certificate. There are people who have no knowledge as to their own nationality or what claims they

have to citizenship-people whose parents are dead or around whose birth there are peculiar circumstances, people who have been removed from the country of their birth at early ages and transplanted in another country. They have nothing but hazy ideas of what others told them-and a real doubt exists. In cases of that kind discretion is vested, under this Section, in the Secretary of State.


Jacques Bureau: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend uses a very broad expression in regard to a statute which is relatively new, when he says it is " the old law.' It is a law of yesterday, but the old law left in the hands of tlhe judiciary the question of naturalization.


Mr. JACOBS:: Before 1915.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before 1915, and before 1914. In 1913, if I remember well, when the question came up in the House and the Bill was piloted by the present Minister of Justice, strong exception was taken to his departure from very ancient usage. The answer then was that naturalization was, above all things, the gift of the state and that the state ought to be the absolute master of the certificates of citizenship. I well recollect that some hon. gentlemen on both sides, including the late leader of the Liberal party, protested strongly against handing over to hon. ministers of the Crown the power of declaring who should and who should not be British citizens. In reverting to the ancient usage, the old custom of leaving the matter in the hands of a judge
or judges, my hon. friend would not be decreasing the power of the State, because the Government of the country is composed of three elements: the executive, the legislative and the judicial powers. There are some matters which necessarily, by the consensus of opinion, should be in the hands of the judiciary. I might mention a custom which was followed in the old days. My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) was not then a member of the House, nor was I. His father was before him, and I must say that he was one of the great hopes- of both his party and the country when he was a member of the House of Commons. When my hon. friend's father was a member of the House election cases were fought out before a Committee of the House, and historic cases came before the Controverted Elections Committee. I have one in mind, the famous election of Kamouraska, now represented by our genial friend the present member (Mr. Lapointe). At two or three elections, polls could not be held. The electors were disfranchised by most corrupt machinations, and the late Luc Letellier de St. Just, who was once governor of Quebec, had to protest the election of his opponent, the late Mr. -Chapais. Ac. according to the custom prevailing at that time, the question was handed over to the Elections Committee of the House of Commons. That custom of having controverted elections decided by a Committee of the House had existed in England before and had been adopted in Canada. But soon it was discovered that in a matter of that kin-d, involving hitter political issues, naturally, whatever might be the decision of the Committee, there -would be no satisfaction to either party. I believe both sides of the House will understand why. The Conservatives as well as the Liberals of the day were not satisfied, and by unanimous consent the only wise step was taken in handing over all those election cases to the courts of the land. The Government, or the. State, did not subject itself to any diminution of its power, because the judicial power is an integral part of the power of the State. Since that time all election protests have been decided by the courts of the land instead of by a Committee of the House of Commons. I claim- and I am fortified in my belief by recent events-that by leaving it in the hands of a minister of the Crown who, however respectable and respected he may be, is after all a political creature, to decide whether A, B, or C is entitled to British citizenship is distinctly dangerous and is not in the

interests of the country. On the contrary, it is creating a bias in the minds of unprejudiced people against the authority of the Government to leave in the hands of a political party so important a decision as to whether or not a man is entitled to British citizenship. Therefore, before going any further with this section I think my hon. friend should take the liberal view, and I qualify this by adding, the British view, of this question.
Do not let a political party be the master of the distribution of naturalization papers. My hon. friend, I say it again, used a very broad expression a moment ago to qualify what is an event of very recent date. It was a reactionary measure, and was passed only a few years ago, when the Government took away from the judges of the land the power to grant naturalization certificates. Even though I would seriously question the advisability of doing it, I am ready to admit that during the war the Government might take upon itself the issuance or the non-issuance of naturalization papers; but that has not even been necessary during war time, because all relations with the enemy cease to exist during a period of war. But once peace has been proclaimed, when once the Treaty of Peace is signed, why should the Government take those arbitrary powers unto itself? I urge again on my hon. friend the advisability of thinking this matter over and not taking away from the courts of the land-because that was the old law, that was the ancient usage -that power and transferring it to a minister of the Crown. I urge that without any desire to reflect in any way upon the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) who is not only a persona] friend but is respected by both sides of the House, and I think enjoys the confidence of the country. I say to my hon. friend, do not leave such a serious matter, which involves the greatest rights that a citizen can enjoy, in the hands of a politician, respected and respectable as he may be. We should have confidence in the courts of the land. There is no reason whv we should not respect the judiciary. We may, for reasons I have already adduced before the House, question some other important estates of the land, but as regards the judiciary we all respect it. The people have confidence in the judges. Therefore, do not curtail the powers, the ancient powers, of the judiciary with regard to naturalization.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I take exactly the opposite view of this

clause from that of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, I would expect that.


James Arthurs: I represent a county which has a large foreign population, and I have been up against some difficulties with regard to naturalization.


Samuel William Jacobs: No doubt that is why.


James Arthurs: The reason why, I might say, is this,: In the old days, in the province of Ontario, when the administration of provincial affairs was in the hands of gentlemen of the same political faith as hon. gentlemen opposite, I knew of cases where hundreds: of men in my county were taken before a magistrate and were sworn in accordance with the customary oath of allegiance that obtained in Ontario. That magistrate handed them a little slip declaring that they had been properly sworn, and those men believed they were then British subjects, until the advent of this' war, when they found themselves disfranchised and not British subjects as, they believed they were. Now, take other cases. The judges, or some officials who act under the machinery of the courts, are a little lax, for I know of cases in my district, not one but many of them, of men having gone through all the. forms necessary, had sworn the necessary affidavits which had been forwarded to the court officials, and these men were firmly of the opinion that they were properly naturalized. But the matter never went any further, and when, after the passage of the War-Time Elections Act these men applied to the Secretary of State, they found that their naturalization had never been recorded. I tell my hon. friends opposite,, therefore, that I am in favour of this Bill for exactly the opposite reason they thought when I started to speak. I am anxious to protect these men who in good faith attempted to become British subjects, and I believe the taking out of naturalization papers can be worked much more satisfactorily through the Secretary of State or other authority, rather than by court officials who have shown themselves guilty of laxity. They are the men who are responsible for these naturalization proceedings. not being carried to a proper conclusion in the cases I have cited of these men who wrongly believed they were British subjects. I believe this to be a step in the right direction in the interest of the foreigner who is anxious to become a cit-i-

zen oi this country and to become properly naturalized.


Hugh Guthrie: While there may be some force in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) has said on the general question of submitting such action to the courts,
1	do not believe the question properly arises
under the section we are considering. I do not suppose the provisions of this section would be invoked more than once in twelve months. It is only in cases of doubt, and they would be extremely rare. Especially would the aid of this section probably be invoked where there is litigation as to property, where the rights of inheritance were involved, or something of that kind. When we pass to the general section I have no doubt the criticism in which my hon. friend has indulged might be very properly made. The .hon. gentleman asks:	"Why not adopt
the British system?" Well it has been adopted here, clause by clause, word for word. The clause under discussion is in .clause 4 of the British Act and it is in part
2	of the British Act. The British Act says .that we must adopt part 2 of that Act if our .certificates are to have any force or value .outside of Canada. As I explained upon the last occasion when the Bill was before the committee, one principal idea is to have .a uniform system of naturalization not .only in Great Britain but throughout all the self-governing Dominions. The British Act expressly declares that the British .Parliament cannot, and it does not intend to, in any way abridge the right of selfgoverning Dominions to pass such laws in respect to naturalization as they desire; .but in order to gain recognition for certi-.flcates which we may grant outside of our own territorial jurisdiction, we must comply .with part 2 of the British Act. This clause 4 is exactly word for word the British Act in part 2 of that statute, and if we vary part 2, if we do not abide by its provisions our certificates will not be recognized either .in Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, or Newfoundland. This particular section, I think, will not be invoked, ,as I have already said, more than once in twelve months, perhaps not more than once in five years; but it is in part 2 of .the British Act and it has been put in .part 2 of this Act. We are following a British system in another respect. That system allows the Secretary of State for .Home Affairs to grant the certificates and pass upon them, and we give the same .right to the Secretary of State. In England, this matter no longer goes to the judicial tribunals except in cases which we
.will come to as we proceed, where the Secretary of State is bound to refer the application to the judges for investigation. But in the special cases mentioned undersection 4, the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State.


Mr. EULER:: Is the procedure now entirely changed, and in future must all applications be made direct to the minister, or will the judges pass on the applications as they have done in the past, and then forward them to the Secretary of State?


Hugh Guthrie: The procedure is regulated by section 20. Under the old law you filed your application with the clerk of the court. That was altered five years ago. Now the procedure is laid down by section 20, wrhich provides that:
An alien desiring to 'be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act to any Judge of any Superior -Court, or to any Judge of any Circuit, District or County Court, and in the North West Territories to such authorities or persons as the Governor in Council may prescribe.
Section 21 provides for posting the application, and the following sections lay down the procedure. The certificate of the judge does no.t now mean the granting of a certificate of naturalization.	The matter goes from	the
judge, after inquiry before the court, to the Secretary of State who actually grants the certificate. Let me emphasize this, because I am told that in a number of counties in the province of Ontario men who have appeared before judicial tribunals, and whose cases have been dealt with and investigated, are of the opinion 'that as soon as the judge has passed upon them they become British subjects to all intents and purposes. That is a mistaken view. They do not become British subjects under this Act until the certificate is actually issued by the Secretary of State.


Jacques Bureau: Has the Secretary of State absolute discretion to grant the certificate or refuse it?


Hugh Guthrie: Not in all cases! There are some cases, such as those provided for in section 4, where he has absolute discretion. There is absolute discretion where a man has been seven years removed from British Dominions, or who has not maintained some connection with British Dominions. He has absolute discretion to revoke the certificate in certain other cases, but the granting of the certificate is not in his absolute discretion except in those cases.


Jacques Bureau: The Solicitor General refers to clause 20.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the procedure clause.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand it aright you have to go before a judge who issues a certificate that the applicant is a proper person to become a British subject. Then the Secretary of State issues the certificate of naturalization. But has he to issue it or is it in his discretion to do so or not?


Hugh Guthrie: It is in his absolute discretion.


William Daum Euler: I would like to inquire of the Solicitor General what application this law will have to the cases of those who are still alien enemies technically, but who will not be alien enemies after the signing of peace. I have in my mind a particular instance that I brought to the attention of the House earlier in the session. In 1917 provision was made by Order in Council for the naturalization of those of alien enemy origin who had lived in. Canada for many years and who could-prove that they were loyal and worthy of citizenship. Provision was made for the naturalization of such people. In the constituency which I represent ninety-three applications were prepared by persons who desired to avail themselves of this provision. They went before the judge, were approved by him in each instance, and the applications were forwarded to the Secretary of State. But for some reason nothing has been done up to this time. The point was made by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) that if this power is placed in the hands of a minister it might be used unfairly. Perhaps he did not put it in that language but that was the inference I drew.
I will point to an instance in which something of that nature took place. These ninety-three people who had made application for naturalization under the Order in Council passed in 1917, were, in nearly every case, men who had lived in Canada for twenty-five, thirty, forty oi[ fifty years. Some of. them had been in Canada even before Confederation and had taken the oath of allegiance. Many of them were actually British subjects but they had no means of proving it; they had no papers, and therefore they were not considered British subjects. These men were not given naturalization under that provision which was made for them. But in one particular instance a bona fide German who had only been for fourteen- or fifteen years a resident 
of Canada and who really did not come under the terms of the Order in Council, was granted naturalization. I am not saying this with any intention of giving offence, but I am perfectly satisfied that the only,reason why he was given his certificate of naturalization was that he had been a supporter of -the Union -Government, and it was for no other reason. I would like to know what the position of these ninety-three people will be. They, to all intents and'purposes, have been- Canadian citizens and British subjects. Their applications were approved by the judge of the county of Waterloo, they have been before the Secretary of State for sixteen months and no action has been taken. What will be the policy of the Government in regard to these applications? The position of these people is similar to another described by an article in the Toronto Globe of to-day and which is as follows:
Owen Sound, June 2S.-One hundred and eight applications for naturalization papers are before Mr. Justice Sutherland here this week. So far, seventy-six cases have been dealt with, and the Judge has not refused his approval in any. Most of the aliens who are applying for Canadian citizenship are of German descent, although three Austrians from Owen Sound and a number of Americans, also have applied. In nearly all instances, the Germans are people who came to Canada from thirty to sixty years ago with their .parents, and were of the belief that their parents had been naturalized, and that they were Canadian citizens, but they found out at the last elections that they had no papers, and are now applying at the first opportunity.
This is practically the case in the constituency I represent. Among these 93 of whom I have spoken some have had sons fighting in France. I would like to know whether they will receive their papers.


Hugh Guthrie: We are going on with this Bill rather irregularly. This question does not arise under section 4 but I have no objection to giving the information row rather than later. Section 8, subsection (b) provides that:
(b) No certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty.
That is a very clear declaration, and in the case stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Euler), if these persons are of German origin and have not hitherto been naturalized, until a period of ten years elapses after the proclamation of peace, which will be the end of the war, they will not be entitled to naturalization under this Act.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They will be dead by that time.


Hugh Guthrie: But if they served in
the war, the following subsection excepts .them:
But this provision shall not apply to a person who-
(1)	having served in His Majesty s forces or in the forces of His Majesty's allies or of any country acting in naval or military cooperation with His Majesty was not discharged from such service hy reason of his enemy nationality, sympathy or association; or
(2)	is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments ; or
(3)	was at birth a British subject.
. In any of these cases the prohibition .would not apply; but the man of German descent who has not heretofore been granted a certificate of naturalization will, for ten years after the proclamation of peace, be debarred under this law from obtaining such a certificate.


William Daum Euler: I protest against any such
law as that. I have stated that these people of whom I speak are, to all intents and purposes, good Ganadians and good British subjects. It seems to me that we :are travelling backward when wq, make the conditions of naturalization so stringent, now that the war is practically over.


Hugh Guthrie: This law was passed in
England in August, 1918. Part 2 has been adopted in this Act, word for word; we have to put it in if it is to apply to Canada.


William Daum Euler: Well, I protest against the British Act, so far as that is concerned. Surely these men have a good case. Most of them, being fifty, sixty, or seventy years of age, could not possibly have been expected to serve in the war, but some of them had sons in the war. Under this law, through no fault of their own, they .will be precluded for ten years from becoming British subjects. Many of them, I have no doubt, actually are British subjects to-day, but have no proof of it. It should be made easy, rather than difficult, for men who are honest in intention to become citizens of this country.
. Mr. BUREAU:	Would it not be better
to revert to the ancient system of having the application for naturalization papers made to a judge?	[DOT]
, Mr. GUTHRIE:	That would upset the
whole thing. Unless we adopt part 2 of the English Act, our naturalization is no good outside of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot believe that in order that naturalization papers granted in Canada shall have force and effect all over the British Empire, they must be granted by the .Secretary of .State. W*18^ 's essential to the granting of the application is a fulfilment of the conditions required of the man who wants to become a Canadian citizen, and I do not think the British Government would refuse to recognize our certificate of naturalization if the application was made to a judge and the papers were granted by him instead of by the Secretary of (State. The Act provides that the sufficiency of the evidence may be passed upon by a judge; of course, there is restrictive power in the Secretary of State. There are particular reasons why this matter should be left with the judiciary. The unrest in the country may be said to be caused by the high cost of living, but ii we analyse the conditions we shall find that the unrest is due to the dissatisfaction of the masses with authority-to the lack of respect of the masses for constituted authority. I think that the way to remedy that condition is to take away, as far as possible, from political bodies the power to do those things which can best be done by the judiciary. Of course, although the judiciary command more confidence than a political body, there have been cases which have thrown discredit on the judiciary of this country; I shall discuss that later. But I ask the Solicitor General if he lays down the _ principle that in order to become a British subject throughout the whole of the Empire, it is necessary that the certificate of citizenship should be signed by the Secretary of State instead of by the judge of a Superior or Circuit Court?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the section is well drawn as it is. I cannot conjure up any of the evils which my hon. friend suggests. I do not anticipate that there will be any abuse of the power vested in the Secretary of State; he will toe acting practically in a judicial capacity. Having regard to the plan adopted in Great Britain and to the plan which has been followed here during the last five years, I think it will be wise to adopt the section as it is. We cannot vary it and at the same time give our certificate of naturalization much effect outside of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: That is not my question. I desire to know whether, under the Imperial Act, which we desire to reproduce here, this is one of the essentials?


Hugh Guthrie: This is Part 2, word for word, of the -Imperial Act, and any colony or possession which adopts that part of the English Act may have its certificates of naturalization recognized throughout the United Kingdom and in any other British possession which has similarly adopted Part 2.


Jacques Bureau: Must we adopt Part 2 word for word?


Hugh Guthrie: I think there should be nothing more than a necessary variation. In Part 2 of the English Act, the reference to the "Secretary of State for Hbme Affairs" had to be changed, in our reproduction of it, to "Secretary of State of Canada." I should think that we could alter matters of form, but we must maintain the spirit of the Act.


William Daum Euler: Does the Solicitor General think that it would void the Act if he made a qualification in favour of such people as I have spoken of? Such a course ought to commend itself to the fairness and common sense of the House. An exception should be made in the case of persons who are already British subjects to all intents and purposes; they should not be debarred for ten years from becoming British subjects by naturalization.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be a very radical departure from Part 2 of the British Act, which is designed to meet just such cases as my hon. friend has mentioned. If we destroy that part of it, our work will go by the board.


William Daum Euler: Conditions are different in Canada from those in England. They have not had immigration there such as we have had in the past. While I am not advocating that such exception should apply to those coming into the country in the future, it should apply to those who are already in the country, who came here on invitation and in good faith, who consider themselves British subjects.


Hugh Guthrie: The English Act applies to a great many people in England who have been interned during the war and who will be liberated on the proclamation of peace. Many of these people have resided in England for years and were engaged in business there in a large way. Provision is made for just such cases as that., whether in Canada or in the other British Dominions.


William Daum Euler: I read only tnis afternoon that the United States have adopted the

policy of naturalizing persons who were interned. I am not advocating that we do -that, but I want to show that they follow a more liberal policy.


Hugh Guthrie: I have here the Bill adopted by the United States; I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to that.


William Daum Euler: I also have a copy of the United States Bill, and I am right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-persons under disability:
Jacques Bureau: Does this mean that any man who comes from a foreign country and who has children under age must, in order to make those children British subjects, have their names included in his naturalization paper?


Hugh Guthrie: The clause reads:
But any such child may, within one year after attaining his majority, make a declaration of alienage, and shall thereupon cease to be a British subject.


Jacques Bureau: That is not my point.
Supposing a man goes to the United States and becomes an American citizen, and while he is an American citizen he has children born to him. He comes back to Canada when his children are not twenty-one years of age, and becomes a naturalized British-subject. Is it necessary that the names of those children born in the United States, of an American father, should be mentioned in his certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: That has been the law,
I think, for the last forty years. If children born of a parent in a foreign state or of a parent who is a citizen of that country, who subsequently comes to Canada, those children are alien citizens, and the naturalization of the parent does not affect their status.


Jacques Bureau: If they are minors?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. But power is given here to mention the children in the certificate obtained by the father, but that does not. bind the children, because when they attain the age of twenty-one years, they have the power to choose.


Jacques Bureau: It was decided in enforcing the Military Service Act, that a child born in the United States and his parent naturalized, when that child did not make any' declaration to the contrary when he reached the age of twenty-one years, was to be looked upon as a British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: The question was up in the Ontario courts, and the law was laid

down that the child under those circumstances was not a British subject but an alien, but this has been the law in Canada for the last five years-and for the last forty years, I think, though I am not sure.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the question of my hon. friend was: If the names of minor children are not included in the certificate of naturalization of the parent, are they British subjects or aliens?


Hugh Guthrie: They are aliens unless they are included in the certificate, under this clause.


Mr. DENIS:: There seems to be an anomaly in the drafting of subclause (1) of this clause which says:
Any such child may, within one year after attaining his majority, make a declaration of alienage, and shall thereupon cease to be a British subject.
Why should the time be limited to one year?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose we must have some limit on the thing, and the presumption is that if within a year he . does not make up his mind adversely, he is a British subject.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not insist, but my idea was to leave the question open for any man to make his declaration at any time when he chooses to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, perhaps, some
time when we have trouble on our hands, we might find that some of our worthy cilizens would declare that they were no longer British subjects. I hard-10 p.m. ly think that would be fair. If they do not do it within one year, the law is perfectly right in assuming, or presuming, that they were British subjects.


Samuel William Jacobs: There were, during the first year of the war, cases where parties attempted to make a declaration of alienage after they had reached twenty-one years, and the Secretary of State refused to accept that declaration of alienage during the war.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. He has a discretion under the clause.


Samuel William Jacobs: The matter was decided by the English courts in that sense.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-persons previously naturalized :
Ernest Lapointe: What is the purport of this clause?


Hugh Guthrie: The object of the clause is this, that the certificates heretofore issued and signed by judges of the courts would not be accepted in Great Britain or in the other British Dominions; but if a man wants to go abroad and wants something that will give him full rights of British citizenship, he may release his old certificate and ask for a new one.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is within the discretion of the Secretary of State? The clause says:
An alien who has been naturalized before the passing of this Act may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of naturalization under this Act, and the Secretary of State may grant to him a certificate on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.
The Secretary of State, in his absolute discretion, may refuse.


Hugh Guthrie: He may, and when we come to later clauses, it will be seen that the Secretary of State may revoke certificates on certain conditions.


Jacques Bureau: There is no way of becoming a citizen unless you are in the good graces of the Secretary of State.


Samuel William Jacobs: He is the court of last resort.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-revocation of certificate of naturalization:
Ernest Lapointe: I think this section is open to grave objection, and may cause serious harm. It is true it is based on the Imperial Act of 1918, but it contains something which is not to be found in the Imperial Act. This Bill goes further than the Imperial Act, and even the Imperial Act, as my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) said a few moments ago, was. passed during a terrible war, which saw many enactments which would not be passed in times of peace. First of all, this section gives power to the Secretary of State to revoke a certificate when the citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. Now that is susceptible of many interpretations. At times certain deeds and certain words have been considered disloyal by some people in this country which I do not believe everybody would admit to be disloyal. For instance, in 1911 it was disloyal, according to some people, for a Canadian citizen to be in favour of reciprocity with the United States. I shall not speak of other occasions, as this one is sufficient to explain what I mean,

Then the Bill does not stipulate the sort of complaint that shall be laid against a man who is liable to revocation of his certificate under this section. Any one can ask the Secretary of State to act. The Secretary of State "shall" in certain cases send a notice to the last known address of the holder of the certificate, giving him an opportunity of claiming that the case be referred to a tribunal of inquiry, which is specified in the following section. The Secretary of State "shall" do that in any case to which subsection 1 or paragraphs (a), (b) or (d) of subsection 2 of this section applies, but in other cases he "may" do it. Even if he does do it, there is no guarantee that the notice has reached the holder of the certificate, and the man will have to incur the expense of applying to a tribunal to be determined by the Secretary of State. That is hardly fair. Moreover, the constitution of that tribunal is not specified except that it shall be presided over by a judge of the Supreme or Exchequer Court, or of any of the Superior Courts. Who will be the other members of that tribunal ? Even if they should be specified, such wide powers should not be given to the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Imperial Act provided :
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a certificate of naturalization granted by him has been obtained by false representations-
And so forth. But this Bill goes further and provides:
That a certificate of naturalization granted by him under this Act, or granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada-
This involves a principle which I believe is unsound. It is retroactive. A man may have obtained a certificate under the law of twenty years ago. The issuing of a certificate to that man twenty years ago effected a contract between him and the Government of His Majesty, and this Parliament has no right to-day to break that contract land say that certificate shall be revoked by virtue of this law. An hon. gentleman behind me says that it would he treating the contract as a scrap of paper. Why have these words " or granted under any Naturalisation Act heretofore in force in Canada " been added in this Bill? That is going further than the Imperial Act. We have no right to annul a certificate granted under a law which was in force in this country twenty years ago. An alien who applies for a certificate under this law will know that he is liable to its pro-
visions, but those who entered into a contract twenty years ago should not be made liable to lose their certificate under this law.


Mr. GRIESBAOH:: Some days ago when this Bill was before the House, I moved an. amendment dealing with the case of an alien who came from a country whose law was that he could not be fully naturalized in this country. The Solicitor General has in the meantime pointed out to me that the purpose of the Bill before us is practically to standardize naturalization within the British Empire, and that the insertion of the clause which I have moved would interfere with that standardization. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment I moved in view of the fact that section 8 provides that no certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada. That will do me till next year, anyway.
Amendment withdrawn.


Samuel William Jacobs: I most certainly object to paragraph (d) of subsection. 2 of section 7, which reads as follows:
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State of Canada may recommend the revocation of a certificate of naturalization granted by him or granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted remains, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state.
That means that if the country from which this alien came refuses to recognize a change of status on the part of the applicant, we would refuse to recognize his application to be admitted to British citizenship in this country.
That is to say, the applicant must for all time remain an alien although he resides within our borders. Is that the interpretation which the Solicitor General puts upon the clause?


Hugh Guthrie: Clause D is taken word for word from the British Act of 1918. I have no doubt it was framed expressly to meet the case of citizens of any country which recognized dual nationality. It says:
" Remains, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state." In that case there is power to revoke his certificate.


Samuel William Jacobs: Supposing the applicant desires to shed his German or Austrian citizenship? He came away from that country years ago and wishes to have nothing

more to do with it. He wants to know nothing about it and has shaken its dust off his feet. He comes here and wishes to be naturalized as a British citizen. Under this provision he can never become a British citizen and must always remain an alien within our borders.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be the effect of the section, and if his country permits dual nationality laws to exist it is deemed in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions that have adopted this law that he should not be naturalized.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are dealing with the individual and not with the state from which he came. Germany refuses to recognize the change in allegiance in one of its subjects, although that subject leaves the shores of Germany and, we will say, is not only dissatisfied with conditions in that country, but wishes absolutely to shed his German citizenship, for which purpose he comes here. We are making a contract not with his country, but with the man himself.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must keep in view the difference between sections 7 and 8. Section 7 provides that in a certain case the man's certificate may be revoked. Section 8, subsection B, provides that if the man is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments he may be naturalized.
Mr. JACOB'S: Take the case of a man coming from Berlin. He is dissatisfied with military autocracy and wishes to come to a country like Canada, where there is freedom, or, rather, where there is supposed to be freedom. He applies for a certificate of naturalization after he has resided here the regulation number of years. The country from which he comes, and which he despises and detests, refuses to recognize his change of allegiance. Is this man who has left the shores of Germany to be bound by this rule which the Empire he now denounces invokes?


Hugh Guthrie: That man, in the case stated by my hon. friend, on coming to Canada and residing for the prescribed time can, under section 8, be naturalized. Under section 7, however, his certificate can be revoked.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are dealing with the individual.


Hugh Guthrie: Under section 7, if he offends his certificate may now be revoked. If he is a German subject coming to Canada he can be naturalized provided he
waits ten years after the proclamation of peace.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose Germany refuses to recognize his change of allegiance?


Hugh Guthrie: If he can show that he is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to enemy governments he can be naturalized.


William Daum Euler: The minister has apparently drawn the Act with the idea-


Hugh Guthrie: I did not draw it. This is word for word in accordance with the Imperial statute.


William Daum Euler: A period of ten years must elapse before a German can be naturalized. Would it not be well to frame the Act so that a man who had been resident in Canada for ten years or more prior to the war could have the privilege of naturalization?


Jacques Bureau: Am I to understand that because this is word for word in accordance with the Imperial Act we shall not have the right to discuss this matter and to see whether it is advisable or not that we should swallow it bolus bolus? I think that this Act will open the door to fraud and will bring dishonour on many a family in Canada. You say that you can cancel the certificate because at the time it was obtained a man was not of good character. We have seen in this country of late conspiracies against individuals, whereby affidavits and declarations have been made which have been proven subsequently to be false, in an attempt to ruin men. A man may have striven hard to raise his family and somebody may have a grudge against him. He is away from Canada and a charge is made against him. A registered notice is sent to his last address and he does not receive it, and on the charge of a lot of scoundrels far worse than himself a judgment is passed on him. The evidence is there, of course, because nothing can be done but to accept it, and his certificate is cancelled. This provision, I repeat, opens the door to fraud, and I for one will not accept as a satisfactory answer the assertion that it is the same as the Imperial Act. Are we under any obligation blindly to accept the Imperial Act? We are here to legislate for ourselves, and what valid reason is there why we should not? Where is the responsibility of the people who sit here if we are to have the laws of our neighbours copied in their entirety without our having the right to discuss or analyse them? Are we simply to be told " This is the Imperial Act and we can do no

more?" If in order to be a citizen of the British Empire you must have the Imperial Act, very well. But if we think that the naturalization laws of Canada-not of the British Empire but of Canada-are not satisfactory, then let the people of Canada have laws to suit themselves; and he who wants to be a citizen of the British Empire may have this Act. But if you want a law for Canada we must discuss every single proviso of that law and every section of it and have the explanation as to the why and wherefore of that lavr. Conditions in Britain may be different from those in Canada, and as my hon. friend from Kam-ouraska (Mr. Lapointe) said just now this law was passed in England in 1918. In 1918 and during the war we know in what state the peoples of the various countries were. We know that people were not acting as they had acted three or four years before, or will act three or four years hereafter. Another objection which I must voice is in regard to the exercise of this much-heard-of " absolute authority." Why the word " absolute?" We have had too much absolutism in this country, and I do not believe that these words " absolute authority " should appear in any section of our statutes. Sir, this " absolute " authority is the cause of the discontent and unrest in this country. It is this " absolute " authority and the manner in which it is exercised that has made the people lose confidence in the rulers of the country today, and I for one am not ready to accept this section, against which I must register my emphatic protest, unless very convincing and satisfactory explanations are forthcoming.


Samuel William Jacobs: I move that we strike
out paragraph (d) of subsection 2 of section 7 which reads: "remains, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state."


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid I cannot
accept that amendment. If we do it will be a radical departure, and I am afraid the whole Bill will be involved. There is no disposition on the part of any one to choke off discussion. We desire the fullest discussion, and I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) that it is not necessary always to follow Imperial enactments.
If you are going to have an Imperial naturalization law, you must take this enactment. If the House does not deem it well to have the Imperial law upon the subject, it may depart from it, because the Imperial Government has been very careful in framing the statute to say that the 	,	,
dominions shall have authority to pass such laws as they see fit, but those laws will not be accepted in other parts of the Empire unless we adopt part 2. As the section in question is a portion of part 2 of the Imperial Act, I think it will be the judgment of the House that it should be adopted as it stands.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend suggest that we shall have to adopt all the amendments that may be imade to the Imperial Act in order to have British naturalization?


Hugh Guthrie: We have to adopt all of part 2 of our Act.


Ernest Lapointe: That was
passed last year only.


Hugh Guthrie: It was passed last year as an amendment to the Act of 1914 and the two are to be read together.


Ernest Lapointe: Then we shall have to. adopt all the amendments which may be passed to part 2 in order to retain the rights we have to British naturalization?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not say word for word. I say we are not entitled to make any radical change if we desire our certificates-to have any effect outside of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: I prefer retaining my rights in the matter of autonomy.


Hugh Guthrie: Now, let us look at section 7, subsection (I):
It provides that where the Secretary of State of Canada is satisfied that a certificate of naturalization granted by him under this Act, oY granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada, has been obtained (1) by false representations or by fraud, or by concealment of material facts which involves fraud, he may recommend to the Governor General a revocation of that certificate. Will the House not agree that in a case of that kind there should be a revocation of the certificate?


Samuel William Jacobs: That is all right.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the last part of that paragraph?


Hugh Guthrie: The certificate mav be revoked by the Governor in Council.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend should continue his reading, he has not read the worst part of the paragraph.


Hugh Guthrie: I will go on with the balance of the section:

-or that the person to whom the certificate is granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty


Samuel William Jacobs: That is a matter of proof to be determined by the courts, not the Secretary of State.


Hugh Guthrie: -"has shown himself disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty." Is the House with me that that is good ground for the revocation of the certificate?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is.


Hugh Guthrie: Then we are agreed so far. The paragraph goes on:
The Secretary of State may recommend that the certificate be revoked and the Governor in Council may by order revoke the same accordingly.
The Secretary of State does not do it. The Government of Canada revokes the certificate and will have to accept the responsibility.


Jacques Bureau: That is what we object to.


Hugh Guthrie: That applies to cases only of false representations or fraud, concealment of material facts, or acts or speeches of disloyalty. Now let us come to subsection 2:
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State of Canada may recommend the revocation of a certificate of naturalization granted by him-
Now these words are not in the British Act:
or granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either-
Here are the cases:
(a) has, during any war in which His Majesty is engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of any enemy state, or been engaged in or associated with any business which is to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in such war; or-
I think the House will agree with me that is good ground for the revocation of a certificate. I proceed with the quotation:
- (b) was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate.


Samuel William Jacobs: We will oppose that.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit to the House
that is very good ground for revoking the certificate. In fact


Jacques Bureau: It is better ground for
political trickery.


Hugh Guthrie: -the House unanimously a few days ago, and with very little debate, said it was ground for deportation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose a man has been in the habit of beating horses?


Hugh Guthrie: I would not say that
man was a man of bad character exactly. I think the language is capable of reasonable interpretation and it will be reasonably interpreted.


Jacques Bureau: There is a doubt about
that, a very grave one.


Hugh Guthrie: Now let us go to paragraph (c): Under it the Secretary of State has power to revoke the certificate of a man who, being a British subject, leaves the British dominions and stays away for seven years, and does not maintain any connection therewith. I should think we could take it for granted that that man should be struck off the list. In such a case the Secretary of State may strike him off or revoke his certificate.


Jacques Bureau: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it can be assumed that a man who has been away from Canada, or a British possession, for seven years and has not maintained any connection with this country or any British possession, is of very little use as a citizen.


Jacques Bureau: If he came back with a million we would find him very useful.


Hugh Guthrie: We would not strike him off if he was a very useful citizen. The Secretary of State would use ordinary discretion in such matters.


Ernest Lapointe: If he were on the right side of politics.


Hugh Guthrie: That is only an inference on the part of my hon. friend, who would probably act in such a way if he had the power.


Jacques Bureau: We know others iwho
would do it now.


Hugh Guthrie: It was not done in this country under the Union Government. Now we will take subsection (d):	.
remains, according to the law of the state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state.
I do not want to repeat what I said before, but the effect of that section is merely this: That certificate of nationality of the subject, residing in Canada, of any state in which there is the law of dual nationality

is subject to revocation if we are at war with that state.


William Daum Euler: Does that apply to Russia?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know whether the law of dual nationality obtains in Russia, I believe there is such a .law in Germany and Austria.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is there not such a law in France?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not sure as to that. If that were the case, and if we were at war *with France, that man's certificate could be revoked under this section.


William Daum Euler: Does that mean that any Canadian citizen of German nationality who is naturalized in Canada may have his certificate revoked?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is what it means.


William Daum Euler: That is wholesale revocation.


Hugh Guthrie: I think a citizen residing in this country, coming originally from Germany where the law of dual nationality is in force, and a country at war with His Majesty, would have his certificate revoked.


Samuel William Jacobs: Have such persons no right to make an option?


Hugh Guthrie: Under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), which I have just read, there may be a judicial inquiry. I think every safeguard is offered to the holder of the certificate, and he can feel reasonably sure that his certificate will not be revoked without good grounds.


Samuel William Jacobs: The law is there.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend/ from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) points out that this section was part of the Imperial Act of 1918, which was passed as a war measure. It was certainly passed during the war, and I have no doubt in my own mind that when it was drafted and passed by the Imperial Parliament it was intended to be active in its operation for at least ten years after the war, because it expressly states that no certificate shall be granted in any part of the Empire until ten years after the war has ceased, to the subject of a country which has been at war with Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: When was that law passed?


Hugh Guthrie: It was passed in the month of August, 1918. The original Act
[Mr. Gufihirie.l
was passed in Great Britain on the 4th or 7th day of August, 1914, a day or two after the declaration of war. It was amended in August, 1918, and section 7 of the Bill now before the House seeks, as far as possible, to conform word for word with the enactment in the Imperial statute. Now it comes back to the question which I mentioned before.
In the opinion of the House, should we have a uniform naturalization law, one which will apply in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland? If the House deems it proper to have such a law, we must pass this section or we do not comply with part 2 of the British Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Why have these
words been added to the Canadian law?


Hugh Guthrie: The words have been added obviously to cover the case of every certificate heretofore granted.


Ernest Lapointe: That has not been done by the British Parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: The British Act says "under this Act," meaning the Acts of 1918 and of 1914 because they are to be read together.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not leave our local Naturalization Act alone?


Hugh Guthrie: This applies to all laws hitherto in force.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: To make it as broad as we possibly can.


Ernest Lapointe: Retroactive-"a
scrap of paper."


William Daum Euler: I would like to ask the minister if the Imperial Act of 1914 prohibits naturalization for ten years.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is the Act of 1918 which prohibits that.


Michael Clark: What are the benefits of Imperial naturalization and how many of our citizens would be likely to reap any of them? I am a good Imperialist, but honestly I want to say to 'this committee that naturalization in Canada will pretty nearly do me for my time.


Hugh Guthrie: That might be so but there are others, I suppose, who might some day remove from Canada and go to some other British possession throughout the world or to the United Kingdom itself. If citizenship is of value at all, and I have always understood that British citizenship

was of great value, it is worth making secure.


Michael Clark: In my case Canadian citizenship carries with it British citizenship.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend is under the impression that his statement is correct but it is not correct; citizenship in Canada is limited territorially to Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why disturb that Act? Why not let us have local naturalization?


Hugh Guthrie: The object of passing a new Act is that Canadian citizenship shall be good in any part of the world under the British flag.


Jacques Bureau: Who asked for it?
v Mr. JACOBS: Why not let us have two Acts and then we will not complain.


Hugh Guthrie: I am in the judgment of the House on that point. My own opinion, and the Government's opinion, is that it is very desirable to have a uniform law in regard to naturalization throughout the Empire. For that reason the Bill is now before the House.


Michael Clark: I should like to make myself clear on that point. I see no objection to having what may be termed Imperial citizenship but I do see an objection to making it more difficult to get Canadian citizenship now than it was before the war for the purpose of getting a wider application of Canadian citizenship.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend is a British citizen throughout the world now, but many people who have obtained citizenship in this country are only British subjects until they reach the three-mile limit outside the shores of Canada. A situation might arise which would be very difficult for a Canadian citizen.


Ernest Lapointe: What are they outside of the shores of Canada, Canadians?


Hugh Guthrie: A naturalized Canadian under the present law might enlist in a Canadian force, might go to fight the battles of the Empire in Europe and might be taken prisoner. He would not be treated as a prisoner. If taken by the country which he had left, he would be treated as a deserter and shot. He would have no rights of citizenship in Great Britain and no rights at all outside of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: He is not a British subject?	* j


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose one could
enumerate many cases where British citizenship would be of the greatest advantage to an individual. The object throughout the Empire is, as far as possible, to obtain uniformity and there is no doubt that the abject of some of the drastic amendments passed by the Imperial House in August last was, as far as possible to see to it by legislation that improper persons should by no means whatever obtain British citizenship. That was done for the future safety of the State and it is to carry out that purpose that his Bill is now introduced.


Mr. NESBITT:: Under paragraph (c) of section 7, what becomes of a person who has been resident in the United States for a number of years, who has never taken out naturalization papers there but who was born in Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: That man will continue to be a British subject.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: The minister said that the ten-year period did not apply to Great Britain under the Imperial Act. What period does apply?


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. Under the Imperial Act a five-year residence is necessary. That has been out law for Canada. The provision of this Bill is that:
No certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty.


John Howard Sinclair: That is not in the Imperial Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, word for word.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure the Committee fully realize the real meaning of the words of the Solicitor General. It is a great privilege to be able to grant a certificate of naturalization which will apply to the whole British Empire, but my hon. friend says that every time the British Parliament shall make the slightest change in the Imperial Act we, the Canadian Parliament, shall have to effect the same change, following theirs, in order that our certificates shall be available throughout the British Empire. That is one of the greatest sacrifices of autonomy that we were ever asked to make. We bind ourselves to make the same change every time. I do not think this is a fair policy for this country to adopt. But apart from that, I come back to the

objection I made to these words which were added to the Imperial Act. The British Parliament, in the course of the war, passed this Imperial Act which provides for the revocation of naturalization certificates. That did not exist in the British law formerly, but it was done during the war, to meet conditions which arose on account of the war. We are to-day enacting similar legislation, but we are making it a good deal more drastic than the British law is because we are giving it a retroactive effect. The British Act gives power to revoke certificates which may be issued under the Act of 1918. But here in this country this Government asks the power to revoke not only a certificate granted by the Secretary of State under this Act, but certificates granted under any naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada. A man who was naturalized twenty years ago under the Canadian law as it existed then, -who has a certificate, which ds a contract entered into between him and His Majesty, is liable to have his certificate cancelled, his contract revoked, at the will and behest of the officials of this Government. I protest against this iaw and especially against the addition to the Imperial Act of the words to which I have referred. I move that section 7 be struck out.


Jacques Bureau: The Solicitor General has given no reason why these words should be added. When the British Act was passed in 1918 the war was in progress, the Germans were conducting an elaborate spy system; efforts were being made by persons of enemy natrons to gain access to England; all sorts of pretenses and fajse oaths were being made by those who were desirous of securing naturalization papers. But although the war is practically over we are now providing that a certificate obtained twenty years ago may be cancelled because it was obtained by a man not of " good character." This opens the door to all sorts of frauds. The Solicitor General knows that retroactive law is considered to be immoral. A man's citizenship is one of his most priceless possessions. Either the Solicitor General has some idea of holding this provision over certain citizens as a threat-
I do not say that he has-or he has some information to justify this provision which he does not wish to disclose.


Ernest Lapointe: We are at least entitled to an explanation as to why these words were added.


Hugh Guthrie: I have already explained that it is to make the Act broad enough to

coveT all cases in Canada of persons who obtained their certificates under the conditions set out in clause 7. If they obtained them by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment, or if they have been guilty of disloyalty, no matter when the certificates were issued, they are liable to be cancelled.


Jacques Bureau: Has the Solicitor General had any complaints about certificates which were granted under the old Naturalization Act, and if so, how many?


Hugh Guthrie: In some parts of Canada there may be certain persons who claim the rights of Canadian citizenship but whose conduct during the last eight or nine weeks has been very questionable. These persons may have obtained their certificates ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. I for one do not desire to protect them; I would make therfi liable to this law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: A committee of this
House has had under consideration a revision of the Criminal Code in order to provide for cases of sedition, disloyalty, and so on. We have the spectacle that in the absence of any report from that committee, or any legislation based upon it, men who, it is alleged, have acted disloyally, or been accused of sedition have been arrested. Either we are able to legislate to maintain order in this country, or we are not. If we are not, we ought to abdicate as a Parliament; if we are, we ought not to leave it in the hands of one man, a member of a political body, to determine whether or not a man -who is a citizen of this country by virtue of a contract entered into with His Majesty shall continue so to be. If there is anything in the conduct of a citizen which endangers the safety of the public or jeopardizes law and order and good government, we have the power to legislate to meet that condition. If a man who twenty years ago received a certificate of naturalization is guilty of treason or of sedition, punish him accordingly; but do not leave to the Secretary of State the power to revoke his certificate at will. I say " at will," because when the head of a department, who is the person most familiar with the conditions in that department, makes a recommendation to the Governor in Council, that recommendation is generally accepted. What I do object to is that power be given to one man to revoke a certificate that was granted twenty or thirty years ago; that is not conducive to good order among the people or to confidence in the Govern-

ment. If a body of men, absolutely independent of political influence had to deal with such certificates, I might not have so much objection. The minister says that the Act has been so worded as to make it broad enough to cover the ground; he goes on to cite a case in which he would cancel certificates, and hon. gentlemen opposite applaud. We are not here to talk sentiment; we are not here to wave the flag; we are here to legislate, not under war conditions, but on the eve of peace; and to legislate with a view to bringing contentment to the people. I have said that the unrest in Canada is due mostly to the fact that the masses of the people have no cer-fidence in the Government or in Governments generally; they say to themselves: We will have to take the law in our own hands. That is one of the causes of the unrest; for God's sake, don't go any further; don't be autocratic. We do not want any Kaiserism in this country; we have fought to put it down. England was close to the enemy and knew what her requirements were when she passed this Act; why should we go further? I do not think any such provision is justifiable, and I shall not vote for it.	.


Mr. ROWELL:: My hon. friend is obviously under a misapprehension as to the effect of this section. He said that he would not have so much objection if the matter were not in the hands of a political body; if there was judicial investigation.


Jacques Bureau: I said I would have less objection.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Solicitor General has already pointed out that neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor in Council has any power to revoke certificates under these conditions without the holding of a judicial investigation where the person concerned desires it.


Jacques Bureau: My objection was to the principle involved in granting this power to the Secretary of State, but I make no exception to any powers when I say that certificates granted under any naturalization law heretofore existing ought not to be cancelled either by a political or by a judicial body.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me take up the three points raised by my hon.. friend. The certificates cannot be revoked except after a judicial investigation and a finding of a judicial body upon them. That is number one.


Joseph Archambault: By a commission named by Order in Council. The commissioners would be named by the Government.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Which commission must be presided over by a judge.


Jacques Bureau: And the summons served by mail.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It may be the superior court of a province, or a commission presided oveT by a judge, but it must be a judicial investigation. Then, number two -my hon. friend will recall the fact that in Great Britain they have had a uniform naturalization law for many years under which a five-year period of residence is required before naturalization. We had in Canada our own naturalization law which required a three-year period. In 1911, at the Imperial Conference, at which Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his then Liberal colleagues were present, it was unanimously decided that we should have a uniform naturalization law throughout the Empire, and that uniform law has now come into effect; it was passed in Great Britain in 1914, and passed by this House, I think, in the same year. That law, as regards Great Britain, continued the provision of five years' residence. As regards Canada, it provided a new basis for naturalization which gave citizenship throughout the whole Empire.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was that to abrogate our three-year period?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has. Had we seen fit, we could have continued a dual system of having a Canadian naturalization law for naturalization only in Canada and we could have adopted the general Imperial law under which Imperial citizenship might have been obtained. The Parliament of Canada decided to adopt the general Imperial law with a five-year residence. As my hon. friend the Solicitor General has pointed out, when you come to this law, if the wording had been simply to revoke any certificate of naturalization granted under this Bill, no certificate could have been- revoked except the few that have been granted under the five-year Act, which has been in force in this country for only a year or two. Therefore, if you are to deal with revocation certificates of Canadian naturalization you must make provision for doing so in this Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: You want wholesale quantities.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The particular amendment upon which the vote is being taken



is to strike out subclause (d) of this clause. What is the position with reference to this amendment? If a man is a citizen of a foreign country and he becomes naturalized in this, and by the law of that foreign country he still continues a citizen of that country, even although naturalized in this, then if war breaks out between the two countries, while that war is on, his certificate of naturalization may be revoked.


Samuel William Jacobs: Under those clauses he could be interned. This British subject of yesterday could be interned to-morrow.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He could not be interned until after his certificate was revoked.


Samuel William Jacobs: Precisely.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let us look at the situation frankly and consider it, because this was considered by the Imperial Government and by other Governments of the Empire. If a man is a citizen of another country, we cannot change that fact, and if we are at war with that country and if he is liable to military service in that country, if he is liable ta be shot as a traitor if he goes out of this country because we ask him to render some service, is it not a reasonable thing that when the war is actually on, when we are actually making war against that country, we
11 p.m. should revoke his certificate here? It is not our fault that he is a citizen of the other country; we cannot help ourselves; the country of his origin makes that so. All that this is intended to do is to cover that case. If war is not on, it does not apply. The clause says, " at war." Let me read the clause:
Remains, according- to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that State.
It is only during the period of the war that this right of revocation exists. I submit that provision embodied in the Imperial Act, which is designed to preserve uniformity throughout the Empire, is not an unreasonable one, and is not such a one as should induce us to reject the Imperial Act in favour of creating a separate Canadian nationality.


Jacques Bureau: This is just a contingent citizenship, depending upon peace. The moment war comes, here is a man whose certificate you can cancel, and as the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) said, if he is deported, he may be shot. That is what you call giving dignity to the citizenship of a country. I do not view the matter in that light.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Shot by his own people.


Jacques Bureau: You abandon him as a derelict.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question of dual
nationality is one presenting very grave difficulties and one upon which the Imperial Conference did not reach an agreement. Many thought we should not naturalize a man who by the law of his own country continued to be a citizen of that country. The conference did not agree to do that; so that dual nationality continues but if war broke out between the two States involved, then under certain conditions, naturalization might be revoked.
Mr. JACOB'S:	He might be called a
" fair weather " British subject.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not succeeded in getting an explanation from the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) as regards the words added to the Imperial Act. I have been asking for an explanation, and, I am trying to get it from the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) now. We are basing our legislation on the Imperial Act. We say that in order to get the benefit of British naturalization, we must have the same enactment as the Imperial Parliament has. Why should we add this retroactive clause which is most arbitrary? It is Prussian in its spirit; it is unworthy of the Dominion of Canada, and it is those words especially to which I object and which I want to have struck off from the clause.
Amendment (Mr. Jacobs) negatived.


Ernest Lapointe: I move to amend
clause 7 by striking out from the said clause in the 45th line on page three of the Bill, the following words:
Under this Act, or granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada.
Amendment negatived; yeas., 39; nays, 58.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like a little information with regard to paragraph (b) of subsection 2, which provides for the revocation of certificate where the applicant was not of good character at the time of granting the certificate. Suppose that ten or fifteen years after the granting of a certificate it is found out that the applicant was not of good character at the time the certificate was issued, but in the meantime has reformed and become a good citizen?


Jacques Bureau: That is where the political game comes in.


Hugh Guthrie: In the cases mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d), a judicial inquiry must be held-


Jacques Bureau: A McLennan inquiry.


Hugh Guthrie: -presided over by one who is or has been a judge of the Supreme or Exchequer Court or of a Superior Court of a province, and the inquiry shall be conducted in such manner as the Governor in Council shall direct.


Jacques Bureau: How is the man summoned before that inquiry?


Hugh Guthrie: The rules of court of, the province apply.


Jacques Bureau: Subsection 3 provides that the summons shall be by notice given or sent to the last known address of the holder of the certificate. That is not the, rules of court. The man may have left that address and may never receive the notice, but the trial would go on and the certificate be revoked.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-effect of revocation certificate of naturalization.
Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that under subsection 1 a natural-born British subject would be subject to the order of the Secretary of State?


Hugh Guthrie: A natural-born British subject does not have a certificate. This only applies to persons who have a certificate.


Jacques Bureau: Paragraph (b) says:
In the case of a wife who was at birth a British subject, unless he is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalization in her own right, the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act.
That certainly applies to a British-born subject.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the wife.


Jacques Bureau: A woman can be a British subject by birth as well as a man, and under this section an order can be made that she shall no longer be a British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the meaning oi the section is this: A woman who was by birth a British subject loses her nationality by marriage to a man who was not a British subject, but an order shall not be made in her case "unless he is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalization in her own right the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to referring cases for inquiry shall apply to the making of any such order as they apply to the revocation of a certificate." A case of
that kind would be a case for inquiry and would have to be referred to the judge. The word "he" at the end of line 36 should be "the Governor in Council," and I move to amend the section accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Bureau: What is the meaning ol subsection 2?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I can make it any clearer. It is the governing section and will have effect in substitution for any other provisions of this Act as to the effect upon the wife and children of any person where the person ceases to be a British subject. There is an omission in subsection 3 which I wish to remedy. An Act was passed by this House as an amendment to the Immigration Act, providing that under certain conditions British subjects may be deported from Canada, but it does not apply to British subjects who have become such by naturalization. To give this Act effect in regard to British subjects who have become such by naturalization I beg to move that the following words be added to subsection 3 of section 8:
and shall thereafter for the purposes of this Act and of the Immigration Act be deemed never to have been naturalized.
The objection has been taken that a British subject, under the amendment to the Immigration Act, can be deported under certain conditions but the person who has been naturalized and whose certificate is revoked perhaps could not, the natural-born British subject being in an adverse position in that respect.


Jacques Bureau: I do not know that we should mix up the Immigration Act with this. This provides that where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the former holder shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the State to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted. Now, take an American citizen coming here and forswearing his allegiance to the United States. The moment he takes the oath of allegiance here and becomes a Canadian citizen he ceases to be an American citizen. How can we legislate him back to citizenship of the United States?


Hugh Guthrie: The Immigration Act passed this session-the short Act passed a week or ten days ago-applies to British subjects by birth and provides that under certain conditions they may be deported from Canada, but it would have no application to a naturalized subject whose certificate was revoked. Subsection I of sec-

tidh 15 of the Immigration Act provides that that section in that Act shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada. So that the naturalized subject could not be deported under the Immigration Act. Now, the naturalized subject whose certificate is revoked should surely not be in a better position than the British subject born in the United Kingdom, and the intention is to obviate this inequality. You cannot deport a man born or naturalized in Canada, but you can, under the Immigration Act, under certain conditions deport a British subject born in the United Kingdom. The object is to place the alien who has been naturalized in the same position as the person born in the United Kingdom. He otherwise could say: I come within the exception in the Immigration Act; I was naturalized in Canada and the Immigration Act does not apply to me.


Jacques Bureau: I would rather amend the Immigration Act.


Hugh Guthrie: That was considered, and possibly it might have been the better course. But the Immigration Act has been assented to and it would be far more convenient to make the provision in this.


Jacques Bureau: I think we should let this stand until next year. No great harm wpuld be done, and it would be better than burdening the Naturalization Act with what I might call a side clause. I do not think we should mix that Act with the Immigration Act, I want to draw the ministr's attention to subsection 3 of section 8, which reads:
Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the former holder thereof shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the state to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted.
What is the object of that?


Hugh Guthrie: He will revert to his original citizenship. I can see the hon. member's point with regard to mixing the two Acts, but it would be rather a serious thing to permit our law to remain, even until next year, in the condition in which it would be if we did not adopt this amendment. It would be said: You can deport from the country a British subject born in the United Kingdom and cannot an alien whose conduct deprives him of the right to his certificate. The only way by which the anomaly can be overcome is by the amendment.


Jacques Bureau: You declare the man shall belong to the country from which he came. Suppose the law in that country provides that as soon as one of its citizens forswears his allegiance to that country he shall cease to be its subject?


Hugh Guthrie: We will have to take that chance.


Jacques Bureau: We cannot legislate a man into citizenship of the United States, and where will you deport him?


Hugh Guthrie: He would be considered to be a citizen of the country to which he belonged prior to naturalization.


Jacques Bureau: But I want to know where you will deport him. May I ask, in regard to subsection 4 (a), are we still at war with the various enemy countries, notwithstanding the armistice?


Hugh Guthrie: We are at war until the proclamation of peace by this Government and the Imperial Government. The signing of the Peace Treaty does not end the war until there is a proclamation by these Governments.


Jacques Bureau: What about Russia at the present moment? Are we considered at war with that country?


Robert Laird Borden: We never have been at war with Russia.


Jacques Bureau: Just fighting Russia without being at war?


Mr. PEDLOW:: This subsection means that persons who have been citizens of this country for forty or fifty years will be obliged to reside in Canada for ten years more before they can take advantage of this Act. Is that so?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, if their country oi origin is one that has been at war with His Majesty.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This is absolutely unfair and unreasonable. Do be fair in a matter of this kind. I know hundreds, yes thousands, of citizens in this country who have lived here for forty or fifty years and have been good Canadians, in every sense as good as any hon. gentleman in this House, I care not who he may be. They have paid their way and have contributed to the finances of the country in many ways. They have served in prominent positions, have been elected to different offices in the gift of the country, and have voted all these years. A great many of them have sent sons over to France, who are buried there,

sons killed in the defence of this country. Do you mean to say that it is reasonable or fair to require men of this class to reside ten years longer in Canada before they can become naturalized? This is shameful legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: That brings us back to the discussion that took place an hour or two ago. We cannot depart from this language without a radical change from the Imperial Act, probably upsetting all the provisions we have passed. We have followed the Imperial Act and, probably in accordance with legislation in the Colonies -although I am not absolutely certain of this-this clause was drafted; and, I submit, it is fair.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Surely you do not contend that.


Hugh Guthrie: In my judgment it is fair that for the next ten years citizens originating from countries at war with His Majesty at the present time should be put on a term of probation. There is a provision here that if they have fought' on behalf of the Allies in the war they are entitled to obtain certificates. Or if the person is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments, he is entitled to obtain a certificate. But if they are subjects of Germany or Austria, and are not opposed to the enemy governments, then they cannot obtain certificates of naturalization throughout the British Empire for a period of ten years.
Mr. PEDLOW7: What better evidence could we ask regarding the position of men from enemy countries than the fact that these men have fought against the countries to which they formerly owed allegiance, that not only they but their sons have fought and died on behalf of Canada? What better evidence should we want or need than that?


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in the Act to say that that is not good evidence. They are entitled to give that evidence if they want to.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: I would like to ask the Solicitor General or any member of the Government regarding the position of homesteaders in the three western provinces. This legislation affects thousands of people who came to Canada and settled under the Homestead Act prior to 1914. These men have homesteaded their land; they have been on it ever since they came to the country, and have earned their homesteads.
Of course they could not take out naturalization papers during the war, but they have entered into an agreement with the Government and they have fulfilled their part of the contract. Will the Government expect these men, many of whom are old people, to stay for another ten years on those homesteads without getting their land?


Hugh Guthrie: This Bill has nothing to do with the right to hold land.


William Henry White: No, but these people have earned their land and they cannot get their patents until they are naturalized.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not know that there was such a provision.


William Henry White: The conditions in regard to a homestead entry are that a man must live three years on the land and make certain improvements on it. Take the case of a man who arrives in the country and goes on the land. He is not naturalized but while he is earning a living and putting in his time making improvements, he is qualifying for citizenship. Such a man^ has been debarred for the last seven years from making application for a patent. Will that man now have to wait ten years longer?


Hugh Guthrie: I confess' I was not
aware of any condition that a man in order to obtain a. patent had to be a British subject.


William Henry White: He has to be before he can get his patent.


Hugh Guthrie: He has to be a British subject before getting his patent?


William Henry White: On the form of application for a patent the question appears: "Are you a British subject by birth or naturalization?"


Hugh Guthrie: That may be, but is there anything in our Land Act which says he shall not get the patent unless he is a British subject?


William Henry White: There is.


Hugh Guthrie: If there is such a provision I was not aware of it. In that case, under this section, the man would have to wait for ten years from the end of the war before he could get a certificate of naturalization. It might be that an amendment could be made to the Lands Act to meet such a case. It looks to me as being a little unreasonable, because there is a special provision in this Bill, a saving clause, that aliens shall be entitled to hold property-

to own, sell, or inherit it-they have all the rights in regard to property of British subjects.
Mr. W. II. WHITE: They have such rights if they purchase the land, but not in the case of a free grant.


Hugh Guthrie: The clause is very explicit; they have all the rights of British subjects in regard to property. If my hon. friend's contention is right it might become necessary in the future to amend the Dominion Lands Act, because I think it would be quite reasonable that a man who has done his work, made his improvements and fulfilled the conditions ought to get his patent. I do not know why he should not.
iMr. DAVIS: I am quite sure that the hon. member (Mr. W. H. White) is absolutely right, that the entrant may make entry before having obtained naturalization, but he cannot obtain his patent until he is naturalized. There are many cases throughout Western Canada where a man has spent six, seven, eight, or nine years upon his ,,land already, and this enactment we are considering means that he must wait ten years longer in order to get the patent for that land. Now I know of Polanders who sent their sons to the war, telling them that if they did not go they would not be considered good Canadians when the war was over, that it was their place to take their stand with Canadian young men. Yet men in that position, because the district in Poland from which they came is part of Germany, would now be debarred for ten years more, after having been here perhaps nine years, from having their homesteads granted to them. I think it is perfectly proper to make the provisions of our law harmonize vvith those of Great Britain, there would be advantages in that to Canada. But in certain special cases I think provision should be made such as would enable men of the class that I have described to obtain their patents.


William Daum Euler: I have already spoken on this subject and I realize the possible disability under which I am with regard to making the plea I am going to make and which refers to the people of whom I spoke before. I am going to offer an amendment to the clause. Under the- clause as it is drafted it will be possible for subjects of enemy countries to become citizens of Canada only after an additional ten years' residence in the Dominion, and no distinction is made between the man who came 
to this country possibly only a year before the war and the man who has been living here, as I said before, for twenty-five, thirty, forty, or fifty years, and who has proved his loyalty to the hilt. I am making no plea as to the man who is under any suspicion. The men for whom I speak have been residents in Canada for a long period, have all undergone the investigation of a judge, and been approved for citizenship, and I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) to his recognition of the justice of the claim of these people. I have already said this evening, and I am going to repeat the statement because the Prime Minister is now in his seat, that in the session of 1917 the leader of the Government stated that provision would be made whereby men of alien enemy origin who had long been resident in Canada and who could prove their loyalty-could prove that they were sympathetic to the Allies and so on-could be naturalized, and that Orders in Council .would be passed to that effect. Such Orders in Council were passed, and while practically no naturalizations were made under them, I think the mere fact that they were passed was a recognition that these men had a good case and should be considered. My suggestion is this:	If it is thought
right that men who came, we will say from Austria or Germany, or any other enemy country, perhaps a year or two before the war, may, after another ten years' residence in Canada be granted naturalization, surely the fact should count for something that other men have already lived here for twenty, or thirty years, and should not be placed on a par with those who have been here only a year or two. That seems to 'me eminently reasonable, and my suggestion is that cognizance should be taken of that fact. When I spoke before, I mentioned what the United States is doing in this connection, and I have a communication here which bears out my statement that the United States are not dealing in this way with their enemy aliens. That letter is from the Department of Labour to which had been referred a letter of mine addressed to the Department of State, and it reads as follows:
Washington, April 26, 1919.
The Department of State has referred to this department a copy of your letter of the 18th ultimo for response to the fourth inquiry therein.
Congress, by the Act of May 9, 1918 having made provision for the naturalization of enemy aliens, it would obviously be improper for any administrative officer of the Government to discourage their naturalization-

I may say this was in reply to my question as to whether there was any action on the part of the United States to discourage or forbid naturalization of people of alien enemy origin-
-nor has the department felt it a part of its duty actively to encourage their naturalization, believing that to be a matter within the discretion of the individual.
The United States Government is taking no such drastic action as is contemplated here. This is the new Act which has been passed by Congress and I shall read just a very small portion which says:
Section 11: No alien who is a native, citizen, subject, or denizen of any country, state or sovereignty with which the United States is at war shall he admitted to become a citizen ol the United States unless he made his declaration of intention not less than two nor more than seven years prior to the existence of the state of war, or was at that time entitled to become a citizen of the United States, without making a declaration of intention, or unless his petition for naturalization shall then be pending.
That is the case of some 93 residents of the constituency which I represent whose applications are now pending and upon which no action has been taken. The United States law. provides for applications which were pending.
-notwithstanding he shall be an alien enemj at the time and in the manner prescribed by the laws passed upon that subject.
Then follows this:
That the President of the United States may, in his discretion, upon investigation and report by the Department of Justice fully establishing the loyalty of any alien enemy not included in the foregoing exemption, except such alien enemy from the classification of alien enemies,
[DOT] and thereupon he shall have the privilege of applying for naturalization.
I am not making any plea for the man who cannot show that he is loyal or properly entitled to be a citizen or who has not conducted himself as a Canadian citizen should. I am asking this simply as a matter of justice to men who have lived in Canada for very many years, men of the class to which my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has already referred, men who have discharged their duties in every way, against whom there has never been a suspicion of disloyalty of any kind and some of whom have sons fighting in the war. It is unfair and un-British to deprive these men of the right of citizenship in a country which they have served so well. My amendment is as follows:
That paragraph (b) of subsection 4 of clause 8 be amended by adding the words:
"(4) Is the subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty, provided that such subject was permanently resident in Canada on the fourth day of August, in the year one thousand nine hundred and nine."
That provides for ten years' residence in Canada at this time. If it is considered right that the men who have perhaps come from Germany or Austria only a few years ago and naturally would be more sympathetic to the country of their origin, should take ten years to become qualified to be Canadian citizens, then surely those who have lived here for thirty, forty and fifty years should be entitled to that privilege. Whereas the Solicitor General has stated that it is necessary to have our Act coincide with the British Act, I would point out to him that conditions in Canada are somewhat different from those in England. Conditions here are more similar to conditions prevailing in the United States. I present this amendment and I would like the members to give it that earnest consideration, to which I think it is entitled.


Hugh Guthrie: I confess that the
amendment does not appear to be unreasonable, but as I would like to have an opportunity of considering whether or not it would be deemed a radical change from the provisions of the Imperial Act, and as there are several other elements in the proposal which I shall have to consider, I would ask that the matter stand over until some future occasion in order that I may have time to look into it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Section 8, paragraph B2, refers to a person who:
__is a member of a race or community known
to be opposed to the enemy Governments.
To what cases will that provision apply? Suppose an Alsatian or a person living in Lorraine had been naturalized before the war and since 1870; he belonged, by the Treaty of Versailles,, confirmed by the Treaty of Frankfurt, to Germany, but we all know that the Alsatian or the resident of Lorraine was not a German. In that case, would the Secretary of State consider that his naturalization should be revoked? Or, let us take the case af a Rumanian who was an inhabitant of Transylvania. Or, take the case of a Galician who was an Austrian subject, but whose race were practically living in a state of slavery and were very much opposed to the dominant power. You find a more complex case even in Macedonia, which is inhabited by Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks and Armenians. There is

a medley of races under an enemy power. How can the Secretary of State arrive at a conclusion as regards the question whether or not naturalization papers should be revoked? It seems to me that this subsection is not broad enough, and perhaps my hon. friend, whilst considering the amendment of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), might be a little more definite as regards the powers in connection with these races. To speak a little more broadly, I wish to refer to the Jewish race. We all know that the Jews are a self-assertive race. In spite of all the persecutions to which they have been subjected for many centuries, they have maintained the characteristics ,of their race. They go all over the world and become citizens of the world. The Jew is a Jew, and although his name may perhaps suggest enemy nationality, yet he is a Jew.
There are German Jews, Austrian Jews, Russian Jews; how will you distinguish between the Jew who is an enemy and the Jew who is not? Will you consider his adopted country-adopted by force of circumstances-as indicating the nationality which determines his citizenship? This is a very delicate subject. In the county of Gaspe there are large numbers of Jewish citizens; there are also many Jews in Maisonneuve. Many of these people came from enemy countries, but they are loyal citizens and it would be a great pity to debar them from British citizenship. If there is one thing that is to the credit of Great Britain and of British races generally, it is their generosity towards the Jewish race; in England we have had the best examples of that generosity in comparatively recent times. One of the great Prime Ministers of England, Disraeli, belonged to the great Jewish race; the great Chief Justice, Mr. Isaac, Lord Reading, also belongs to that race. 1 could name scores of others in Great Britain, in France and in the Allied countries who originally came from enemy countries and who, under these drastic powers vested in the Secretary of State, would be debarred from British citizenship. We have a large Jewish population in Canada which has come, in large numbers, from enemy countries; yet nobody would contend that they harbour any bad feelings toward our King, our Government, our constitution or our institutions. Under these circumstances, I ask my hon. friend to consider particularly the case of the Jews, whether they come from enemy countries or from friendly countries. During the war Great Britain and her Allies, especially 
France, have taken up the question of restoring Palestine to the Jewish race, and there is an international movement towards the settlement of Palestine by the repatriation of the children of Israel. The Government ought to be very careful not to antagonize the Jews and ought to see that they get the justice to which they are entitled.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in this Bill about the Jews.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the trouble; you have general words like these-


Hugh Guthrie: I simply want to point out that there is nothing in the Bill about Jews. We will let subsection (B) of section 8 stand and we will consider what has been said on these subjects. Sections 9 and 10 are merely formal sections and I suggest that they pass before the committee rises. There is a misprint in section 9; the words "Secretary of State of the United Kingdom" should be "Secretary of State having charge of the administration of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, 1914 and 1918, in the United Kingdom," and I move that the clause be so amended.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like my hon. friend to be a little more explicit with regard to my suggestions concerning the Jews.


Hugh Guthrie: I am letting that stand; the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has moved an amendment that we will consider as well. But I have in mind what my hon. friend has said so eloquently.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.	,


BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friends have any objection to taking up the amendments made by the Senate to the Bankruptcy Bill?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for
George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) was in charge of that, and I do not know if he is here. A programme was set for to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: We merely purpose concurring in the amendments made by the Senate, because in the opinion of the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) they tend on the whole to improve the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) accepts the amendments which were moved by Senator Beique and which clarify the situa-

tion as regards some of the features concerning the province of Quebec. They have been very largely discussed by the Senate. I read the discussion this afternoon.
On .motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Solicitor General), the amendments made by the Senate .to Bill No. 18, respecting Bankruptcy, were concurred in.


TME PRIME MINISTER'S BIRTHDAY.
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I, on behalf of this House, offer my sincere congratulations to the right hon. the Prime Minister on the occasion of his birthday and wish him all success and prosperity.


Jacques Bureau: Many happy returns of the day.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very grateful to my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) and to my hon. friends on both sides of the House for their congratulations and appreciation, although I must say that I have reached a stage in life when these anniversaries are not quite so welcome as they were some years ago.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 12, midnight.
Friday, June 27, 1919.