[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.
Second report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum) presented the first report of the select standing committee to supervise the official report of the debates, as follows:
The select standing committee to supervise the official report of the debates beg leave to present the following as their first report:
Your committee have had under consideration the report of the said committee, presented to the house on June 30th, 1924, for the purpose of re-considering some of the recommendations contained therein, which were presented to the house and concurred in at that time.
Your committee have become impressed with the view that senators should be supplied with a limited number of copies of House of Commons Hansard for distribution by the King's Printer in accordance with mailing lists provided by senators. At the present time honourable members of the senate are supplied with filing copies only, and frequent requests having been received from senators for additional copies to send out, the advisability of considering the matter has became increasingly evident.
Your committee therefore recommend that two copies of House of Commons Hansard, in addition to filing copies now delivered, be supplied for the mailing lists of senators and sent out by the King's Printer to such names and addresses as shall be forwarded to the Editor of Debates, House of Commons.
Your committee have also had under consideration the advisability of increasing the number of Hansards supplied to the members of the House of Commons. After careful consideration of the matter your committee beg leave to recommend that the present number of ten copies, four of which are delivered for the files and six for mailing purposes, be increased to twelve copies, two of which shall be for the files and ten copies and no more for distribu-

Questions
tion by the King's Printer in accordance with names and addresses supplied by members of the House of Commons to the Editor of Debates, House of Commons.
Your committee further recommend that the quorum of the said committee be reduced from the present number of seven to five. The total membership of the committee being but twelve it is found very difficult when other committees are functioning to secure a sufficient attendance to constitute a quorum at the number now fixed.
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn) moved that the first report of the select standing committee to supervise the official report of the debates be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion requires unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Why are the lead pencils, pen holders, ink, pens, keys of desks, keys of offices, keys to members' post office boxes, and other forms of stationery furnished on members' desks in the house, made and purchased in the United States of America, including the atlas of Canada of the Immigration and Interior departments?
2.	How long will this policy continue?
3.	Will stationery made in Canada or the British Empire be substituted therefor, and when?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The mass of stationery supplies furnished to the houses of parliament and the government departments is of Canadian manufacture. Goods of foreign make are, as the regulations require, supplied only when Canadian or British made articles of the type desired are not procurable at approximately equal prices. A few lines of supplies such as pens, lead pencils, 'penholders, typewriters, calculating machines, etc., are not manufactured in Canada, and some are not so far as known manufactured in the British empire. For several years pens not of British make only have been purchased for stock; any pens not of British make supplied in recent years would be on special order or to exhaust remainders of old stocks. Lead pencils of British make are stocked, but certain makes of foreign pencils are still demanded by customer departments in some cases. Penholders
of British make are stocked, but most departments prefer penholders of United States manufacture, which are offered in a greater variety. Ink of Canadian manufacture only is supplied save to meet some positive demand for other goods. Typewriters and calculating machines of British make are not known.
Keys for desks are supplied with desks when purchased. Keys for offices are furnished under contract for the building, and keys for the post office boxes are supplied under contract foT boxes. If any additional keys are required they are cut in Ottawa, in the Public works workshop, from blanks which are generally purchased in Canada.
The atlas of the Immigration and Colonization department is being published in Canada since the fiscal year 1924-25.
As far as the Interior department is concerned the only atlas published by the department in the last ten years is the animated atlas of Canada, which was published in Canada.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


EDMUND RYDER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL '(West Hamilton):
1.	How many months' leave of absence through illness or otherwise, with full pay, did Edmund Ryder, Superintendent of Stationery, receive following April 1st, 1928?
2.	On what date did the said Edmund Ryder resume his official duties in the stationery branch after absence?
3.	What correspondence is there between the Auditor General and the King's Printer dealing with the shortages in tracing linen, and other irregularities in respect of the stationery branch stock, and how soon will the minister undertake to produce that correspondence in the house for inspection?
4.	What correspondence is there in possession of the King's Printer, with the Civil Service Commission, relative to an increase in the salary of the Superintendent of Stationery, and how soon will the minister undertake to produce that correspondence in the house for inspection?
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Sick leave with pay:	April 1st to September 27th, 1928, January 31st, 1929, a.m.; a total of 5 months 27i days.
Annual vacation: December 22nd, 1928 and January 2nd, 1929, a.m.-li days.
2.	September 28th, 1928.
3.	Communications have been received from time to time from the Auditor General giving the result of his annual or more frqquent audit
Questions

of ithe various stores of the Department, the reports containing comments on the principal features of the audit, enumerating the respective shortages and overages, and recommending changes in procedure which might lessen these differences, and there have been replies to these communications. The correspondence involved will be produced when ordered.
4.	There has been no correspondence relating specially to the matter of salary increase in the case of the Superintendent of Stationery, but in January 1927 that officer was included in a list (comprising all the principal administrative officers) which was placed before the Civil Service Commission with the request that a general review of the same might be made with respect to the matter of compensation; in the case of the Superintendent of Stationery and certain other officers the decision of the commission has not been received. Various communications on the subject have passed, and the correspondence will be produced when ordered.


HALTON COUNTY CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What amount was collected in each customs office in the county of Halton, during each of the years 1927 and 1928?
2.	What is the expense of each office, including the salary of the official, during the same years, respectively?
3.	What is the name of the customs official in Streetsville, Peel county, Ontario, and the amount collected in that office during the years 1927 and 1928, respectively?
4.	What salary does the customs official of Streetsville receive and what was the total expense of his office during each of the years 1927 and 1928?
5.	What part of the receipts from this office were collected on goods entering the county of Halton, during the years 1927 and 1928, respectively?


Mr. EULER:: .
1.	1927-28	1928-29
Acton		(11 mos.)
Customs duties..	.. $39,171 92	$30,320 38Excise taxes.. ..	.. 11,346 32	8,172 30$50,518 24	$38,492 68Burlington	Customs duties..	.. $19,997 01	$18,269 36Excise taxes.. .:	.. 10,611 38	7,919 93$30,608 39	$26,189 29Georgetown	Customs duties..	.. $42,382 04	$40,244 06Excise taxes.. ..	13,212 16$59,816 55	$53,456 22
Milton West P.O.
Customs duties.. ..	$ 13 39	$ 32 08Excise taxes	2 68	4 65$ 16 07	$ 36 73Oakville	'Customs duties.. ..	$23,147 88	$23,968 89Excise taxes	27,254 07	20,459 21$50,401 95	$44,428 102. Acton	Salaries	.$ 1,740 00	$ 1,595 00Contingencies	. 94 70	88 05$ 1,834 70	$ 1,683 05Burlington	Salaries	.$ 1,380 00	$ 1,370 00Contingencies	. 408 61	352 77$ 1,788 61	$ 1,722 77Georgetown	Salaries	.$ 1,740 00	$ 1,595 00Contingencies	. 410 15	357 85$ 2,150 15	$ 1,952 85Milton West	Salaries	[DOT] nil	nilContingencies	[DOT] nil	4 64nil	$ 4 64Oakville	Salaries	.$ 1,740 00	$ 1,595 00Contingencies	. 342 53	430 22$ 2,082 53	$ 2,025 223. D. V. Reed, subcollector of Customs and	Excise grade 1 outport.	1927-28	1928-29Streetsville	(11 mos.)Customs duties.. ..	$20,694 40	$32,795 23Excise taxes	4,555 41	4,370 19$25,249 81	$37,165 424. $1,740. . Streetsville	Salaries	.$ 1,740 00	$ 1,595 00Contingencies	. 600 96	494 39$ 2,340 96	$ 2.089 395. Information not available.	CANADIAN REGULAR ARMY


Mr. HOCKEN:: 1. What is the total	number of	non-commissioned officers and men	in the Canadian regular	
army?		
2. How many of them	are French Canadians?	

Questions
3.	What is the number of lieutenants, captains, majors and colonels?
4.	How many of each rank are French Canadians?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Total warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men on the 31st January, 1929, 2,905.
2.	No record, except that all are British subjects.
3.	Lieutenants, 95; captains, 140; majors, 100; colonels, 63.
4.	No record, except that all are British subjects.


GRANTS TO FAIRS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What fairs associations or clubs in the province of Ontario have received grants and allowances from the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada during the year 1928?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: , Grants to summer fairs:	Western Fair,
London, Ontario; Central Canada Exhibition, Ottawa; Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto; Peterboro Industrial Exhibition.
Grants to winter fairs:	Ottawa Winter
Fair; Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto; Ontario Provincial Winter Fair, Guelph.
Grants to heifer club fairs:	Slate River
Valley Holstein Club; Peterboro Boys' and Girls' Club; Wilmot Jersey Heifer Club; Galt Holstein Heifer Club; Halton Holstein Heifer Club.
Grants to bacon hog fairs: Campbellford, Orono, Ilderton, Simcoe, Caledon East, Kemptville, Almonte.
Grants to market lamb fairs: Emo, Middle-ville, Little Current, Manitowaning, Havelock, Franktown.
Grants to boys' and girls' sheep club fairs: Appin, Deleware, Sylvan, Thorndale, Kamoka, Ashfield, Maitland, Inter Club Fair at London, Warsaw, Indian River.
Note:	The question has been interpreted
as applicable only to grants to fair associations and club fairs. Accordingly, clubs where no fairs are held, as for instance, " stallion clubs," are not listed.


IMMIGRANTS UNDER AGE OF TWENTY-ONE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	What number of immigrants under twenty-one years of age, (a) males, (b) females, came into Canada during the last year from the British Isles?
2.	Can the department say how many of these were between fourteen and twenty-one years of age?


Mr. FORKE:: 1 and 2. The immigration compilations do not show the number of immigrants from the British isles under twenty-one years of age.
They show the number under eighteen years of age who came to Canada during the fiscal year 1927-28 as 14,523, of whom 8,479 were males and 6,044 were females. The total immigration from the British isles was 51,552. It is impossible to show from the statistics the number between fourteen and twenty-one.


STEAMER LARCH
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	From whom was the steamer Larch chartered for service in connection with the Hudson strait expedition during the season of 1928?
2.	What is the tonnage of the said steamer?
3.	What was the rate of hire paid for the said steamer Larch while under charter?
4.	What quantity of coal was loaded on said steamer before proceeding on the outward voyage to Hudson strait?
5.	Where was the coal loaded on the said
steamer ?	.
6.	What was the price per ton paid for the
said coal?	_
7.	For what purpose was the said coal purchased?
8.	When did the said steamer Larch reach Halifax on the return voyage from Hudson strait?
9.	How much of the said coal was on board when the steamer Larch arrived at Halifax from Hudson strait?
10.	What disposition was made of the coal so returned?


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	Messrs. Farquhar & Co. Limited, Halifax, N.S.
2 . 5.870 tons dead weight carrying capacity, 2,261 tons net-3,564 tons gross.
3.	$350 per day. Department furnishing bunker coal only. Owners finding crew, provisions, deck and engine room stores and insuring ship.
4.	3,603 tons.
5.	Sydney, N.S., with the exception of 70 tons loaded at Halifax, N.S.
6.	Six dollars per ton trimmed on board.
7.	To supply bunker fuel for the C.G.S. Montcalm and the SS. Larch while these vessels employed in Hudson strait. The additional quantity was sent to guard against shortage of coal in the event that any casualty should happen that would detain either vessel in the strait.
8.	October 24, at 4.45 p.m.
9.	Fifteen hundred and eleven tons.
10.	619 tons discharged at marine agency wharf at Dartmouth and supplied to Dominion steamers and agency as required for which department received credit at the rate of $7 per ton. There was no room on .the agency wharf to store the balance and after obtaining several offers for the purchase of the remaining 892 tons, the highest received, that from Messrs. O'Leary, of Halifax, for S5.25 per ton was accepted.
Questions


DRUG TRAFFIC CONVICTIONS
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	How many persons were convicted last year of illegally selling any of the drugs, opium, morphine, cocaine or any of their derivatives?
2.	How many of these were, (a) medical men;
(b)	veterinary surgeons; (c) dentists; (d) druggists, and what were their respective nationalities?
3.	How many were convicted for illegally bringing same into Canada, and what were their occupations?
4.	How many drug addicts were known in Canada during the year, 1928?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	In the judicial year ending September 30, 1928, 61. In addition 129 were convicted of illegal possession, many of whom were known to be traffickers. There were also 163 convictions reported by the Bureau of Statistics as "breaches of act not otherwise defined" which very probably includes some cases in that category.
2.	(a) 7:	English Canadians, 5; French
Canadians, 1; Jewish, 1.
(b)	2: English Canadians, 2.
(c)	1: English Canadians, 1.
(d)	None.
3.	Nine persons were convicted of "possession" under circumstances which went to show that the drugs were brought into Canada by them: ship's fitter, 1; ship's firemen, 2; ship's greaser, 1; ship's second engineer, 1; ship's clerk, 1; ship's chief stewards, 2; merchant, 1.
4.	It, is estimated that there are 8,000 persons in Canada addicted to the use of narcotics.


IMMIGRATION OF MINERS
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	What was the outlay on the part of the government of Canada in connection with the miners brought to Canada from England last summer, described on page 428 of Hansard as "cooperation in placing them at harvest work"?


Mr. FORKE:: 1. The department used its existing organization to place at harvest work such of the harvesters as applied to the department for that purpose. The main part of the distribution work was done by the railways. The staff of the Department of Immigration and Colonization was not increased in any way to look after this work.


OAKVILLE AND BRONTE HARBOURS
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What amount was expended on the wharf and harbour at Oakville during the years 1919 to 1928, inclusive?
2.	Was the work done by contract and, if so, give the name and address of the contractor in each year?

3.	Was local labour employed and, if so, to what number in each year?
4.	If the work was not done by contract in any year, how was it done?
5.	Give an answer to the same queries in regard to the wharf and harbour at Bronte?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$64,577.80.
2 and 3. (a) By contract and day labour; (b) In 1920-21 work done under contract by the C. S. Boone Dredging & Construction Company, Limited of Toronto. In 1927-28 and 1928-29 work done under agreement by the Russell Construction Company of Toronto. No information as to whether the employees of the contractors were residents of the locality or not.
4.	By day labour.
5.	$19,555.46, all the work being done by day labour.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How- much raw leaf tobacco was imported from the United States during the year 1928?
2.	What is the present rate of duty per pound: (a) stemmed; (b) unstemmed?
3.	How' much tobacco was exported from
Canada during the year 1928 to:	(a) Great
Britain; (b) other countries?
4.	What is the present rate of dutsr on tobaeco: (a) all grades; (b) raw and manufactured, entering Canada?
5.	What grades of tobacco were imported during the past year?
6.	How many pounds of each?
7.	How many pounds of tobacco were produced in Canada during the years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928?
8.	How many pounds of tobacco were exported during each of the afore-mentioned years?
9.	How many pounds of tobacco were imported during each of the afore-mentioned years?


HEALTH OF ANIMALS-TUBERCULIN TEST
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What was the total amount paid in compensation in the province of Ontario for animals slaughtered under the Animals Contagious Disease Act, termed "The Health of Animals", in each of the years ending March 31, 1924. 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928?
2.	What amount of compensation was paid for cattle slaughtered as reactors to the TB test for tuberculosis in each year mentioned?
3.	What amount w'as paid as compensation for pure-bred registered cattle, and average payment per head; also same for grade cattle?
4.	What was the total amount paid in each year in salaries, wages and travelling expenses to officials of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the administration of the TB test for cattle in each year in the province of Ontario, and also in each year for the dominion?

Questions of Privilege



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and/or documents of any character passing between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain or any department thereof, in regard to the following resolutions, which passed both the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada:-
1.	The resolution passed in 1920 which reads as follows: "Any enactment by the parliament of Canada otherwise within the legislative authority of that parliament shall operate and be deemed to have operated extra territorially according to its intention in like manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom."
2.	The resolution passed in 1924, which reads as follows: "Any enactment intra vires of the parliament of Canada if expressed to operate extra territorially shall be deemed to have had that operation in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."



BURLINGTON POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: For a copy' of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents in connection with the appointment of a postmaster for the town of Burlington.



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH AND BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS

Mr. RENNIE:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda. and other documents exchanged between the Minister of the Department of Pensions and National Health, or any official of his department, and the Board of Pension Commissioners of Canada or any official thereof, relating to matters of administration, finance statistics, or files, since June, 1928, to the present date.
PRIVILEGE-MR. GLEN On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I find on page 707 of Hansard of March 5 the following statement made by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird):
He said that there was something more precious, more sacred than the concrete rights of the people of Manitoba. There was this abstract thing, he said, these provincial rights which have precedence; anything that returns to the people of Manitoba the abstract rights concerning their natural resources was worthy of his support, and I am willing, he said, to let the Seven Sisters go in order to get this abstract right.
Throughout the whole of that statement the hon. member is referring to me. I recall that when he was seconding the resolution which has been before the house for four days he took very high ground with regard to the ideals
of public life. I do think those ideals ought to carry with them some recognition of accuracy and veracity of statement. It will be noticed that this quotation from the hon. member's speech is not based on hearsay; it is a categorical statement of something which he alleges I said.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other night when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) used the word "lie" you ruled that it was not a proper expression. I therefore refrain from using that word, but I do say that at no time have I ever stated to the hon. member for Nelson or to any other member of this house the words which I have just read from his speech, or any words which even the most vivid imagination could construe as such. I assert that the hon. member has given a statement to this house so contrary to every word I used, and so contrary to the spirit that actuated me throughout the whole matter, that I can only characterize it as being as false as sin.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
may I explain that the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. A reference to Hansard will confirm this. The words he has repeated to the house were not given by me as a quotation at all, and the Hansard reporter so dealt with them. Those words were never meant to be a literal representation of what the hon. gentleman said. They appear in Hansard, not in quotation marks, but in the same type as the rest of my speech, which makes it abundantly clear that I was giving my interpretation of what he said. So I do not think the hon. gentleman has any real occasion to rise up on his high horse of offended virtue.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEAPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege and in the cause of accuracy of statement. I would point out that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) did not second the resolution of my hon. friend from North Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) in connection with the disposition of natural resources.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But, Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There is no question of privilege.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then I rise to a point of
order. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Questions of Privilege

Glen) said that the hon. member for Nelson seconded the motion of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. He did not do so. The votes and proceedings will show that I was the one who seconded the motion.



PRIVILEGE-MR. STEVENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, but my object is more to set at rest a question of procedure. However, I raise it on a question of privilege in order that I may be within the rules of the house.
Yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) intimated that I had departed from the usual practice of parliament in not having given him notice of an amendment that I proposed to make, and which I subsequently did make. I will not quote his words; I do not think he will dispute my interpretation. I had hoped to have the exact reference from Bourinot, but I am not able to place my finger on it at the moment-


Mr. CAHILL:: Beauchesne will do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -but the fact is that
Bourinot declares, as I think do all the other authorities, that no notice of an amendment is required; that it has been the custom in the House of Commons of Canada when it is proposed to move an amendment virtually constituting a motion of want of confidence in the government itself, on going into committee of supply, for instance, to give notice thereof to the government within a reasonable time.
I may say from my own experience of the practice followed by this house that it has been usual to hand a copy of such amendment to the opposing party or the government as the case may be, an hour or two before the house meets. But in the case of a private member's motion, as was the motion which we were discussing, with the amendment thereto, it has never been the practice in this house or in the house at Westminster to give notice of such amendments. I wish to say to the right hon. gentleman and to the house that I should certainly feel very much grieved if it could be justly said that I had been guilty of a breach of the practices of parliament.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I hope my hon. friend
will not take too seriously any remarks I may have made yesterday. He had, to use his own terms, referred to the delivering of a bit of a lecture to his side of the house and I reminded him of what hon. members know
(Mr. Heaps.3
to be the case, that where there is a question that involves government policy, and the opposition expect the government to make an immediate pronouncement, the general practice is to have the government favoured in advance with a copy of the motion to be made. I said that my hon. friend, who usually is a model of courtesy, had evidently unintentionally overlooked that customary procedure. That was the extent of my criticism of him; and I would say to him now that if again he wishes the government, on the spur of the moment, to accept some amendment which is being introduced to the house for the purpose, to use his own words, of bringing us all together so that there can be absolute unanimity, I hope he will follow the practice of letting us know a little in advance what his objective is, so that we may be in a position to meet him at the moment and not be obliged to search statutes and consult authorities before being in a position to give him a final answer.



MONTREAL RAILWAY TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
REPORT OF MR. FREDERICK PALMER-PRINTING On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), yesterday asked a question with reference to the printing of the Palmer report. I have made inquiries regarding the matter and find that the manuscript, in both English and French, together with the maps, is now in the hands of the King's Printer, and only the delay incidental to the lithographing of the maps will prevent immediate distribution of the report. As nearly as I can ascertain, possibly two weeks will elapse before general distribution can be made.
PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) asked me to secure reports and information regarding the work done last year in the Peace River area. A request has been sent to Winnipeg for this information, which will be tabled as soon as it is received. I may say in connection with the same matter that some two years ago there was a report of the engineers acting jointly for the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways with reference to the Peace River western outlet. The supply of these reports has run out, and in view of the demand we are having a reprint made.

Natural Resources-Point of Order

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Joseph Garland: Would the government be willing to table the application of the Beauharnois company for the approval of its plans in connection with what is known as the Beauharnois project


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: What is referred to by my hon.
friend is included* I think, in an order of the house which was made some time ago. I will look into the matter; I am sure there is no objection.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister let me know?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Is there any truth in the report that the government of Ontario is negotiating with the government with reference to old age pensions in that province?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: So far the only question asked by
the government of Ontario is whether, in the event of their adopting a certain system of administration it would coincide with the federal act; that is to say, whether they would be entitled to fifty per cent if they put into effect a certain system of administration.



COAL IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Is
the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) prepared to answer the question I asked last week in regard to the importation of Russian coal?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: I have made inquiries as to when an answer will be forthcoming and I am promised it for to-morrow.



NAVIGATION AND WATER-POWERS DOMINION-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Will the Prime Minister lay on the table the full text of the answers given by the supreme court in connection with the reference relating to
the respective rights of the provinces and the Dominion in connection with water and water-powers, and also the factum presented by the attorney general in support of that reference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is not already down, I will see, with pleasure, that it is brought down.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Woodsworth-That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament, on the proposed amended amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Bird.
Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. member proceeds, a point of order was raised last night by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). May I ask him whether he persists in his objection to the amendment?


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: Certainly I do, Mr. Speaker, because I think the objection is well taken.


Hewitt Bostock: The Solicitor General was automatically interrupted at eleven o'clock. Will he now be good enough to develop his point?


Lucien Cannon: The point which I raised last night, Your Honour, is to the effect that the amendment which is now before the house ought to be ruled out of order because that amendment contains a principle different from the principle laid down in the amendment already adopted, and the house certainly cannot be called upon in the same debate to decide upon two different principles.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member desire to speak to the point of order?


Thomas William Bird: I should like to point out that the Solicitor General last evening, when he read the subamendment- and I was careful to follow the hon. gentleman-omitted the very significant words " similar to ". Similarity is not identity, so on the point of principle alone-I am not pressing it at all-I contend that the amendment as passed does not bind the government to bring in an act identical with the Railway Belt Water Act. The contention of the Solicitor General depends entirely upon his al-
720	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Point oj Order
legation that this house has passed upon the principle of bringing in an act identical with the Railway Belt Water Act; but the words " similar to " clearly indicate that the government in bringing in that act have some leeway. However, I will leave that aside and direct the attention of the house to my amendment, which does not clash, either in intention or in wording, with the principle declared in the subamendment. My amendment reads:
And in the opinion of this house such water-powers should not be disposed of until ratified by the legislatures concerned.
I was careful, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the objection which the Solicitor General has raised in his point of order. In the wording of the amendment I carefully avoided anything that would seem to indicate that we were wishing to impose upon the western provinces the will of this house. The intention and the wording of my amendment agree in this, that it is only an expression of opinion on the part of this house, which is meant only to have a moral influence upon the procedure in the western provinces.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word in regard to the point of order. While the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) was speaking last night it was suggested that he might move an amendment, and I tried to imagine the nature of any amendment he might move which would not be out of order under rule 413, which says:
No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by its vote on a former amendment.
With the question of the propriety of submitting an amendment I am quite in agreement with the ruling already made, but the whole point turns on whether or not the present amendment is in violation of a principle which has been already adopted, and this is the point I would like to urge. If I understood aright the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) it was to the effect that the water-powers of the prairie provinces should be turned over to these provinces by an act of this parliament and that legislation should be passed by these provincial legislatures giving effect to that act. When that amendment was adopted I thought we were imposing no restrictions or burdens upon the provinces; I thought they were to be free to act according to their own judgment, and my contention is that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Nelson is

out of order because it does violate that principle in that it seeks to impose a limitation instead of permitting the full application of the principle we adopted yesterday in that amendment.


Mir. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that
whatever may have been in the mind of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), there is nothing in the amendment such as he has suggested. It is very clear that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre simply stated the principle that legislation should be introduced along the lines of the Railway Belt Water Act, and that the provinces should be given the right to administer their own resources. I take it that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Nelson simply goes on to state a condition under which the provinces may be given this right of administration. We must remember that after all the Dominion government is the trustee, and in passing any legislation here this government can arrange the conditions under which it will suggest that the provinces administer this act.


Mr. DUNNING:: But the hon. member
who moved the amendment stated that that was not his intention in moving it, that his amendment was practically a pious hope which we might transmit to the provinces but in no sense a condition. That statement was made just now by the hon. member who moved the amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite realize that the mover of the amendment made that statement and technically that may be correct, but I would point out that in practice we are suggesting, if you like that word, the conditions under which that administration would be carried out, which I take it we have a perfect right to do. I would go so far as to say that whether or not it is contained in the amendment as interpreted by the mover, this parliament has a perfect right to state the conditions under which the resources will be turned over to the administration of the provinces. If the mover of the resolution simply expresses that pious wish, as I think he does, perhaps that is even less binding than the conditions I would like to see substituted. We have only that before us, but in any case the condition is there; it does not alter the original principle that the provinces should be given the right to administer their resources in the interim.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: I find it necessary to say a word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The subamendment

Natural Resources-Point of Order
which has been adopted provides that there shall be no further disposition of the water-powers but that they shall be administered in effect according to the water acts of British Columbia, or similar acts to be passed. Anyone familiar with what are known as the water acts of British Columbia knows that they do not provide for the alienation of the water-powers of that province. The proposed amendment states that the disposition of water-powers shall not take place without the consent of the legislature, therefore we are in this position:	The subamendment
adopted yesterday stated that no further disposition of water-powers should take place but that they should be administered under the water acts of British Columbia.


Charles A. Stewart: Under similar acts.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is true, and this
amendment goes a step further, but in my opinion it is quite legitimate and quite in order. It provides that in addition to the good we have taken by the subamendment there shall be no actual disposition of the water-powers without the sanction of the legislatures.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I am not
a lawyer and I do not intend to discuss this question technically, but as I understood the amendments as they came up the amendment moved by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) would have made it necessary for the western provinces, had they wanted to dispose of any of their natural resources, to come to this house and obtain an act of parliament. The subamendment changed that and practically gave the assent and the approbation of this house to the policy which has been carried on by the Minister of the Interior in the past, and a forward step was made in the matter of the return of the natural resources to the western provinces. Now, as I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson, he wants to take back something we have already done, or some part of it, and should the amendment of the hon. member be adopted we will be tying a string on the resources we turned over in a certain way yesterday. I agree with the objection of the Solicitor General, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule out of order the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nelson.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: If I understand the meaning of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelson it is to meet this diffi-
7S594-46
culty: There is at present no legislation passed by this parliament and there is no legislation passed by the three provincial legislatures to give effect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, which was adopted. There will be an interval before such legislation can be passed, and I understand the object of the hon. member for Nelson to be that until such legislation is passed there shall be no granting of the water-powers under the control of the federal government without the consent of the three prairie provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: The legislatures of the
provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, the legislatures of the provinces, although I think "provinces" would be a better word. However, to me the meaning is plain: There is no machinery at present, and until legislation is passed this amendment suggests that there shall be consent by the provinces before any of the water-powers are parted with by this government. That does not change the principle of the amendment which was passed, it endorses it; it provides only for an inter regnum, as it were, which we had not provided for. In my judgment, the amendment is wholly in order.


Charles Avery Dunning: There have been several meanings adduced with reference to this last amendment. The meaning attached to it by the mover (Mr. Bird) is that it is only intended as a sort of pious hope that the legislatures will decide that no disposal of those resources shall take place without their ratification. The acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) puts an entirely different meaning upon it, and the other hon. members who have spoken have put still another meaning upon it. The point of order raised by myself last night, and afterwards reinforced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), had reference to the relevancy of the actual words to the amendment already adopted by the house.


Hewitt Bostock: I have heard the argument on the point of order raised by the Solicitor General, and I have no hesitation in ruling that the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) is quite in order. The original motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) was that no disposal of the natural resources Should be made in the future unless ratified by parliament. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) restricting that principle to water-powers. There was a further amend-

722 ^	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Speaker's Ruling
ment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) which stated that no water-powers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be alienated unless they came under the administration of those provinces under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to those granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt as set forth in the Railway Belt Water Act, and being chapter 211 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. That subamendment was carried.
But does it prevent an hon. member going further and, without calling in question the principle of that subamendment,, suggesting only that words be added in order to give the three legislatures additional power in connection with the water-powers to be assigned to them? Let me explain how and when amendments may be moved. The following appears in Bourinot at page 320:
Amendments may, however, be proposed to add words to the main motion, or amendment, as amended.
That :s the case in the present instance. This statement is confirmed by Redlich at page 232:
If a motion is amended, the altered motion has to be dealt with as a principal question, and disposed of by a question. Thence arises the possibility of a subamendment, a subsidiary motion in the second degree, which can be interposed between the proposal of the question on the first amendment and the final putting of this question. An amendment to an amendment, then, is in order.
Cushing on Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, has this to say at page 618, section 1587:
It frequently happens, while a question is pending and under discussion, that some other question-subsidiary, incidental or privileged- arises or is formally moved; in which case, the question, first moved, called sometimes the main, that is, primary, or principal question, is superseded or suspended for the time being, by the new question. When this proceeding takes place-as soon as the new question arises or is formally proposed-that is the question to which members must speak and every member is at liberty to speak to it, notwithstanding he may have spoken to the former.
An example of this occurs when an amendment is moved, which of course supersedes the original question until it is decided. While the amendment is pending the main question can not be spoken to, but when it has been decided, whether agreed to or rejected, the original question is revived and can be spoken to as before. Even though I had doubt in the present instance as to the regularity of this amendment, and I have none, I think the principle of the expressive power of the House of Commons should be

asserted and vindicated. I do not think this amendment changes or alters the principle which was adopted yesterday; it only adds a condition in the proposed mode of administration of the water-powers; it expresses the view that the legislation based on the Railway Belt Water Act, when presented to this house, shall be so framed as to admit of ratification in the three western legislatures.
I therefore rule that the point of order is not well taken. The amendment is in order.


Burt Wendell Fansher: I had nearly finished my remarks last night, and I believe I would have done so had it not been for the contention raised that the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) was not in order.
I was endeavouring to dhow that for many years the water-powers on the Winnipeg river and the waters of the lake of the Woods had been under review by this parliament. An act known as the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act was passed in 1921 which sought to preserve for Manitoba the water-powers on the Winnipeg river on which the Seven Sisters falls are situated. The following year an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend this act, and during 1923 another amendment was introduced. During the discussion of that year it was made quite plain that most of the Manitoba members were opposed to the repeal of this act; they seemed to consider that it was in the interests of the province of Manitoba that the act should remain in force. In supporting that principle the then member for South Winnipeg, Mr. A. B. Hudson, had the following to say:
I think parliament would make a great mistake, having regard to the interests of Canada as a whole, to repeal this legislation.
The then member for Brandon, the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), was very much interested in having this act remain on the statute books. He had the following to say:
I know the position the city of Winnipeg is in, and I know if these water-powers are hampered or interfered with, a disaster and a tragedy will be caused to the city of Winnipeg. There is no question about that.
It seems to me that the opinion of the hon. gentleman whom I have quoted was that it was preferable for the control of these water-powers to be vested in the Dominion parliament. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), however, informed us last session- and we knew it to be right-that this act was repealed. The government last session in effect said this: We declare that these wateT-powers are not in the general interest of

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
Canada; and having made that declaration they proceeded to grant rights to a private corporation, in compliance, of course, with the wishes of the Manitoba government. What this amendment seeks to establish is simply to make certain that in future such deals in connection with water-powers in any of the western provinces shall be approved by the legislatures of the provinces affected. Surely we are not afraid to trust the people's representatives. If these leases are wise deals; if they are good leases, surely they will bear investigating by the legislatures concerned. For my part I think the amendment is eminently desirable. There seems to be of late a disposition to alienate some of these water-powers from the control of the people, and I should be sorry to see these great natural resources, which mean so much to us in this day, alienated in any way whatsoever without a full discussion taking place in the legislatures that are concerned. The amendment is highly desirable and in the best interests of all concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the whole question has become so involved that I am inclined to believe many hon. members of the house may not appreciate the full significance of some of the amendments which are being moved. This much I think is clear, namely, that we are first of all dealing with the disposition of natural resources; second, that the particular natural resources we are at the moment concerned with are water-powers; and, third, the water-powers only in the provinces of Manitoba, .Saskatchewan and Alberta. A fourth factor is introduced by the amendment which relates to "ratification," as it is termed, by provincial legislatures. No doubt "approval" is what is meant. If we keep those four essentials clearly in mind I do not think there will be much difficulty in seeing just where the amendment of my hon. friend would land us if parliament should be tempted to pass it.
Yesterday the house accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) whereby it agreed that the water-powers of the three western provinces should be transferred to those provinces for purposes of administration. It was recognized by the house that an immediate transfer would be impossible. Indeed, it was recognized that some little time might necessarily elapse before the transfer as required by the amendment could be made, for the reason that first of all parliament would have to amend its own legislation, so as to [DOT]S594-46J
bring the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to their water-powers into a position corresponding with that of British Columbia with respect to water-powers in the railway belt; in tb-' second place that the three western provinces would on their part each have to pass enabling legislation which would give them the necessary powers to administer the resources when they were transferred. Clearly as a result of that amendment there are two periods of time that have to be taken into consideration. I do not agree with the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) when he says that the amendment of my hon. friend is restricted to only one of those periods. There is no restriction in the matter of time. It is a short amendment which says that no disposition Shall be made until there is ratification by the provincial legislatures.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ratification of each disposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, ratification of each disposition, as my hon. friend has just said. Let us take the two periods separately and consider what the amendment means in relation to them. There is first of all the period between the present moment and the time at which parliament has amended its present legislation and the time that all three of the western provinces have passed their enabling legislation. The amendment means that in the interval the federal government cannot transfer any water-power without the legislatures of those provinces ratifying the disposition that has been made. In other words, the transfer can be made effective only after the legislatures themselves have ratified what has been done. That is a delegation of part of the obligation of parliament in the matter of administering the resources. Resources that are under the control of the federal government can be administered only by this government. Any legislation which tends to delegate that power is ultra vires of parliament. That in a word, is the position in regard to the first period. This federal parliament cannot divest itself of full responsibility in the matter of a transfer of resources by delegating any phase of that transfer to a provincial legislature so long as the resources are under the control of this parliament. So long as the transfer has not been made this parliament cannot delegate to any provincial legislature the legislative power over such disposition. Any provision which amounts in law to a delegation is ultra vires parliament. Let us understand that
724	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
clearly, because that is one reason why the government cannot accept the amendment. It asks us to do something that in our opinion is ultra vires parliament.


Thomas William Bird: How would that apply to the subamendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am referring to the subamendment. I am dividing its application into two periods, the period prior to the transfer, and the period subsequent to the transfer of the resources from our administration to -the provincial governments for their administration. The amendment relates to the transfer to the provincial governments for the purposes of their administration. I am speaking now of -the period that would elapse between the present moment and the transfer, and I say that in that interval of time my hon. friend's amendment, if it were passed, would compel us to attempt something that was ultra vires parliament. We cannot divest ourselves of a power which is exclusively ours with respect to territory and resources which are under our administration.
Let us consider the other phase. The second period contemplates the provinces in a position to administer their own resources; it necessarily contemplates the legislatures of those provinces deciding what, in their opinion, it is most advisable to do in regard to the disposition of the natural resources in those provinces. They will have to pass water acts of their own. If they do not trust their governments, they can put into their water acts, as one of the provisions, that the government shall have no power to do anything, only the legislature, and then the legislature becomes the executive; that is what it comes to. I am inclined to feel that much of -the difficulty all through this debate has arisen through a failure on the part of many to comprehend the essential distinction between the legislative function in government and the executive function. The crown acts through the executive in executive acts; it does not act -through parliament. Some of the amendments which have been moved are an endeavour to transfer the executive function from a responsible ministry to a legislative body, and as such, they do not have regard for the customary practice under British parliamentary institutions.
Let me come back again to what is involved in the amendment with respect to the powers of these provincial legislatures. Once the provinces are entitled to administer their own resources, this amendment, if it is passed, would in so many words declare that the provincial legislatures of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta could not authorize their (Mr. Mackenzie King.]
governments to dispose of natural resources in the nature of water-powers except, in the case of each, by the legislature itself ratifying every such disposition. Since when, Mr. Speaker, has this parliament had the right to tell any provincial government or legislature what it shall do or shall not do in the administration of its own affairs? Are we not going pretty far afield in respect of our own rights and privileges when we undertake here in this parliament at Ottawa to tell the three western provinces of Canada that they shall not have the right to legislate as they please with respect to the disposition of water-powers, concerning the administration of which we are giving them full and plenary discretion?
It comes back again to the position we were in with respect to the original motion. Here is an effort, not so intended, I admit, but, nevertheless, in effect, to strangle the three western provinces in the matter of the disposition of their water-powers, as compared with the other provinces of Canada. Supposing my hon. friend moved in this house that no power would be given to the government of the province of Ontario to make any disposition of its water-powers except by an act of the provincial legislature. How long would he be countenanced in that attempt by hon. gentlemen opposite? He would be told at once that that was none of this parliament's business, that the Ontario legislature is as supreme and sovereign in its rights as is this parliament in its rights, and that we have no right -to dictate to Ontario how it shall manage its own affairs. The governments of the western provinces are responsible to their legislatures, and if the governments of the western provinces are not doing what is right then it is for their legislatures to say so. Two of the governments of the western provinces at the present time are Progressive governments, and I am amazed to find that it is my friends of the Progressive party opposite who are the ones of all persons in this house who seem to be most critical or suspicious of Progressive administrations. They seem to feel that wherever there is a Progressive government in office, they should in some way restrain it from performing an act for which it will be responsible to its own legislature. May I say that so far as I personally am concerned, I do not take an attitude of that kind with respect to the responsibility of ministers to their legislatures. I think that governments fully appreciate what their responsibilities are, and that they know very well where their power and authority comes from before they will perform any act. The provincial ministers are responsible to the provincial legislatures; the Dominion ministers are responsible

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
to the Dominion parliament. You cannot make a Dominion ministry responsible for some act of a provincial legislature, or a provincial ministry responsible for some act of the Dominion parliament.
So, Mr. Speaker, I contend that with the best-of intentions my hon. friend's amendment would put us in a strange and in an impossible predicament, and for that reason we cannot accept it.
Let me come down to one concrete effect of the amendment in a situation which is of considerable importance at this very moment. Forget for a moment the province of Manitoba, which undoubtedly is most in the mind of my hon. friend. I think that the government and the legislature of Manitoba have probably had enough in the way of experience already to make them go pretty gingerly in the future in respect to anything they may do with respect to water-powers in that province. I do not think my hon. friends from Manitoba need be the least bit afraid that any government in Manitoba from now on, if indeed it ever felt otherwise, will ask this government to do anything with respect to water-powers for which it does not feel it has the full support of the provincial legislature. But take the case of the province of Alberta. What is the position in regard to Alberta at this moment? We are, or we believe that we are, practically at a settlement with respect to the transfer of natural resources to that province. If this resolution passed, and were intra vires, and were to be acted upon, and Mr. Brownlee, the premier of Alberta, were to-morrow to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to make some disposition of a certain water-power in that province, no matter how urgent his desire and wish might be, the minister would have to reply that he could not do it, that he would have to wait until the legislature of Alberta reassembled and ratified whatever disposition he was in a position to approve. Similarily, when we are transferring the natural resources, this government would be obliged under this resolution to insert in any contract with the Alberta government that the Alberta government could not have back the water-power resources with authority to the ministry itself to make any disposition of those resources, that the government could only have the water-powers back on the condition that the legislature itself approves every disposition which the government makes. Now is that a fair position in which to put a government such as the government of Alberta? Is it a fair position in which to put the government of Saskatchewan? Is it
a fair position in which to put the government of Manitoba? And these are the only governments that are affected by the amendment of my hon. friend. It does not affect the other governments of the Dominion in the slightest particular.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that, from one point of view, the proposed legislation is ultra vires, and that, from another point of view, it implies that this government may impose its will on the legislatures of provinces, which have complete autonomy and full rights with respect to matters under their own control, to say nothing of other objections which might well be raised, we cannot accept the amendment, and I cannot but feel that my hon. friend, if he appreciates that such is the effect of his amendment, will probably not press it unduly.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If the amendment were
adopted, would the three prairie provinces be then on an equality with the other provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They certainly would not. The whole effect of the amendment is to put them in an inferior position as compared with the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment as amended.


Thomas Cantley: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). I would have voted for the amendment to the amended amendment.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment as amended.



GRADING OF GRAIN


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the statutory definitions applying to all contract grades of wheat in the western inspection division, should be amended in such a manner as to provide for including protein as a factor.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in presenting this
resolution to the house I am aware that a goodly number of hon. members are very anxious to discuss the budget. I hope I may be able to allay some of their anxiety on that score when I state that I am quite sure the debate on this resolution will not last more than three days and may possibly be concluded within a somewhat shorter time.

Grading of Grain-Mr. Millar
This matter is one of very great importance in that it affects the grading of 500 million bushels of wheat. It is rather interesting to find that in 1918 Canada grew only 189 million bushels of wheat, while last year the crop reached the huge total of 533 million bushels. During past years the farmers of western Canada have gone through most trying times. They have the difficulties of frost, rust, hail, excessively dry weather-all those difficulties they must contend with; but in addition there are other difficulties that this parliament can remove, and it is those difficulties that I intend to deal with this afternoon. I purpose reciting the position of the farmer as I see it, and I purpose also mentioning three major reforms which I believe are required.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot hear
-the hon. member, who I understand is discussing an important question.


John Millar: Each year, early in the
threshing season, -the milling companies of western Canada gather samples by the thousand from prairie shipping points and have them tested for protein or, in other words, for milling purposes. They have maps prepared-I have seen some of them-on which thousands of shipping points in the prairies are marked by pins of various colours to indicate strength, and the Canadian mills follow the practice of picking the strongest wheat from these points. That is the first step in skimming off the cream, and it is one of the complaints which the western farmer is making a.t the present time. Thousands of cars are sold in this way, because they contain very strong and good milling wheat, the very best. For this the farmer receives very little in the way of premium or extra price. It is true that some of the larger mills at their elevators will pay a premium of one or two cents and occasionally perhaps three cents, which goes direct to the farmer; but for the most part the farmer does not receive any benefit from this high class, high valued milling wheat picked off by the mills of Canada.
Now let us go a step further. The grain is conveyed to Winnipeg and other inspection points. What takes place there? The mills retain well paid experts at those inspection points, and their duty is to examine the cars, as they are shipped through, and pick out the best grain. There they have another chance to skim off the cream. I will point out presently how this affects the farmer, but before I do so I wish to go a little further. They are not the only ones who are picking the best; the mixing elevators also have an opportunity to pick the highest of each grade,
or those that suit their purpose best for mixing. So that the process of skimming off the
best goes on.
In -the evidence given recently before the Saskatchewan Grain Inquiry Commission it was shown that when trains of oars are stopped on the siding at Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Kenora and other points, the representatives of the mills, by an arrangement with ten line elevator companies, which include praotically all the elevator companies of western Canada, have the privilege, with the consent of the railways, of going over these cars, breaking the seals, picking out the choicest cars and shipping them to their mills. That was rather startling evidence, and you can see that the picking process, the skimming off of the best, is complete. Very little choice wheat gets past the mills and mixing elevators for export. Let me make plain how that affects the farmer. You may say that this grain belongs to the line companies; they have paid for it, the farmer has received his price; what business is it of his, therefore? Let me point out that the largest factor in determining the price which the farmer will receive at the country elevator is the Liverpool market. That is not the only determining market but it is the greatest. The price which the farmer receives at his initial shipping point is determined on -the quality of the grade that reaches Liverpool and other old country markets. There is a point here to which it is worth while to pay attention. When this matter was fought out in 1925, both in the committee and elsewhere, it was contended by those in favour of the mixing practice that the old country buyer, having the standard grade before him, buys on the minimum of that grade. To say that is to say that the old country buyer is practically a fool. On the contrary, he is I believe the most intelligent buyer there is in the world. He does not buy in that way but on the quality he has been receiving. He buys by cable millions of bushels. He does not see the grain but he knows what he has been receiving; he knows what he received last month, the month before and the month before that; he knows what he received last week. He -therefore buys on the basis of the quality he has been receiving. That fixes the price.
I attended a meeting of the Board of Grain Commissioners in Vancouver some few years ago,, when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was present, and it was pointed out by several witnesses, including my hon. friend, that at that time the grain being shipped from the port of Vancouver was receiving a premium of five cents over that shipped from Fort William and Montreal.

Grading oj Gram-Mr. Millar
The standard was the same; the definition was the same. What made the difference in price? Nothing in the world' but quality. How long would an importer in Great Britain be in business if he were foolish enough to base his price on the minimum of the grade, when what he was actually receiving was worth three or five cents less? He would not be in business very long. There is mot a business man in this house who would follow that practice twenty-four hours. However the statement to which I have referred has deceived many people. I noticed in the account of a meeting of the United Farmers Association in Alberta that a man who should be regarded as an authority made that statement before the convention when arguing in favour of mixing. There is absolutely no truth in it; an examination of the statement will show that it is simply silly. One has only to turn to the report of Dean Rutherford for confirmation of what I am saying. Again and again he quotes the British buyer to show that it is quality that decides the price. This stresses the point that mixing is detrimental to the best interests of the producer of wheat. It is an unwritten part of the contract-I think I may put in that way- that when he delivers a car of wheat at the country elevator he shall receive for that car, whether 2, or 3, or 1, what the grade of 2, or 3, or 1 will bring in the old country market, and anything that impairs that quality in transit-if some of the best is taken off and poorer stuff put in-results in a lowering of the quality and a consequent lowering of the price. So that the farmer suffers.
I have in my possession four graded samples of wheat which were sent to me through the mail by the pool. Those four samples did not look to me to be of as good quality as the farmer was delivering, and I took occasion to submit them to nine country buyers, some of whom have been buying grain for twenty years, and the assistant superintendent of an experimental farm. I know them well; they are good buyers. As country buyers go, they are good, as good as the average, I am certain. To these ten men I submitted the four samples of p-ain from outgoing cargoes, the same grain which will reach the old country market and will become the basis for determining the price the farmer will receive. Not one of these men knew what grades the others had placed upon these samples of wheat. I was very careful about that; I turned out the grain on a sheet of paper and asked them to grade without any other information. I did not say where it came from nor did I give any other information. The first sample was 
No. 2 wheat out of Portland and the ten buyers graded it respectively No. 3 northern, No. 4, No. 4, No. 4, No. 4, strong No. 3, No. 4, No. 4, No. 4, No. 4. These four samples of grain were graded not only by these ten men but also by Inspector Steel, Who was loaned by the pool to the grain commission and who travelled with them. He is a very excellent inspector and a very honourable and efficient man; I believe he knows more about grading grain that any of these other ten men, and before I go on let me say that Inspector Steel graded this wheat as a poor No. 2. You will notice the great discrepancy between his grading and the grading of the country buyers, and I will deal with this a little later on. Then I submitted a sample of No. 3 northern out of Montreal, which was graded by the ten men No. 4* No. 4, No. 4, line No. 4-5, No. 4, No. 4, No. 4, No. 5, No. 4, No. 4, and by Inspector Steel rejected No. 3, burned. The next sample was No. 4 out of Montreal ; this was graded by the ten men No. 4, No. 5, No. 5, No. 6. No. 5, No. 5, No. 6, No. 5, No. 5, and No. 5, and by Inspector Steel No. 3 northern. The last sample was No. 5 out of Vancouver and was graded by the ten men as No. 6, No. 6, No. 6, No. 6, No. 6, No. 6, No. 6, poor No. 5, No. 6, and No. 6, and by Inspector Steel No. 5.


Mr. MANION:: Where is Inspector Steel?


John Millar: I think he was an inspector at Winnipeg, and for some time he has been inspector for the pool, whose duty it is to look after the oars as they come forward and ask for re-inspection and appeal where he thinks wise.


Robert James Manion: Had Inspector Steel been an inspector for the government?


John Millar: I believe so; I would not
say so positively but I am almost certain of it. I am told he is now head inspector for the central selling agency of the pool; he is a very efficient inspector.
Here is something I wish to point out. As I said before, I believe Inspector Steel has greater knowledge and can perhaps inspect grain better than any one of these ten men, but you cannot brush those men aside and say they do not know anything about grading grain. Look at the way they graded the No.
5 sample; nine of the ten graded it No. 6, without knowing how anyone else had graded it. They know how to grade grain; they are the men who do that work and the men with whom the farmers deal. That is a standard to which the farmer must submit, but why the discrepancy? I cannot understand it; it

Grading of Grain-Mr. Millar
is a puzzle to me. It may be pointed out that these were samples of mixed grain, with which the country buyer is not familiar. That is quite true, but is Inspector Steel more familiar with them? I doubt it. If he has not graded out of Fort William or some other terminal port he would be no more familiar with mixed grain than the country buyer. They all knew these samples were of mixed grain and were not grown in their own vicinity, but there is the difference in their grading; I laid it before the grain commission and left it in that way, without explanation. I believe they all tried honestly to grade the grain as it should be graded to meet the requirements of Winnipeg inspection.


Mr. COOTE:: That is a pretty good argument against mixing.


John Millar: Yes, that is so. Leaving
that point, let me go a step further. Our grain is shipped to the old country, and under our present system it arrives there on certificate final. That is a point with which I should have dealt when I was showing that the quality of the grain reaching the old country determined the price received by the Canadian farmer; I should have pointed out that the grain is received there on certificate final, and no matter what the quality may be there is no redress. They have been complaining about this for years, but the system has not been changed' and when the quality is low they can only protect themselves by lowering the price. That price is not lowered immediately; it must continue on a lower or a higher level for a considerable length of time until confidence is reestablished or permanently destroyed, after which the price will follow the quality. They want uniformity; they are very anxious that when they buy
10,000	or 500,000 bushels of wheat on cable they shall receive a uniform quality, up to what they expect. If there is a constant variation either up or down it is unsatisfactory; if the variation is down it means a great loss.
Let me add here that considering the enormous development of the wheat growing industry it seems to me about time Canada established agencies at important overseas markets such as Liverpool and London to look after our interests. We have trade commissioners abroad and are reaping great benefits from their work, and I think we should have someone at those markets all the time to adjust these differences, consult with the buyers, obtain suggestions from them and iron out the difficulties which arise over grain shipments. It is quite apparent from the
correspondence tabled here last year, from the letters received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the Prime Minister and from reports from the old country, that our reputation has been sadly undermined. The practice of mixing, the skimming and the looseness of inspection have all worked to undermine the reputation of our wheat on the overseas markets. If you look at the correspondence appearing in Hansard and in the report of the committee last year you will find that the Liverpool Corn Trade Association used such strong terms as "if we cannot get strong wheat from Canada we may have to seek it elsewhere, probably in Russia." That is the essence of what they said.
The three major remedies or reforms, which I intend to mention in passing and with one of which I shall deal in a moment, are first the elimination of the skimming practice, second the removal of the evil of mixing grain, and third a better and more accurate method of grading. With this last point I wish to deal at some length.
In recent years a great deal of attention has been paid to the protein method of arriving at the value of wheat. If I had time I could quote a great many high authorities to show that this protein test is a much more accurate method of arriving at the value of wheat for the purpose for which it is to be used, but I will quote only three or four. The first quotation is a newspaper article dealing with the grain commission hearing at Saskatoon, and is as follows:
B. H. Harris, chemist of the Quaker Oats Company, told the commission it was idle to talk of the visual test determining milling value of wheat.
"And yet," observed Dean Rutherford of the commission, "that is the way all the wheat Canada produces is being graded. I think that remark of the chemist is very important."
The following is taken from a Stanford university booklet:
All things considered, the amount of gluten, that is, of protein, seems, in the light of present day knowledge, to be the nearest approach to an ideal index of baking strength available.
Professor Larmour had the following to say before the Saskatchewan grain commisison:
Visual examination cannot be relied upon to evaluate wheats within the grades.
The newspaper article reporting his evidence goes on to say:
Historical references to the protein test formed the background of Professor Larmour's discussion of this apparently new phase of Saskatchewan's chief industry. He indicated that many years ago the protein test was evolved and during his evidence moved a step at a time toward the rapidly developing "miling and baking test" of grain. He stated the purpose

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Millar
of this latter test to be the examination of the wheat from the standpoint of the use to which it would finally be put.
"The value of the test," he said, "is that it correctly interprets the true worth of the wheat for the purpose to which it will ultimately be put, and it is the most reliable method discovered up to the present time."
I would point out that there is a demand for strong wheat in the markets where we sell our grain. Strong wheat means wheat with a high protein content of good quality. Doctor A. H. Benton, of the North Dakota agricultural college, has the following to say on this subject:
Protein content in recent years is of far greater importance as a price factor than is grade. During recent years premiums made ranged as high as sixty cents bushel over the previous quoted price for basic grades. Since federal inspection is found to be advisable for grade, protein, which is infinitely more important from the price standpoint, should likewise receive this attention of the central government.
Page 180 of the Turgeon report shows a British miller as making the following answer to a question put to him by Deau Rutherford:
Q. How does Manitoba 3 northern meet your requirements?
A. There are three factors affecting it, (1) frost, (2) soft wheat, (3) lightness, and we don't know what to expect. Prost is the most undesirable, and starchiness next, but we do not mind thinness in 3 so much, as with it we are likely to get more strength, and it is for strength primarily that we buy M>anitobas.
Mr. T. B. Armstrong, assistant chief of the Kansas state grain inspection department, has the following to say:
The demand for milling wheat with a protein test of 12 per cent or better increased premiums to the highest point in history. The average spread between 11 and 14 per cent wheat for the entire season has been 24J cents. At the peak during the last of April, it was about 36 cents. A car of high protein wheat sold last month on the Kansas City market at 48 cents premium over the May option.
That would be the premium over and above the price fixed on the inspection certificate. The following, with reference to the inland overseas millers, appears on page 162 of the Turgeon report:
But the inland millers must still have Mani-tobas or other strong wheats to blend with the softer home grown, in order to produce a brand of flour that will suit the needs of the baker.
And at page 171:
Flour made from your one northern wheat is our "trump card." It has strength and on account of that constitutes the base in ouir system of bread-making.
Again, at page 176:
"We want to be assured that we actually get on the Canadian certificate final wheat that is fully equal to that we should expect, and that the grading shall be accurate and regular."

"We want uniformity in the grading, so that we may know what to expect-uniformity throughout the season and the same uniformity through the years." Another miller said, "l am indifferent as to how the Canadians handle their wheat so long as the quality, the uniformity of quality, and the price suit the conditions, i.e., meets the competition ruling here as affected by the competition of other exporting countries. You may be sure of this, that Mani-tobas have an intrinsic value in themselves, viz., for their strength and yield, especially ones and twos. If these are impaired in any way-if the grades are lowered by degrading or mixing either intentionally or unintentionally, the British miller will know it, and the price will be lowered in consequence." This was confirmed by the evidence of other millers.
On page 178 of the report the remarks of another miller appear:
We buy Manitoba.s for strength and yield. They are better at the first of the season, October, November and December, than from January to the end of the season. They contain less moisture and possess a better quality of gluten.
On page 178 the following, referring to questions put by Dean Rutherford to an overseas buyer, appears:
I said to him: "Do you know the statutory definition of Manitoba one, two and three northern?" He said, "No." I asked him how he arrived at the price he would pay for these various grades. "I take into consideration what I expect to receive on the Canadian certificate based on my past experience-strength as measured by the action of the flour when baked and yield of flour from the mill." Anything in a sample of wheat that deteriorates its strength or lessens its yield of flour lowers its value to the miller and consequently lowers the price he can offer for it.
And again at page 178:
When we get a bad Shipment we have no redress and consequently we bid lower and substitute other wheat when possible.
And then at page 180 of the report:
"What would be the effect on price if Canadian grades were lowered?" "The price would be lowered accordingly."
Let me deal with another phase of the question. I would like to tell the house what the protein proposal really is. Some have an idea it is something like the method adopted in the United States. It is not at all; it is entirely different. It is merely an attempt to do what we are doing now, but to do it with greater accuracy. The proposal submitted to the committee last year was that we would leave the definition of numbers 1, 2 and 3 northern-and it is proposed to apply this only to numbers 1, 2 and 3 northern- as they are now, except as regards the specifications to determine strength. That is, we have one part of the definition: " The grain shall be equal to marquis." Then we have in another part of the definition that there shall be a

Grading of Grain-Mr. Millar
certain percentage of hard red vitreous kernels. That is the way in which we endeavour to arrive at the strength that is in the wheat, and as millers and chemists will tell you, it is a very inaccurate and unsatisfactory method. It was brought out in the evidence before the committee that wheat that was submitted to a mill and prepared for milling, even though it might be a No. 1 northern, the best carload of wheat you could find, after it was submitted to the washing process of tempering for milling and then, instead of being milled, was submitted to the inspection department, would grade no higher than No. 3 or No. 4. No one will argue that the mill intentionally or unintentionally damaged that wheat, but it will be lowered in grade and consequently in price away down to a 3 or a 4. Therefore, in this case the colour, or visual test is a failure.
Now we come to the percentage of hard red vitreous kernels. That fails again accurately to determine the value of the wheat. It is not without value; there is a relation between the percentage of hard red vitreous kernels and the value, but it does not come anywhere near being an accurate test. The mills of Canada and of the United States are buying wheat not on the visual i^est but on a protein test which is a quantity protein test. Will anyone argue that if we introduce a system that will test the strength more accurately, this will not give satisfaction or will cause dissatisfaction to those who buy our wheat? We are testing for strength now by those two specifications, the variety and the percentage of hard red vitreous kernel, but it has proved unsatisfactory and the proposal is simply to substitute for that a chemical test. I have read sufficient authorities to prove that the chemical test is by far the most accurate.
What will be the advantage? A loose system is detrimental to the best interests of the producer. Why? I do not know that I shall have time to quote all the evidence that I have under my hand, but a chemist giving evidence before the grain inquiry commission at Saskatoon pointed out that in the same grade of wheat, he had found wheats which differed to the extent of 50 per cent. These were in the lower grades. That is, one car of wheat would be worth one and one-half times more than another car found in the same grade. You do not need to give much consideration to the matter to see that this plays into -the hands of the middlemen who are picking off their choice. They have their experts watching the cars as they pass through Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg, and if a car is worth 50 per cent more than another
one in the same grade, it will never go to the old country. It would be picked off and go to the mill or mixing elevator. Mark you, the farmer does not get anything in the way of a premium for a car that is picked off in that way. It goes to the middlemen and tends to swell their profits. I believe a company contended-and I think they are stating facts -that they paid to the farmers for such cars $70,000 in a year. I have heard the question asked many times when there were fifty or a hundred or two hundred farmers present: How many of you ever received a premium for those cars that were diverted? Sometimes out of a hundred men one man would raise his hand. Sometimes out of fifty or a hundred men no one would raise his hand.
1	have shipped grain for many years and I have never received such a premium. I believe the United Grain Growers are placed in a slightly different position. They wish to continue mixing; they wish their shareholders to be satisfied, and I believe they do pay some premiums to -their shareholders and other customers. But I heard the manager of that company, on one occasion when we were discussing the question of who should be responsible for placing stamps on cheques sent out, say: " If our company paid for stamps on cheques sent out it would cost us $40,000. Seventy thousand dollars is not double the price of the stamps, so they do not pay very much to the farmer. It seems a great deal of money, but when you consider the quantity of grain that is handled, it is a very small amount they pay back to the farmers. It is generally true that the farmer receives nothing in the way of premium for his choice wheat that is diverted in this way.
I have heard this objection to the proposed method of grading: "Well, now, this proposal to have wheat tested for protein is merely another difficulty -in the way of the farmer reaching -the higher grade. It is hard enough for him to- get his wheat into No. 1 or No.
2	now. This will only make it a little harder." "Well," I said to him, "let us see how this works out. We will just reverse the process. One specification in the definition is sixty pounds to the bushel of wheat. That is a difficulty preventing some farmers from reaching the higher grades. In order to make it easier, we will just remove that. We have another specification that there must be 60 per cent of hard red vitreous kernels. That is a difficulty in the way of some farmers reaching the higher grade. We will just remove that so as to make it easier." It was not very long before he saw that we were getting back -to the point where we

Grading of Grain-Mr. Donnelly
would not have any grading system at all. The welfare of the farmer lies in the opposite direction. He is safest and he is getting nearest to the actual value of his wheat when it is accurately graded. As soon as there is a looseness, as soon as two types of grain are put together that are not nearly alike in value, then he is the loser. The best will be picked off and he gets paid for the lower quality that remains.
I am surprised, sir, to find that my time is exhausted.


Mr. THOMAS DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Grading of Grain-Mr. Donnelly
792,166 bushels of this Kota wheat, and there came out only 49,000 bushels-the balance disappeared. In the year 1926-27, 386,409 bushels went in and only 19,000 bushels came out. What happened? It is quite evident that this poor wheat was dumped into the good wheat, and the mixture was sold in the markets of the world as good wheat; nothing else.
Now let us see what happened to some of our wheat. Let me refer to the three statutory grades, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and see what the out-turns were. In 1924-25, 16 million bushels of No. 1 were shipped into the private terminals; 20 million bushels came out-a truly wonderful increase during the winter time. Of No. 2, 15 million bushels were shipped in, and 14 million came out. Of No. 3, 16 million bushels were shipped in, and 25 million bushels came out. Next year the mixing was made legal, and they began to mix a little better, they were getting on to the practice a little more sharply. Of No. 1, 41 million bushels were shipped in and 47 million bushels came out. Of No. 2, 42 million bushels were shipped in and 42 million bushels came out. But of No. 3, although only 22 million bushels were shipped in, 33 million bushels came out. But let us see what happened to the crop of 1926, to be found in the return for 1926-27. We find they ire now getting very expert, as these figures abundantly prove. They put in 14 million bushels of No. 1, and took out 18 million bushels; they put in 32 million bushels of No. 2, and took out 40 million bushels; they put in 14 million bushels of No. 3, and took out 27 million bushels. In other words, in that year they put in something like 56 million bushels of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 combined, and they took out in the neighbourhood of 81 million bushels of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 combined. That is, they took 25 million bushels of the lower grades and dumped them in with the 56 million bushels of the higher grades. And yet they turn around and tell you that they can do that and not lower the grade, that it is just as good as ever. Everyone knows that you cannot mix 25 gallons of water with 56 gallons of milk without very seriously diluting the milk.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many terminals does the hon. member refer to in his figures?


Thomas F. Donnelly: To all the private terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William. This is the return given last year. More and more of this mixing has been carried on since 1925, when it was first made legal, and it has a bad 
effect in the old country. Last session before the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization documents were produced *o us Showing that buyers in the old couib y have lost confidence in our grades. Let me quote a letter written by F. W. G. Urquhart, secretary of the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, to F. J. Rathbone, secretary of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Thomas F. Donnelly: From the minutes of proceedings and evidence and the report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization which sat last session. This is from page 156. This is the letter:
There is no doubt whatever that, during the last two years-1926-1927, and 1927-1928, so far as the latter has gone-there has been a very serious deterioration in the quality and condition of Canadian wheat shipments, especially in respect of Manitoba wheat, grade No. 3 northern, and my directors cannot accept the_ explanation that the weather has been entirely responsible for the poor quality of wheat received in this country and on the continent.
It is quite apparent that the standard sample of No. 3 northern Manitoba wheat, 1927, is greatly inferior to the relative standard for 1925. My directors submit that to try to maintain a regularity of _ standard from year to year is essential and, if Canada has an inferior crop, that it ought to be graded accordingly.
The report also contains another letter from the same gentleman, but addressed to the Prime Minister. Let me read it:
In years gone by, complaints were few and far between, but since the autumn of 1926 they have been very numerous, and the confidence which the trade used to place in Canadian certificates has been badly shaken. My directors find that the whole United Kingdom and continental markets are becoming very dissatisfied with the arrivals of wheat under "Certificate Final" and unless matters improve they are quite certain that there will be a strong agitation to discontinue this method of trading and to insist upon buying on standard samples in the same way as trade is done with other countries, such as the Argentine and Australia.
The report contains other letters showing that the trade in the old country has lost confidence in our standards of wheat. At one time they looked upon our wheat standards as being just as good as Bank of England notes; they knew the wheat itself would be just as good as or better than the standard. They have lost confidence in it and will hardly believe that our wheat is up to standard until they find it so. I consider this a very serious matter. Our whole western country has built up its reputation on wheat, and here we find these men, who are merely mixing the wheat, degrading our standards. We have discussed

Grading of Grain-Mr. Donnelly
a good deal the advisability of raising the standards of our cattle, our horses, our pigs, our sheep, beef, fruit, butter, cheese and everything else; yet here is one commodity which has made western Canada, hard red spring wheat, which is being degraded by those who are only dealing in the commodity and not producing it. These men are degrading our standards, getting away with it, and making money in the process.
There are only two persons who in my opinion should be considered in the grading of wheat: one is the producer and the other the consumer. The producer has to grow a quality of wheat which will meet the demands of the consumer, and the consumer on his part expects to get the kind of wheat for which he is willing to pay. The English buyer is not paying any more for his wheat than he has to. He is a very shrewd buyer, and when the wheat reaches him he examines it carefully to see that it is up to quality. Perhaps he looks at a No. 3 and he says, "This is not as good as it used to be and I am not willing to pay the price for it. I would sooner have Irish wheat or Australian wheat or wheat from some other country". He pays only for the value he receives, because he is buying in the world's market. Make no mistake about that; he is buying in the world's market and the price he pays for this wheat determines the price the farmer in this country gets for his wheat.
In my opinion, not one dollar more comes to this country through this process of mixing wheat as it is going on at the present time than would come if there were no mixing. Not one dollar more comes into the country. The same amount of money comes in through mixing, but the point is that much of this money goes to the people who are doing the mixing instead of finding its way to the farmer. The mixer takes his toll, leaving the rest to the farmer; in other words, he is getting the cream while the farmer is doing the work. It is the interest of the farmer which we should look after, and not the mixer's. This is only one of the evils in connection with the grain business, but I consider it the greatest evil. If this mixing were done away with a great part of the trouble in connection with diverted wheat would cease. True, some skimming would still be done by the mills and' by our American cousins across the line. But that is not the chief source of trouble; it is the diverting of wheat for mixing purposes.
I do not wish to delay the house on the question of the mixing of wheat, the evil of which I have emphasized. I wish, rather to refer to the resolution more particularly as regards the question of protein content, as one of the basic factors in grading. Our method of grading wheat to-day is very crude and unscientific. As I have said, we weigh it and take the moisture content, and then the rest of the grading is done by the sense of sight. If there is any method whereby we can make it more scientific, any means by which the producer may obtain a more equitable return for his wheat, this is a step in the right direction. There are many things in connection with the protein content of wheat which at the present time are attracting the attention of a number of wheat growers on this continent-considerations which, so far as I can see, are impracticable in this country. As regards carload lots shipped, either as graded storage or as special bin wheat, destined to the terminals at Fort William or Port Arthur or Vancouver, that could be graded and the protein content taken into account. But when it comes to the question of buying wheat in the country, when it comes to buying wheat at local elevators, of which there are hundreds all over the country, I do not see how we can make the protein principle applicable. I do not see how the country buyer can purchase a load of wheat from the farmer, either in a truck, or in a wagon, and then tell how much protein there is in it in order to give the farmer a just return for his wheat. The question has been worked out to a certain extent in the United States, in Kansas and Minnesota, where I understand they are looking into the subject at the present time. The grain commission which is sitting in Saskatchewan at the moment has expressed the intention of visiting Kansas to investigate the question, to see whether it is not possible to have the principle applied to grain in Canada. If it could be done it would, I think, be a step in the right direction.
I wish to say a word or two, in connection with this resolution, regarding grain grown in my own constituency. The grain grown in that constituency is grown on the bald prairie, where there is no excess of moisture; it is produced on a more or less sandy loam soil. In that district we get wheat which is higher in protein content than that grown anywhere else in this country-indeed, higher in protein content than wheat grown anywhere m
736	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Gardiner
the world. It is the best hard red spring wheat produced anywhere. Wheat grown under those conditions must of necessity be small in the berry; it has not a large starchy kernel. Yet the people who are growing this wheat do not receive an equitable return for their crop. In other sections of the country, where they grow a wheat with a big berry and a starchy kernel, giving a big yield, they get the same price as is paid for the other wheat. That is not fair, and if there is any method whereby the growers can receive for their wheat a return according to ingredients I am heartily in favour of it. Before concluding I wish to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance):
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to including protein as a factor in the statutory definitions applying to all contract grades of wheat in the western inspection division 'and that this matter, together with its effect on existing methods of inspecting and grading wheat, be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization and report thereon.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: When on Friday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was requested to permit this resolution and the previous one to be debated on Monday, and when they were consequently made special orders of this house, we did not-anticipate that the former resolution would take up so much time before being disposed of. There are several members in this corner of the house who desire to discuss to some extent the resolution now under consideration. We realize, however, that the house has been delayed by the debate which has been just concluded, and I merely wish to state that so far as we are concerned we are quite willing that the present resolution shall go immediately to the select committee, reserving our right, when the report comes back, to debate it at such length as we may determine.


Mr. VALLANCE:: There are a number of members from Saskatchewan and also from Manitoba sitting on this side of the house who are interested in this question, and I understand it is agreed that if this amendment is adopted we are reserving the same right as has been reserved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 pun.
Thursday, March 7, 1929