[Stage Direction]
House in. Committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain.-Mr. Foster (N. Toronto).
On section 101,-disputes as to grading.
Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is twenty-four hours long enough delay in which to allow an appeal from the grading of the inspector?


Mr. OLIVER.: I think so. This grading must always take place at the inspection point, and it is absolutely necessary that there should be no delay there. Every one is supposed to be doing business there on the jump in order that the cars may get forward.
On section 102-grain survey board.


Rt.   H@: BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved that in subsection 2 the word ' its ' be substituted for ' his,' the subsection would then read:
The grain survey board shall be governed in the performance of its duties by such general regulations as are made by the board. |


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. TURRIFF.: I notice that eight of the twelve commissioners on this grain survey board are to be appointed from the province of Manitoba. That was all right at one time when Manitoba -was raising practically the great bulk. of our wheat, but now the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are raising a great deal more wheat, and I do not know that this preference given to Manitoba is right. I have not heard of any complaints and am not prepared to say that it is not right.


Mr. DOHERTY.: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Where is the inspection made?


John Gillanders Turriff: In Winnipeg.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think that the probable reason for this inovision is that it is difficult to get together so many from a distance. The members of the board of trade are in the city of Winnipeg and at the point of inspection.


Mr. BORDEN.: Section 102 will stand.


John Gillanders Turriff: After the explanation given by my hon. friend from Souris, (Mr. Schaffner), I am not anxious that the section should stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Carried. It can be returned to afterwards if desired.
Section 104.-offices in Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: While that clause is under consideration, I should like to place on record the suggestion that it will be desirable, if not now, at any rate, in the near future, to provide for a survey board at Calgary to deal with grain going west to the Pacific ports. I do not know that it is absolutely necessary at this time,^ but I desire to make mention of the possibility.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), desires that it be taken into consideration?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section 105-grades of grain.
White clipped oats-Tlie grades Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 white clipped oats shall correspond in oil respects with the grades of Nos. 1, 2, 3 aiul 4 white oats, except that the former shall weigh not less than 38, 36 and 34 pounds to the bushel respectively.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: There seems to be an error there; four grades of oats are given but only three weights.
.Mr. SCHAFFNER. It is the same way in the old Bill. Yet it may have been an omission.


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Let that stand for the present.


John Gillanders Turriff: Reverting to the question of the weight of a bushel of oats, our weight for a standard bushel is 34 pounds, while the American bushel is 32 pounds. There is no argument in the fact that 32 pounds is too light for a measured bushel. Lots of oats in the west will weigh 45 pounds and 46 pounds to the measured bushel, but 34 pounds is what we would give in selling a bushel. As we are now selling a very considerable portion of our oat crop in the United States, it might be an advantage if our standard bushel of oats, like our standard bushel of other grains, was made the same as theirs. I would suggest that a standard bushel of

oats be made 32 pounds instead of 34 pounds.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would object to making any change in the weight of oats. It is a well understood thing in Ontario as well as in the other provinces, that 34 pounds is a bushel of oats and, therefore, I do not think it would be wise to adopt an American standard in preference to the standard that is so well understood in every part of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: The matter of standards of these different grains is -entirely technical. The representatives of the farmers, the Grain Growers' Association, of the millers, and others, have all had the Bill and have been interviewed in connection with it, and the conclusion has been not to materially disturb these grades in- either weights or definitions. I would not care to assent to such a change without a general consensus of opinion.
On section 105,

grades- of grain,-'barley.


Levi Thomson: There is no standard weight for No. 1 barley, while for all others there is. Then with peas no weight is given. This seems to be copied from the old Act.


George Eulas Foster: There was none in the old Act. It seems that the grade of barley is imponderable; there is no weight in the present Act, there is no weight in Bill 'Q' and there is no weight in this one. I imagine we ought not to be daring enough to put a weight in.


Frank Oliver: I quite disagree with the minister; I think we should be daring enough to do what is right.


George Eulas Foster: We will let the provision with reference to -barley stand.
On section 105-peas,


Frank Oliver: Before we pass from this part of the section, section 58 -gives the standard weight of the different grains and it sets down peas a-s 60 lbs. to the bushel.
-Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto). That is provided for there.


Frank Oliver: The western producer is not seriously interested in this provision, but the eastern producer is, and as the eastern representatives do- not probably have the Bill before them, I take the opportunity of -drawing the minister's attention to the fact that under the Act as it stands peas of tall grades would have the same weight, 'and the weight would be 60 lbs. to -the bushel. 1 think also that the weights should be put right into the section defining the grade as in other cases.


George Eulas Foster: The weight -of barley is given -as 48 lbs. to the bushel.


Frank Oliver: Yes, the standard -weight, but I think that in- all cases-, for the convenience of -people who desire to use the Act, -and inasmuch -as -there is a -difference between, grades, the weight of each grade should -be stated in- the section which defines the grade.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that is right.


Frank Oliver: I would think that as subsection 1 of the barley division stands, the whole division relating to peas should stand for consideration in the interest of the eastern producer.


George Eulas Foster: The definition of the grading of pea-s never appears to have had t-he weight put in at all. The general weight governing that is fixed at 58 lbs.


Frank Oliver: I am not an expert in peas, but I would think thia-t No. 3 grade should not properly have the full weight of No. 1 grade. The interests -of the trade would require -a sealing down of the weight, but, I -am not -able to speak authoritatively upon it.


George Eulas Foster: I will look into it.


Frank Oliver: I think the division relating to peas had better stand.


Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 105 stands.
On section. 107-grades in western inspection -division,


Frank Oliver: The last words of -the first paragraph of section 107 ref-er to ' the last preceding section.' That is section 100, but they -should refer -to section 105.


George Eulas Foster: Section 105 and -section 106.


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Mr. FOSTER (N-ortih Toronto) Then, Mr. Cii-airm-an, I move to -amend the first paragraph of section 107 by inserting the word ' two ' between- -the words ' last ' and ' preceding,' and -substituting the word ' sections ' for the word ' section.'
Amendment -agreed to.


George Eulas Foster: In reference to section 107, there is, as far -as I have understood, -a pretty unanimous opinion that -a -change -should be made in the denomination -of -these grades, that instead of having -the word ' Manitoba. ' in the -grades, the reading should be changed to ' Can-a-d-a hard-.' ' Ma-nito-ba hard wheat ' was the den-omin-ation, I suippos-e, which was given when Manitoba was the grain

grower of the west, but Manitoba is no longer the only grain grower of the west. Saskatchewan and Alberta, notably the fanner, are increasing by leaps and bounds in their production of grain. The idea, then, that I wish to present to the House is that the time has come when ' Manitoba ' as a denomination for hard wheat should give way to a broader name, and the name that is suggested is the word ' Canada.' There is no reason that I can see on general principles why hard wheat raised anywhere in Canada should not be hard wheat and should not get the grade, or that the name of a section should prevail rather than the name of a whole country. The grade of the wheat essentially will be exactly the same. It will be simply a change of name, and it would seem as though it would give greater prominence to the country, that is to the whole country, Canada, and give greater backing to the grade itself by having the denomination of the whole country than to confine it to a scot-ion which is now far outstripped by the adjoining sections and by the whole of Canada in the production ol this grade.
The only objection which could be urged against it-and I inquired particularly of dealers and millers-was this: That when you give a distinctive name to a grade it becomes known by that name on the market, and sometimes it is known as a grade even after all the significance in the name itself has passed away. Those interested in the production and milling of grain, who have conferred with me, are of the opinion that that would not militate against the market currency of the wheat in this case. If there was any chance that it would, it could be cured in the first years of its currency by putting in brackets in our certificates after the word ' Canada,' the word ' Manitoba,' to show that ' Canada Hard Wheat ' took the place of the former name, and was identical with the Manitoba Hard Wheat, and also by regulating that it should not come into effect until the first of September, 1912. With these safeguards it is generally agreed that no ill consequence would follow, and it is an idea which all seem to catch that it would be -a good thing to give the general name of the country to the wheat


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not think it would be right for me to let that word ' Manitoba ' be dropped without a kick. Even the kind hearted Minister of Trade and Commerce feels there will be a difficulty in dropping the name, and he is quite willing that the word ' Manitoba ' should be placed in brackets. Well, I don't like that either. Manitoba has been the pioneer province in wheat growing in this country, and it is Manitoba that has produced the high grade of wheat which Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
has earned for itself a reputation in all the markets of the world, so that, in my opinion the word ' Manitoba ' should stand out boldly. I do not think it is fair to drop the word ' Manitoba,' even in view of the softening down proposition with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has connected his proposal.


Frank Oliver: That is a very good kick.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 1 thought it my duty to make that kick anyway.


Frank Oliver: At the same time it is unfair that the province of Manitoba should nave the credit of the enormous quantity of hard wheat that is grown in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Aside from that, I think the argument placed before the committee by thie Minister of Trade and Commerce is certainly very good. There is, however, a difficulty that properly arises in carrying the theory a step further, as I would like to see it carried if it can be done. I find that there are five definitions given to grain; there is ' Manitoba ' for spring wheat, ' Alberta ' for fall or winter wheat, ' Canadian Western ' for oats, ' Northwestern Manitoba ' for flax, and I think there is ' Manitoba ' for barley. I would like very much to see some definition adopted that would apply to all of the different classes of grain that are raised in western Canada, and for the same reason, in regard at any rate to oats, and I believe to barley, as in the case of wheat, namely, that the quality raised in the west is -superior to that raised in the remainder of the country. I am afraid that the word ' Canada/ if applied to all these other grains, would not be suitable. In the case of wheat the definition is made accurate and satisfactory by using the words ' Canada Hard Wheat ', if the definition is restricted to wheat, but if you carry the word ' Canada ' into oats and barley it does not apply as well. I would respectfully suggest that if it would be possible to secure a short and satisfactory word that would be distinctive, and that could be applied to all the different classes of grain raised in the prairie west as compared with the grain raised in the rest of the country it would be desirable to make the change. For my own part, I would think that if the word ' Northern ' were used to -distinguish all the different classes of grain raised in the prairie west it would perhaps be as good a general definition as could be given. Some people are delicate about the use of the word ' Northern ' but, as a matter of fact, nine-tenths of our wheat to-day is sold as ' Northern ' and the word ' Northern ' has a more generally accepted significance in regard to our wheat to-day than has either the word ' Manitoba ' or the word ' Hard.' I would suggest, with

all deference, merely for the consideration of the committee, that if we use the words ' Northern Hard ' to apply to wheat and the word ' Northern ' to apply to the barley, oats and flax, grown on the western prairies, they would constitute a satisfactory and sufficient distinguishment from the grain raised in other parts of Canada, and there would be notice to everyone dealing in the grain as to the kind of grain it was, and as to the part of the country it came from.


Mr. STAPLES.: Like the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) I am jealous of the word ' Manitoba The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has claimed for the province of Alberta the credit of growing the best ' Alberta Red Winter Wheat ', but I can tell the hon. gentleman that we can produce Red Winter Wheat in the province of Manitoba just as successfully as they do in the province of Alberta.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


William D. Staples: Therefore, if you are going to drop the word ' Manitoba ' from ' Spring Wheat ', I think you will have to drop the name ' Alberta ' in order to compensate for the loss we are having in the ' Alberta Fall Wheat '.


Frank Oliver: That was my suggestion.


William D. Staples: The name ' Manitoba ' has become famous throughout the world, and while I do not like to see it dropped I think perhaps it could be worked out on the lines I have suggested. There is, of course, the danger of there being some commercial loss by dropping the name ' Manitoba ', but if there is due notice given in the manner the minister has stated, probably the loss may be minimized. Section 105 of the Act provides for the eastern grades, and section 107 for the western division. Now, if you call the eastern grades 1, 2 and 3 spring wheat there might be some conflict in that. I suppose the term ' Spring ' is used instead of the term ' Hard ', and there are two divisions to be considered there.


Frank Oliver: That is the necessity of giving a distinctive name to the grain raised in the western division if it is to have credit for its special character.


William D. Staples: Why not call it Western No. 1 hard instead of Northern?


Mr. ROBB.: As an easterner I am prepared to support the Manitoba members in their defence of the word ' Manitoba.' It seems to me that if we make this change we shall be doing something that will disturb trade conditions in regard to both wheat and flour. We have built up in this country and on the Liverpool market
a reputation for Manitoba wheat and Manitoba flour that is worth a great deal to every grower of and every dealer in western wheat. On the Liverpool market Manitoba wheat is generally quoted a little higher, for instance, than Duluth wheat; and in the United States hard wheat belt people do not confine themselves to a general term such as we propose to introduce. For instance, hard wheat is generally spoken of as Duluth wheat, while hard wheat flour is spoken of as Minnesota flour. These are trade marks which they have built up. In the same way we have built up the trade mark of Manitoba flour and Manitoba wheat on the Liverpool market, and I think the minister should hesitate before introducing any legislation that will disturb these conditions.


Sir EDMUND OSLER.: In the exportation of flour and wheat the brand or trade mark is often much more valuable in sentiment than it is in reality, and it might be rather risky to make a change.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think the change could be fairly made with the safeguards surrounding it which the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests. There is no doubt that the name ' Manitoba ' having been used for a number of years, some little inconvenience would be caused in changing it. When the name was adopted, the great bulk of western wheat was grown in Manitoba; but at present there is a great deal more wheat grown in Saskatchewan than in Manitoba, and in the future there will be many times more. Take the case of flax. All our flax is sold under the names ' No. 1 Northwestern Manitoba,' and ' No.
1 Manitoba Flaxseed,' although Saskatchewan grows 90 per cent of all the flax grown in the whole Dominion; and naturally the people of Saskatchewan who produce this flax do not want it to be called by the name of another province. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton strikes me as a very good one. I think we should cut out the names Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta altogether, and use instead one name that would be fairly distinctive of the whole western country, surrounding the change with the precautions suggested by the minister. If this is done,
I do not think any loss will be suffered by the producer, the miller or the exporter.


George Eulas Foster: I do not-want to dictate at all, not being an expert.
I just gave the House my own views as gathered from consideration of the subject, The Act we have had up to the present time is called the Manitoba Grain Acit. We are calling this one the Canada Grain Act, because it embraces all parts of our country. _ The fact that Manitoba flour and Manitoba No. 1 hard wheat have a prece-
[DOT]2543

dence in the English market is not because the name is ' Manitoba/ but because of the hardness and the quality of the wheat. If it had happened to be called ' Saskatchewan Hard/ it would have had the same precedence, although it might have aroused some prejudice in the minds of those who had to use the term because of its largeness and the difficulty of spelling it. However, if we restricted all our Canadian wheat to the name Manitoba on the markets of London , Liverpool, Berlin and Hamburg, the idea of Canada's productive power would be restricted, whereas the word ' Canada,' would lend itself to the idea of extension and expansion. The buyer, the newspaper reader, and everybody else would say, why, this is Canadian wheat, so that the quality of the wheat would be immediately transferred to the country itself, which would be a great gain. Now that Manitoba is about to pass from the chrysalis stage of a postage-stamp province to one with large national boundaries, it will be able to appreciate the idea of largeness, and I think it would be a graceful act on the part of my two friends here to kick a little, but not to kick too hard, against the extension of the name. As a representative of the small province of Ontario, which also grows wheat, I have a little bit of an objection to having all the wheat of that province and of Canada generally, described by the name of one section. However, with the two restrictions of having the change coming into force in September, 1912, and indicating by a hyphen what the name was under the old nomenclature, I do not see how there would be any loss; and that is the expression of opinion of the Dominion Millers' Association, which had its committees here, and the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto, as well as those who raised the wheat. I would, therefore, move that the word ' Canada ' be substituted for the word ' Manitoba,' in the 17th line.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, Does eastern Canada grow hard wheat?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know what its possibilities may be when we get up to the Hudson Bay territory.


William D. Staples: As we have been letting other sections of the Bill stand, I do not think it would be any harm to let this section stand, and we may be able to get even a better name than the one the Minister has suggested. When the proposal goes out to the public generally, I think he will find considerable opposition to it, and it is fair that before we enact legislation the public should have an opportunity to speak.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon friend would rather have the section stand for a little more cogitation, I have no objection.


George Eulas Foster: Section allowed to stand.
On section 110,-standard samples United States grain.


Frank Oliver: The question of naming: the winter wheat might be discussed. If the minister has any suggestions with regard to a title for that class of wheat, which will bring it into some sort of conformity with the proposition regarding spring wheat, it would be satisfactory to the commission to hear his suggestions.


George Eulas Foster: I suggested that these items should stand so that my hon. friends might think them over. 1 am quite willing to take into consideration the suggestion made a little while ago to see whether any further change in the name could be proposed, which the committee would, think advisable.


William D. Staples: I suppose the same suggestion would apply with equal force to Alberta winter wheat as to Manitoba?


George Eulas Foster: Except that there is not so much of it raised.


William D. Staples: How would tbe^ word ' prairie ' apply instead of ' Canada '.


George Eulas Foster: It has been suggested that we should call it simply ' northern '. That however simply indicates climate and has no suggestion of nationality. You have northern wheat in Dakota and Russia. The same objection applies to the word ' prairie '. There are prairies in different parts of the world, so that the word is not distinctively Canadian. I should like to see a wheat which is really good and which we are sending out to the world's markets tagged with a distinctively Canadian name. To my mind * Canada ' is the most distinctive name we can apply. ' Canadian ' is an adjective, and an adjective is not as strong as a substantive.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The question is whether we want to make any distinction between hard wheat grown in the west and hard wheat grown in eastern Canada.


George Eulas Foster: We make that distinction by calling it hard.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You may have hard wheat grown at the North Pole.


George Eulas Foster: Well, I would not like to repress any optimism which might be in the minds of the committee.


John Gillanders Turriff: I see that flax is not included in the eastern schedules at all. I would suggest, while leaving this section stand in the meantime, that instead of No. 1 Northwestern Manitoba flax you make No. 1 Canadian flax-either Canada or western Canada.
[DOT]2545

^ Mr. SCHAFFNER. I think that eastern 'Canada -and western -Canada would be good definitions.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would prefer No. 1 Canada.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why prefer that in the case of flax and not in the case of wheat? Flax is also grown in eastern Canada.


William D. Staples: Is there any difference in quality between eastern and western flax?


John Gillanders Turriff: I have no idea whether western flax is any better or as good.


Frank Oliver: There has been a suggestion put forward with regard to No. 3 barley, described on page 29, which might be considered now. The definition reads:
No. 3 Manitoba barley shall include shrunken or otherwise slightly damaged barley, weighing not less than 45 pounds to the bushel.


George Eulas Foster: I propose to amend that.


Frank Oliver: We might consider the amendment now.


George Eulas Foster: I shall read the amendment, so that it may be under advisement. It is proposed that No.
barley shall be reasonably clean, reasonably free from all other grains, shall include weather stained, and slightly shrunken, but sound barley, free from frost and weighing not less than 44 pounds to the bushel.
The intention of having it free from frost is so that it may keep its malting properties perfectly good. A little frosting of the barley, I understand, destroys its malting properties. No. 4 barley should include all damaged barley, weighing less than 44 pounds to the bushel. This will appear in ' Hansard ' and can be thought -over.
On section 110.-standard samples.


Mr. NEELY.: I notice subsection 3 reads:
The board may reject such standard samples if it deems them to have been unfairly or improperly chosen, and in such case it shall forthwith cause others to he chosen in their place hy such means as it thinks proper.
I was not here when we discussed the powers of the Grain Survey Board, but if the Bo-ard of Grain Commissioners are to have the same authority with regard to the supervision of the selecting of samples or standards by the Survey Board of Canada wheat, I think there is an anomaly we ought to correct. As I understand it, the Board of Grain Commissioners, while supposed to be good 81
business men understanding the conditions of the grain trade, are not necessarily grain experts in the selecting of the samples of grain and the establishing of standards.
The Grain Survey Board, I understand-, is composed of men technically expert in collecting samples and establishing standards for commercial grades, and I think that the decision of such a board should not be subject to revision or supervision by the board of commissioners.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that the standard samples for the United States product are to be selected here by the Grain Survey Board and the standard samples for our own grain are selected by the board of standards; and' my bon. friend (Mr. Neely) asks why this should be under the survey board as being an exception. Is that it?


David Bradley Neely: In this case it is the Grain Survey Board. I quite understand that the standards board collects the samples for Canadian grain and establishes the standards for commercial grades. But where there is a dispute or question of selecting commercial grades, I do not think the board of commissioners ought to have supervision over the judgment of the Grain Survey Board or the Grain Standards Board.


George Eulas Foster: They do that for the standards board. In fact, the standards board is appointed by the board of commissioners.


David Bradley Neely: All right as far as appointments are concerned.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think there is -much in -the hon, gentleman's objection. In the first place, we have no right to assume that the commissioners will not be experienced men; they may be as good judges -of samples as any one. But, in any case, they have expert advice, they have the chief inspector and other experts, and I suppose they will rely upon that expert advice. The hoard of any concern is not expected to have expert knowledge of -all matters coming under its authority, but they realize that in questions of dispute they must depend upon expert help. The -same applies in this case.


David Bradley Neely: Take the case of the establishment of grain standards by the Grain Standards Board. It appears that difficulty might arise from giving the Board of Commissioners revising power, if in any instance they exercised that power. Becau-se, when the commercial grades are established, contracts are entered into on a basis of these grades; and if the board of commissioners are to have the power of revi-

sion of these grades, there might be great disturbance with reference to contracts.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact, I think that bon. gentlemen will find that there will toe little interference by the board of commissioners with the work of the experts.
On section 113, grading United States grain-appeals,


Frank Oliver: I am not very familiar with the operation of this provision. Perhaps the minister could tell us under what circumstances it becomes desirable or necessary for Canada to make an official inspection of United States grain in transit in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: The reason this is necessary is that United States grain-wheat to some extent, but particularly corn-is liable to heat on the way, and deteriorate, so there has been a demand for an inspection at the port of Montreal. It is only in the east, I think, and at the port of Montreal that this inspection takes place.
On section 115, no grade; condemned; rejected; scoured grain,


Frank Oliver: It has been brought to my attention that there is a possibility under this clause, and the clause regarding hospital elevators that an abuse might arise unless an amendment is provided. This section, which really applies to grain treated because it has been damaged, provides that the grain so treated shall, under certain circumstances, not grade higher than No. 3, but under other circumstances it shall be given such grade as it may be entitled to after passing through treatment.
There is no prohibition, in the Act, so far as I am aware, of the placing of sound grain in these hospital elevators. If there is no such prohibition, and no prohibition of mixing of that grain with the treated grain, then sound grain could be mixed with treated grain, thus securing for the treated grain a grade to which it would not be properly entitled. A provision of this kind should be inserted in this section or in the section relating to hospital elevators, or in both.


George Eulas Foster: I should think that the provisions against abuses should be made in the section relating to hospital elevators. We are here fixing the grades of grain. Of course, if necessary, we might return to this section.
Section 121-interpretation.


David Bradley Neely: This differs materially from the corresponding clause of Bill ' Q '. Bill ' Q ' included in its definition sections Mr. NEELY.
123 and 124, but this Bill does not include those sections. The effect is that the important feature of the Bill covered by section 123 is limited in its application by section 121, to the western inspection division only. In ' Q ', the application is made throughout Canada. Why are these restrictions on the buying and selling of grain that are laid down in 123, applied to the western inspection division only, and not to those operating public elevators in the east?


George Eulas Foster: This includes all that was included in Bill Q, with the single exception of section 123.


David Bradley Neely: And section 124.


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps the minister could give us the reasons for leaving out clause 123.	.


George Eulas Foster: I am going to ask the committee to skip 122 and 123 for the present. The committee will see that in passing over for the present 122 and 123 I am leaving out the questions which are moot points. We will come back to them afterwards, when a full explanation will be given.


David Bradley Neely: Would you allow 121 to stand as well?


George Eulas Foster: 121 will stand if you please.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Will the minister give us good notice before he takes up these-sections?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I think he might have-given us notice that he was going to allow section 123 to stand, because I came here at a good deal of personal inconvenience.


George Eulas Foster: I am very sorry, but my hon. friend will have the advantage of having two studies of it instead, of one, and be all the better prepared.
Sections 121, 122, 123. allowed to stand.
On section 124-Hospital elevators,


David Bradley Neely: Here we have the trouble that was referred to by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver); at least, this is where there should be something adopted to prevent the grading out of grain which has merely passed through these hospital elevators but has not been treated -grain, which as a matter of fact, should not be admitted into these hospital elevators. Under this section there is absolutely nothing to prevent these hospital elevators taking in grain which does not require treatment, and, as my hon. friend from Edmonton has said, mixing it with other grain, thereby raising the grade of the treated grain and leading to more on

less fraud when that grain is shipped out again. I would suggest to the minister that after the word ' grain ' in the third line of the third subsection, there should be inserted some such words as the following: ' Such as is mentioned in section 115 of this Act.' I think perhaps, that would cover the case.


Frank Oliver: That brings back my suggestion that there should be some provision in section 115 which this would refer back to.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it there is no objection to the first and second subsections.


David Bradley Neely: No.


George Eulas Foster: The first makes provision that there shall be hospital elevators and the second that each shall take out a license and furnish a bond. In the first subsection, in the third line, the word ' point ' should be ' points.' In subsection 3 I desire to add, after the words ' section 115 ' the words ' and section 99 '. Section 99 reads:
When grain shipped from any elevator is lining systematically reduced in quantity below the general " average quality of the grain of similar grades in the bins of the terminal elevators, the chief inspector shall instruct inspecting officers that no such grain shall be allowed to pass inspection except om a lower grade.
2. Tlte inspector shall at all times keep careful watch 071 grain received into terminal elevators, and, if they find any such grain as aforesaid being received, shall at once notify the chief inspector, who shall make an inves-'igation forthwith and take action accordingly-
If my hon. friend will state his objection, we can discuss the matter.


Frank Oliver: My objection is that section 99 provides for the grading out at a lower grade, and that is what we expect will be done and what we don't want to be done. We want the grain which is not treated and which goes into the elevator at a certain grade to come out of the elevator as the same grade. I would respectfully suggest that a provision be made in section 115 to provide that the grain which has been treated shall not be mixed with grain that has not been treated, so as to absolutely prohibit the mixing of good grain with treated grain in these hospital elevators.


David Bradley Neely: The objection to section 124 and to the Bill generally, as applied to hospital elevators is, that there is absolutely no provision made to prevent the hospital elevators taking good grain and mixing it with defective grain, thus lowering the grade of the good grain and increasing the value of the mixed grain.
I do not think the hospital elevators-should be permitted to take in any grain other than is mentioned in section 116. I do not think the hospital elevators should be allowed to take in good grain at all, because if they have good grain in one end of the elevator and treated grain at the other end of the elevator, it would be pretty hard to prevent them mixing.


George Eulas Foster: The Act provides that these hospital elevators shall be governed by such rules and restrictions as may be imposed by the board. Everything in connection with the operation of an hospital elevator has to be under the supervision of the board, and according to rules and regulations imposed by the board. And surely you wall be safeguarded in that way. I do not know how you could in a statute profitably determine everything an hospital elevator should do. If you have a board in which you have faith-and we are going to have-faith in this new board-and it makes regulations governing an hospital elevator, one would think that ought to be sufficient.


Frank Oliver: I would like to urge that the possibilities are so great and so necessary to guard against, that they should he taken notice of in the Act and that it should not be a matter left to the discretion of the board. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) described graphically the pecuniary advantages resulting from mixing grain, and the pecuniary advantages resulting from the mixing of good grain with scoured grain are so great that I am not so sure but that it would be possible to persuade even a board such as we hope to have appointed to accede-to the mixing. There is a great deal to-be said on the subject of mixing. The House and the government, as I understand, have their minds made up on this question, and they propose to give effect to their view in legislation. Then it is for them to do so, and not throw the responsibility on the board. I think it is not difficult to make the provision, and I would strongly urge that it should be done in the Act and on the responsibility of the House.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want to be understood as saying that the Act ought to be silent and that everything ought to be left to the discretion of the board. I do not think that for a moment. I think the Act should go as far as an Act. can go in expressing the intention of the legislation, and then discretionary power in things unforeseen, and that cannot be included in detail, should be left in the hands of the board. My view is that we should allow them to do their legitimate
[DOT]2551

work and not hamper them in doing it; but on the other hand we should not give them power to degrade the grades, and by their operations to go against what is the evident intention of the Act. If there are any other suggestions to be made on either side of the House, I would like them to be made, and I will take them into consideration.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister tell the committee what regulations are in force now for checking up the elevators and keeping up the standard grades that go in and come out?


George Eulas Foster: I suppose my hon. friend is as well versed in the operations of the elevators as I am. The modus operandi is in short this. When the inspected and graded grain goes to the elevator, it is under the supervision of officers of the government from the time the door of the car is opened until the grain is elevated and weighed and disposed of in the appropriate bins. It is under the supervision of these same officers whilst it is in the elevator, and it is taken out again under their supervision. In fact, they are on watch and guard from the time the grain is weighed into the eh-vator until it is weighed out of the elevator into the car or vessel. If their eyes are about them and they are thoroughly honest, they can, I think, see that matters are pretty fairly carried on rightly and honestly. That modus operandi has been absolutely efficient, I think, in preventing many abuses. The fact that it has not issued in a perfect result is the foundation for the demand for elevators at terminals which shall be not only under the supervision of government officers of another entity, but shall be absolutely operated by officers who are not employed by any corporation, and who consequently have no incentive for allowing or committing wrongdoing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to have some information as to what classes of wheat are to be sent to the hospital. The word ' hospital,' indicates that the wheat is sick, to some degree at least. Wheat that is not sick to any great extent, but is mixed with oats, should not go to the hospital. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Robb), who .1 understand is a miller, whether wheat that is smutty, if put into a hospital to have that detect cured, would he as good for milling purposes after it comes out as wheat that does not contain smut. Does the scouring make it pretty good milling wheat?


James Alexander Robb: That depends on the extent of the injury before it goes in.- Scouring will not make it right; but if the hospital were equipped with washing machinery, Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
the wheat could be made pretty good for milling by being washed. I am inclined to side with the view of the minister that some latitude must be allowed to the hospital, because in some years it will have very little to do, while in other years it will be kept busy. It should not be restricted to doing only hospital work.


John Gillanders Turriff: I may point out that some years ago the owners of the hospital elevators were here, extremely anxious that this privilege which we are trying to guard against now should be granted, that is, that damaged wheat, when scoured and cleaned, should be inspected by the grain inspector and certified. That was refused; but under the present Act they are still able to mix scoured wheat with other wheat, and that is the main thing to guard against. It is all right to sell the scoured wheat for everybody then knows what he is buying, but it is not right that a miller should buy wheat, graded No. 2 Northern, which contains a considerable proportion of scoured wheat.


George Eulas Foster: Scoured wheat cannot be graded higher than No. 3.


John Gillanders Turriff: It should not be mixed in at all.


George Eulas Foster: If you look to section 115, you And it deals wit-h those grades of wheat. There are the ' no ' grade, the ' condemned ' and ' rejected.' The no grade is composed of wheat that is slightly damp; the condemned is in a heated condition; and the rejected wheat takes in any grain that is unsound and unfit to be classed under the ordinary grades.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Having oats in it alone, does not make it sick.


George Eulas Foster: It is a very good thing to have machinery for the separation of mixed grains. They have special machinery at Port Arthur and Fort William, where the separation can be done much better than in the wheat elevators. That is the conclusion we all aim at. We want to give the hospital elevators as; much liberty as possible to treat sick grain and make it commercially valuable. Outside of that, we do not want to give them any powers which will enable them ito degrade; the grain.


Frank Oliver: Section 123 is very important. If the minister has any amendment to offer to that section, it will be desirable to have it in the hands of members some little time before consideration in, committee.


George Eulas Foster: Any amendments will be printed and put on the table of the House.

On section 125-security by licensee,


George Eulas Foster: I would like to submit to the judgment of the committee a suggestion which has been made. It has been represented that large quantities of grain passed through these elevators and that the sum of $50,000 is too small in some cases, and that consequently the board ought to have the discretion of fixing a larger penalty. If that view be accepted, we might provide for a penal sum of not less than $10,000, and leave out all that comes after. That would fix the-board to a minimum, but allow it to use its discretion in going above that minimum.


Frank Oliver: I would hardly think that would be advisable.


George Eulas Foster: Another proposition is this, that the sum should not be less than $10,000, nor more than $50,000.


Frank Oliver: When we are taking the responsibility of interfering with private "rights, as we are doing by comoe'.'.mg the giving of such a large bond for the transaction of ordinary business, I do not think we should throw more responsibility on the board than is absolutely necessary for administrative purposes. It would be advisable to give in the Act some indication of what parliament thinks would be an adequate bond, if there be any possible way of giving such an indication.


George Eulas Foster: The difficulty is to fix the bond on any basis. I do not see what basis could be taken unless that of the capacity.


Frank Oliver: It strikes me that that would probably be a fair basis.


George Eulas Foster: We will let the section stand
On section 126 subsection 6-Public Elevators in Eastern Inspection Division, record to be kept.


Frank Oliver: I ask for information, and perhaps expose my ignorance in doing so. This subsection provides for weighing and keeping a record of the weight. The word ' overage ' is used. Suppose a certain lot of grain is billed at 10,000 bushels, and it is found to weigh 10,100 bushels, does the whole shipment go forward just the same or does only 10,000 bushels go forward?


George Eulas Foster: The
"warehousemen of the Eastern elevators weigh in grain that comes from, let us say ' Fort William, and under the section, they must keep an account ot the grade, the billed weight and the actual weight as weighed in by them. He compares his weight with that weighed out at Fort William. If it weighs less, the vesselman who carries it is responsible for the shortage, and if it turns out to be more, the vessel-man gets the overage.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That does not occur very often.


George Eulas Foster: A shortage is not infrequent.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, but not an overage.


George Eulas Foster: Does the answer satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver)?


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is exactly what I was asking. It is the actual amount of the grain billed that goes forward.
On section 126, subsection 7-preservation of identity of grain.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That has always been the law has it not? They break the law, but this has always been the law?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, this is the present Grain Act.
On section 126, subsection 10-Allowance for screenings.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I notice that subsection 3 of section 115 provides that:
Any grain that is unsound, musty, dirty, smuttv, soroutv, or from any other cause is unfit to be classed under any of the recognized grades shall be classed as ' rejected/
In discussing this, I notice that instead of using the word ' dirty ' the expression "mixed grain' has been used by the hon. member of Trade and Commerce. Under subsection ten of section 126 which we are now discussing	it js provided that the owner shall be paid or an allowance made to him in screenings. Now,
I take it that the screenings of grain treated in an hospital elevator are a very important feature of the treatment. I would like to know if provision is made for looking after these screenings, as certainly they are a most dangerous commodity.
We know that in hospitals care is taken to prevent the spread of uxseases. Also 4n packing houses officers are appointed to detect diseased animals and those condemned are sent to the fertilizer tank. These screenings taken from the grain at the elevators are often shipped out and sold for feed. I would ask the minister if any provision is made to safeguard the public against the danger from weed seeds thus distributed.
;HTHR (North Toronto). Yes, there is the supervision of the government ..curs in the first place and then there s the provision that a certain charge is made for the screenings, half a cent a

bushel and all over 5 per cent of the screenings are returned to the owner. If it is not 5 per cent there is no charge for the cleaning. What is under 5 per cent is kept by the cleaner himself so that the value of the screenings inures to the owner and not to the warehouse man. ,


Donald Sutherland: Then the owner is at liberty to dispose of the screenings in any way he sees fit.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) I think so.


Donald Sutherland: During recent years a great quantity of these screenings has been purchased through the feed stores in Ontario and as a consequence weed seeds have been spread to an alarming extent. We have to-day in Ontario noxious weeds that were practically unknown six' or seven years ago. Some safeguard should be inserted in this Bill to have the commissioners take charge of this dirty grain so that the weed seeds would be destroyed, perhaps (burned, because they are a dangerous menace to the country.


John Gillanders Turriff: It would not be reasonable to destroy all the screenings. For instance in the crop of 1910 there was a great deal of broken and thin, lean wheat. The wheat was very dry that year and was broken in the thresher. I have known as much as 100 or 120 bushels of screenings to be taken from a car and in some cases that was nearly all such wheat as I have described, which was perfectly good for feed and some of it for milling. It was arranged that the inspectors would give a certificate to the owner for the amount of his screenings defining them as No. 1 or No. 2, No. 1 being screenings of over 50 per cent of wheat. It would not be fair to have such screenings destroyed.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is right in bringing this to the attention of the minister. Our friend from the west (Mr. Turriff) has pointed out that in the crop of 1910, a fairly good crop, about 2 per cent was seeds. That would be about 2,000,000 bushels. I understand that these seeds are sold to a firm in Fort William at $7.50 a ton, and resold to people who feed sheep, a good many of them going to the United States. Some of them come to eastern Canada, and from leaky cars they are distributed along the railway tracks, they get Into streams and in that way the foul seeds are scattered through the country. Some farmers risk feeding them on their farms, but the best farmers have them ground first. Legislation should be introduced to ensure the grinding of these seeds before they are distributed on the eastern farms. I understand in the west They have stringent legislation to compel Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
the grinding of these seeds before they are fed.


Donald Sutherland: Even when they are ground some very dangerous seeds are so small that they are not destroyed by the crusher or grinder. If 50 per cent of the	screenings are	good wheat theother 50 per cent may be composed of the most dangerous and objectionable	weed	seeds.	I	would think thatthe hospital elevator or the elevator where the	wheat	is	cleaned would bethe proper iplace to take charge of these seeds, and 1 contend that all wheat should be cleaned, that it should not be allowed to come to our Ontario mills uncleaned, for even in that way these weed seeds have	been	spread	to	such an alarming
extent as to call for some heroic remedy. I believe that millions of dollars are being lost annually in this province through the spread of noxious weeds. We may as well look this matter squarely in the face and provide some remedy. and the proper place to begin is ait the elevator.


John Gillanders Turriff: Of course it might be worth considering whether all screenings taken from all the elevators should be sent to the hospital for grinding in order to destroy their germinating power.


George Eulas Foster: They tell me that grinding does not destroy the germ.	-


John Gillanders Turriff: 
Mr. NESBITT.: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for South Oxford has said about the seeds. I think that elevators, hospitals or otherwise, should destroy foul seeds. As the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) says, there is a good deal of wheat in the screenings. We quite recognize that there is a good deal of wheat and broken wheat is as good feed as anything else. But the foul seed is what my hon. friend from South Oxford has been talking about, and that should be destroyed. I think a Bill was introduced by the Inland Revenue Department last year to regulate the grinding of these seeds. I believe the screenings' can be ground fine

enough to keep the foul seeds from getting into the land.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We think our foul seeds come from Ontario.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As a matter of fact, the foul seeds from the west are very much worse than they are from Ontario. Ontario farms are very much cleaner than the farms in Manitoba, as far as my eyesight goes. I believe that we have got from the west a great many foui .seeds in the last few years that we never had before in Ontario, and I quite agree with the hon. member for South Oxford that all foul seeds should be extracted from these screenings at the elevators, and destroyed, and that they should not be allowed to go out broadcast. There are a great many farmers, for instance tenant farmers, who would buy these seeds, and feed them regardless of whether they went on the land or not. They should not be allowed to do that. The farmers of Ontario who are endeavouring to get rid of foul seeds have great difficulty in doing so, and I believe the government should do everything they possibly can, whether through this or some other act, to keep any person from selling foul seeds through the country for feeding or any other purpose. They are not much good for feed. The broken grain is just as good as whole grain for feed.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: I quite agree with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), about the importance of this question which has been raised, and I very distinctly remember tire Bill my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has just mentioned. I think it went through the House last year or the year before. I believe we called it the Seeds Act.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the Seeds Act. It was under the Agriculture Department.


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes. It had reference to screenings coming from the west to the east, or going from the east to the west. There should be some provision" made whereby the germinating qualities of these seeds will be entirely destroyed. As an hon. member pointed out a few moments ago, the feeding value of screenings is quite an important matter. I agree with that, and I also agree with the hon. member for South Oxford that the ordinary milling process does not destroy the more dangerous foul seeds. Some of them are so very, very fine that they slip through. I remember well, a few years ago, getting on my farm through feed that had been imported from the west, one of the most dangerous weeds. Of course, it is not merely the importation of feed that is ground in the west that creates the diffi cutty, but, as the minister then pointed
out, many Ontario millers bought these screenings, shipped them through to Ontario, mixed them with other coarse grain, ground them up and sold them to the farmers. I do not know that it would be wise to suggest that a clause should be put in this Act, but I think it would be well if the minister would take it up in connection with the Seeds Act under the Department of Agriculture, and see that . the difficulty is overcome, and that the germinating qualities of all foul seeds in all screenings are entirely destroyed before the screenings are allowed on the market.


George Eulas Foster: That comes under the Department of Agriculture, but I will call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) to the discussion that we have bad here. I think that the provinces have jurisdiction over the seeds and weeds of that kind in their own territories, and that they have legislation more or less stringent in regard to the matter. There are difficulties about introducing legislation into this Act which will remedy this greivanee. In the first plaice, it is not quite economical to destroy these -screenings. I am told that there were about a million bushels of screenings last year from the terminal elevators -at Fort William and Port Arthur, -and that their value would be about $300,000. Well, that is a good deal of -stuff to destroy. A part of these screenings -are pure wheat, and in -all cases where the wheat is broken it is given back absolutely to the owner.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There should be no difficulty in separating broken wheat from the foul seeds.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the broken wheat can be separated.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
Frank Oliver: I think that perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Where grai-n is

chopped, or when it goes through what is known as the chopping process, no doubt the small seeds will grow, but I think it is inconceivable that grain which is absolutely ground into flour would have any germinating qualities.


George Eulas Foster: That is if it is ground in a mill?


Frank Oliver: The difference is between chopping and grinding. Chopping would not destroy very small seeds, but, actual grinding would, beyond tally question, destroy the small seeds.


George Eulas Foster: There is just that difference between my hon. friend who is a House of Commons expert and a chemical expert. I believe this material has been ground up in the finest way then submitted to an analyst, and it has been found that the germinating powers of the small seeds were really intact. It is a mystery, but all life is a mystery.
On section 126,


Frank Oliver: The expression ' domestic grain ' occurs in several places in this Act; what is to be understood by ' domestic grain?'


George Eulas Foster: It is better defined by a negative; it means ' not wild.'
* Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have seen a good deal of domestic wild oats.


George Eulas Foster: They grow in every garden.
On section 132,


Frank Oliver: The purpose of the first part of the section is that the warehouseman haying certain responsibilities placed upon him cannot by any process relieve himself from this responsibility, and then there is an exception stating that he can do so with the consent of the parties. Under what circumstances would it be reasonable to consider that such an exception should arise?


George Eulas Foster: The inspector tells me that so far as he is concerned, he does not know that any such has arisen and he does not know how any such could arise. We will allow that clause to stand.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE RTLLS.
CONSIDERED TV POMMTTTEE__________THTRD



READTNG.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 72). to incorporate the Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr Blain.
Frank Oliver: 



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 68), respecting Queen's College at Kingston, and to change its name to ' Queen's University at Kingston.'-Mr. Nickle.
Bill (No. 69), to incorporate Queen's-Theological College.-Mr. Nickle.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 32), respecting Grain.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 133-delivery of grain on return of receipt.
George Eulas Foster: I am not going to ask the committee to pass this-clause to-night, but I want to say a word or two with reference to it, so that the committee may think the matter over, and I will come back to it again. It involves the payment of storage at the terminal especially during the winter season. It provides that upon the return of the terminal warehouse receipt, by the holder properly endorsed, and the tender of all proper charges upon the grain represented thereby, the grain is to be immediately deliverable to the holder of such receipt, and shall be delivered within twenty-four hours after demand has been made, and cars or vessels therefor have been furnished for that purpose, and shall not be subject to any further storage. The rest of the clause goes on to say that if the cars or vessels are not furnished, a second period of storage shall be entered upon after twenty-four hours, and storage shall continue to be paid even though the cars and the vessels are not ready for carrying out the grain. Now people who have cargoes stored complain that in a case such as the present, where the terminals are full, and where a single track of the Canadian Pacific railway makes it impossible to carry out any very large quantity of grain where more is coming in than goes out, although they want their grain removed and surrender their receipts in order to get delivery into the cars, the cars are not forthcoming and they claim that it is a great hardship to have to pay full storage in the meantime. They say the railways should make their arrangements to carry out this grain when we want it carried out.
if they do not do that, they should not be paid storage. So the battle rages between the two contending factions. I have had a good many representations made to me on both sides of the subject and have not made up my mind as to what changes, f any, will be made to section 123. I would like the committee to think the matter over. In the course of a day or Hvo T shall be prepared to make some amendment or carry the clause as it is.
25G1

25G2


Frank Oliver: On its face the clause appears to apply to all terminal elevators, whereas terminal elevators that are not approached by a railway company cannot be held responsible for non-production of cars.


George Eulas Foster: There are three distinct terminal elevators in connection with the three railways, but only one of these railways has a line going: east.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 139.-maximum rates.


Frank Oliver: How does that section compare with Bill ' Q '?


George Eulas Foster: It is the same in principle. The Governor in Council takes in the old Bill the place of the board in this.
On section 147,
All duly authorized inspectors of grain shall, at all times during ordinary business hours, be at full liberty to examine all grain stored in any terminal elevator.
2. All proper facilities shall be extended to such inspectors by the warehouseman, h's agents and servants, for an examination. and all parts of the terminal elevators shall be open to examination and inspection by any authorized inspector of grain.


Frank Oliver: Is there su-oh ia person as the 'agent' of the warehouseman?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, his agent or servant.


Frank Oliver: I take it that the warehouseman is held responsible for the weighing. He may have officials under him, but he cannot have an agent to act in his place.


George Eulas Foster: Bv the word ' agent ' I suppose, is meant some one doing the work under the warehouseman The wording is the same as in the existing law.


Frank Oliver: No doubt; but I want to know if the word is properly used there. If it contemplates an official to act in the place of the warehouseman, I should think that is not the intention.


George Eulas Foster: It is not Make it ' employee.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. Section as-amended, agreed to.
On section 150,-warehousemen respon sib!® for neglect.
George Eulas Foster: An amendment is proposed to this section. 1 will read it so that it can be printed and notice thus given of it. The purpose is to provide for a license what is called a ' manufacturing license.'
On application by the owner or owners of elevators which are part of plants engaged in the manufacture of grain products in the -western division that they do not wish to usage in the storage business and that the said elevators will only be used for the storage of grain owned by the said applicants and sed in the processes of their manufacture, the hoard shall have the power to exempt such elevators from that part of the Act which relates to the storage of grain for the public. The license issued shall be a special license for such class of elevators and the bond required, if any shall be at the discretion of the board.
Any owner or owners who violate the conditions under which such license is issued shall be liable to a fine under this Act.
M<r. OLIVER. Referring to section 148 relating to contracts, etc., contrary to the direction of owner, there is a declaration that the operator of a terminal elevator shall not ' switch ' grain. What is the penalty in case he does switch grain? And does the penalty under this Act in anyway relieve him from the effect under tthe-crimina.l law, ox is he liable under the criminal law?


George Eulas Foster: I shall make a note of this section opposite section 236 Which deals with offences and penalties and when we come to that section we can see if a penalty is provided or required, arid we can also look up me criminal law.
On section 153-elevator licenses.


Levi Thomson: In clauses (b) and (c) of section 2, the terms ' owning or operating such elevator ' and 'owning' and operating such elevator' are used. I understand that this is a personal license to the person operating the elevator, but under this it would 6e necessary to show who are the owners as well as the person operating.


George Eulas Foster: I would move to strike out the word ' and ' in section (c) which would make it uniform.


Frank Oliver: The mischief is in the first line of the second subsection where it speaks of the owner or lessee. The person we desire to deal with is the person operating the elevator.	-


George Eulas Foster: Suppose a man is hired to operate the elevator, he is only the servant of the owner.


Frank Oliver: The owner would be the operator. It is not a question of who owns, but of who is responsible for the operation.


George Eulas Foster: That holds both of them.
On section 156: rules and regulations for control of country elevators and receipt,, storage, etc., of grain.


Frank Oliver: Does this section apply to elevators owned and operated by the provincial government of Manitoba?


George Eulas Foster: No, I should think not.


Frank Oliver: Then there is a system of farmers' elevators in the province of Saskatchewan. .Would they come under this control?


George Eulas Foster: I should think not where they are operated by the government.


Frank Oliver: They are not operated by the government.


George Eulas Foster: Then
they are under a system of co-operation.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: They are really farmers' elevators and they get a government bonus or advance?


Frank Oliver: Yes,
Mr. FOSTER	(North Toronto). They
would come under this Act.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I see that subsection 2 of section 156 gives power to the government to make rules and regulations which have the binding force of law. It is customary in cases of this kind for a provision to be made laying these rules before parliament. Is there_ any provision that these Tules shall be laid before parliament?


George Eulas Foster: There is no provision that I see in the section, but there is no reason why they should not be laid before parliament. I do not' know that it is necessary to enact it because if they are called for-and they will be called for- they will be laid before the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In an Act such as this, it is always provided that they shall be laid before parliament within twenty days after the next sitting thereof, or within a certain time after the adoption of the rules because they have the force of law.


George Eulas Foster: I have taken a note of that.
On section 157: duties of warehousemen.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: There is a matter to which I wish to call the attention of the committee in connection with section 157. Perhaps the subject to which I refer would refer to all the provisions in respect to country elevators, but I will speak now particularly of clause (b) of section 157, which says that:
The person operating any such country elevator shall,
(b) Upon the request of any person delivering grain for storage or shipment, receive such grain without discrimination as
Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto.)
to persons, during reasonable and proper business hours.
There is .a class of grain business growing up in the west, and which has been growing up during the last two or three years, which did not exist some few years ago, when the Manitoba Grain Act was passed. I refer to the business of supplying pure seed to the farmers of western Canada. There are some elevators owned by persons in Saskatchewan who do nothing but supply pure seed. It is a question in my mind whether such elevators should be brought under the provisions with respect to the ordinary country elevator or not, but it might be worth while for the committee to consider whether or not such elevators, that deal in nothing but pure seed, and are not in the business of receiving grain for storage purposes, should be forced to receive grain for storage purposes from any person who may deliver it at any time. I would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to this.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. member refer to any particular warehouses or elevators of that kind? If so, to which and are they warehouses or elevators?


William Melville Martin: There are two elevators in Saskatchewan, one in Regina, which do nothing but deal in pure seed and supply it to the farmers.


George Eulas Foster: That is an elevator at Regina?


William Melville Martin: It is an elevator.


Mr FOSTER (North Toronto).: What about its capacity?


William Melville Martin: I do not know, but I should say about 60,000 bushels.


George Eulas Foster: And there is another in Saskatchewan?


William Melville Martin: Another at Tes-sier.


George Eulas Foster: I received telegrams to-day or Saturday from, I imagine, the same people who are running both of these elevators


William Melville Martin: The same people.


George Eulas Foster: They brought the question to me and asked me to look into it. I am now looking into it. I think that every effort to secure and distribute good seed is praiseworthy and, whilst it must be guarded to see that it does not contravene the purposes of the Act, all proper freedom and encouragement should be given to such.

On section 158.


Frank Oliver: I would like to draw special attention to a somewhat remarkable feature of this section, in subsection 2, which provides that under certain conditions the elevator owner can forward grain to terminals, without an order of the owner of the grain. It is a very remarkable provision. It is no doubt necessary, and in the condition of the country as it was some time ago it did not create any serious grievance, because then all grain practically was going through terminals. But now, there has sprung up throughout the west a considerable amount of local milling demand. The section does not recognize that interior demand to the degree it should be recognized and to the degree that the interests both of the interior millers and the producers require that it should be recognized. In considering this matter, there have been two suggestions made, one that the grain should not be shipped 'under the conditions provided in subsection 2 unless and until the owner of the grain has been notified of the intention to do it. That would certainly be the most satisfactory manner of dealing with the matter, provided it was always convenient to give the owner of the grain notice and provided the conditions were not such that if it were required that the owner must get notice, the object to be achieved, of allowing the grain to be forwarded quickly would not be lost. The other suggestion is that the elevator operator should not be allowed to forward the farmer's grain without the farmer's order for a certain period after the grain has been placed in the elevator, unless the farmer after placing his grain in the elevator waives that condition.
That would be a workable provision, although not theoretically as satisfactory as the provision for giving notice. The idea is this. The farmer has a carload or two oar loads of grain which toe puts into the elevator, and toe has an opportunity to sell to an interior buyer or mill. In order to sell that particular grain he would have a 'certain period after the grain was put into the elevator to make his arrangements for its delivery to the interior buyer. If he were not able to make the arrangement within a specified time, his grain would go forward in the same way as anybody else's.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is that not dealt with in 'danse 164?


Frank Oliver: It is, but it seemed to several of the members in going carefully over th'e Act that it would be well to deal with it first in subsection 4 and afterwards in section 164. It is a very drastic provision as it stands, aind while measureably ' satisfactory and just under former conditions, the conditions have so changed that it is liable to be used as a measure of serious injustice.


George Eulas Foster: By section 164' I propose that the owner or his local representative shall be given twenty-four hours' notice. The matter is surrounded with a good deal of difficulty. If the farmer lives 10 or 20 or 30 miles out, it does not help him to send him notice by a registered letter. Before the letter reaches him the grain is gone. He may not be in town more than once a week or once in two weeks. Therefore it . is proposed that he shall have a representative or agent in a town, to whom the warehouseman or elevator man would give twenty-four hours' notice, and then the agent could communicate with his principal if that were necessary. 1 would hesitate to make a provision that would prevent the quick relief of the elevator. I would not like to tlx a period of any considerable length within which the elevator man would be debarred from clearing his elevator and giving, access to persons waiting with grain.


Frank Oliver: One suggestion is to provide that the grain should not be forwarded within 48 hours after it is placed in the elevator. That is not an 'unreasonable delay, and it would give the farmer that much time to decide where and how he would find local sale if he could. That is one suggestion. The other suggestion is in line with what my hon. friend has stated. It is a question which would be more in the interest of the farmers. To a fanner at a distance, the twenty-four hours' notice from the post office is of 'absolutely no value to him.


George Eulas Foster: Or forty-eight hours.


Frank Oliver: That would be a good deal better.


George Eulas Foster: By mail?


Frank Oliver: It would be no use by mail, but if the farmer had some business man in the town who would act for him, forty-eight hours would be of some value. That would be an improvement on the present condition.


George Eulas Foster: I am loth to make it a single hour longer than necessary. Another twenty-four hours might mean delay in getting the cars away. Whatever applies to one of these clauses must apply to the others.


Levi Thomson: What appears to me as the best way of overcoming the difficulty would be to adopt the following amendment:

That subsection 4 of section 159 be struck out and the following substituted therefor Notwithstanding anything in this section, the owner of such grain, upon payment of all lawful charges as set out in subsection 2 hereof, may, at any time within 48 hours after the delivery of such grain at such country elevator or . at any time before such grain is shipped to a terminal elevator require it to he shipped to any other terminal than as : nbefore provided, or to any railway station on the line of railway upon which the receiving country elevator is si uated, or any line connecting therewith, unless the owner of such grain waives in writing his rights under this section.
Then I would suggest to amend section 164 by adding after the word ' may ' in the first line. The following words:
Subject to the provisions of subsection 4 of section 159 of this Act.
I think that might be a simple w7ay of overcoming the difficulty.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will hand me his amendment, I shall consider it-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Subsection 3 of section 159 deals with the case of a country elevator on the line of railway formerly known as the Northern Pacific and Manitoba railway, or any line of railway operated therewith. I think that should be made to read ' any line of railway ' and not ' any of line railway operated therewith,' because there are other railways besides the one mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: I shall make a note of it.
Subsections 2 and 4 of section 159 stand.
On section 160-delivery of grain on return of receipt.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to see another subclause added which would provide that the railway companies should see that the cars called for were promptly supplied.


John Gillanders Turriff: And promptly taken out when they are loaded.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The first thing is to get them.
Section 169,
Nothing in this part shall be construed as permitting the owner or operator of any country elevator to allot special bins to any buyer beyond the time allowed by the provisions of this part, or for purposes other than as stated in the provisions of this part as to flat warehouses, or shall require the owner of a flat warehouse to insure grain while in his warehouse.


Frank Oliver: I think that the words ' country elevator ' there should really be ' flat warehouse.' It will be seen that the Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
section reads in contradiction of itself when you use the word ' country elevator.'


George Eulas Foster: Going back to section 151, it will be seen that all the sections from that on past the one with which we are now dealing are under the heading ' country elevators.' Later on we come to the heading ' flat warehouses.'


Levi Thomson: But under section 184 relating to application for cars, a time limit is fixed in the case of flat warehouses; but I do not see any time limit so far as country elevators are concerned.


George Eulas Foster: There is a time limit in the case of special bins:
' shall be shipped within 24 hours after such demand has been made and the cars furnished.'
On section 173,-investigations of complaints.


Levi Thomson: I think that both parties should be notified, that there should be an addition to subsection
3.	According to the provisions of that subsection the person complained against must be notified, but there is no provision for notifying the complainant of the date and place of the hearing, so that the hearing might be held without his knowledge. If the words were added ' and shall notify the complainant as to the date and place I think it would ensure the complainant receiving the necessary notice.


George Eulas Foster: The complainant would generally be on the lookout, would he not?


Levi Thomson: He might or he might not.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose we make it read that the board shall notify both parties, and furnish them with a copy of the complaint?


Levi Thomson: All right.


George Eulas Foster: I move that the words, ' the owner of the country elevator ' be struck out, and the words ' both parties ' be substituted in lieu thereof, and that the word 'him ' be struck out and the word ' them ' be substituted in lieu thereof. '
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 186,


Frank Oliver: This section would seem to defeat to some extent the advantage of flat warehouses. There seems to be no reason why the owner of a flat warehouse should not buy and sell grain when the owner of a country elevator is allowed to do so.


George Eulas Foster: The flat warehouse is a special convenience to the farmer for his own purposes. If you allow the flat warehouseman to buy and store grain then the farmer's privilege is curtailed. I think that section was meant for that purpose and it would be well to leave it there.


Frank Oliver: The wording of this section is intended apparently to prevent the provision from being useful.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see how.


Frank Oliver: There is no difference whatever between the principle of a country elevator and of a flat warehouse. The only difference is that the capital invested in the flat warehouse is smaller and it affords a cheaper means of storage than the country elevator, but otherwise they are' on all fours, and there is no reason why the restriction made applicable to one (should not be made applicable [DOT],to the *other.


George Eulas Foster: That
clause was put there for the particular benefit of the farmers.


Levi Thomson: The farmer might be unable to ship his own warehouse at all because he would not have a complete car to ship out, and if this restriction were stricken from the Bill he could buy enough wheat to till that oar up.


George Eulas Foster: The
farmer is not a buyer of wheat as a rule.


Levi Thomson: It is not usual for him to buy, but there are cases in which he might find it advantageous to himself and his neighbours to buy.


George Eulas Foster: Do you not run the risk, if you carry out that suggestion, of turning all the flat warehousemen into speculators in grain? The flat warehouse was meant to give the farmer a cheaper place in which to store his grain than in the elevators, and it gave him the privilege of storing his own grain instead of paying the elevator man for it. It is a place established for that particular purpose. I would not like to run the risk of making every owner of a warehouse a speculator in grain, interested in having as wide a spread as he could and taking advantage of the small farmer, which the other elevator companies are said to do. Let us keep one oasis for the farmer.


Frank Oliver: I would not like to keep that kind of oasis; it is a very dry well. What we want to give is as much competition as possible in the buying of grain.
A man who has storage can buy grain, while the man who has not storage is at a disadvantage. We want storage, but we want buying as well, and we -want competition in buying; and inasmuch as this provision cuts down the competition in buying, we think it is not advisable.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the distinction between elevators and warehouses? I do not think there is much. I ap-ee with the minister that a warehouse is a cheap place for storing grain.


Levi Thomson: Warehouses are not often built in the locality which I know. They are sometimes, and I think it better that this restriction should be removed.


George Eulas Foster: We will consider it; but in the meantime let it pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 189-loading platforms.
William D. Staples: There is no question that loading platforms are great conveniences in the west, though they are not much used in the older parts of Manitoba. The platforms which the railways construct are not such as to afford the facilities which the farmers require. The kind constructed by the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway is one from which it is possible to load practically only one car; it is too short and narrow. If the platform were built wide enough to enable the farmer to drive his wagon upon it and back out again after unloading, so that he could load three or four, or even five cars at once, the farmers would use it a great deal more than they do. There is no doubt that the farmer who loads his grain into a car and sees it sold and shipped gets the best satisfaction; and there is much more satisfaction with that method of handling grain than with elevators. If it is possible to compel the railway companies to build the platforms longer and udder, this should be done. The Great Northern railway has a system of platforms constructed of earth, which are much better than the board platforms. In my town a big farmer who came from the United States went so far as to construct an earth platform himself. I ask the minister to take this matter into his serious consideration.


Levi Thomson: Section 193 gives the board power to order platforms of such dimensions as it sees fit.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 191-location and dimensions.
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: My experience in regard to platforms has been, not that they

are too short, but that there should be two or three instead of one.


William D. Staples: The Bill gives the board power to order the railway company to build additional platforms, but- I think it should also specify their width. The platform should be sufficiently long and wide to enable the farmer to back, his wagon up to the door and make it more convenient for him to load his grain into the car. There is no way by which a farmer can save eighteen dollars better than by utilizing the loading platform. Under the Manitoba legislation, all elevators are compelled to charge one and three-quarter cents per bushel. On 1,500 bushels, that runs into a considerable sum of money. You can load into a car from a platform almost as quickly as into an elevator.


George Eulas Foster: What my hon. friend asks for is really provided here. In section 191, the platform has to be approved by the board and must be at least 18 feet wide, 54 feet long, and of such height as the board decides. Under section 193 the board may at any time, between the 15th of April and the 15th of October in any year, order the company to enlarge any platform at any station or siding. That is what my hon. friend wants. There is another consideration which has to be taken into account, and that is whether loading platforms are the most economical way of handling grain. The older we grow in the west, the more the elevator system will be resorted to and the less the loading platform. I have a report which was made to the Board of Railway Commissioners by one of their officers. He reports that the average time for loading a car from a platform is often more than two days, so that if you had all loading platforms, there would be a pretty slow transportation of grain. In the meantime this gives very broad authority to the board to order loading platforms of the kind most useful to the people at these stations.


Mr. CRUISE.: This section gives power to enlarge the platform in length but not in width. It fixes the limit at 18 feet wide.


George Eulas Foster: That is the minimum.


Frank Oliver: What should be the minimum?


Robert Cruise: About 24 feet to give a man a chance to back up his wagon to the car. I cannot understand how a farmer could take two days to unload into the car.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They usually unload in one day.


Frank Oliver: If it is a fact that the unloading platform should be 24 feet wide in order to be of full value, would it not be


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: advisable to say so specifically in the Act. We should also provide sufficient length, as suggested by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples). I have heard some complaints that the platforms in many cases were not big enough.


George Eulas Foster: I shall take a note of that, and we can come back to this section if necessary, but in the meantime we might as well pass it.
Sections 195 and 196 stand.
On section 206:
The hoard may in its discretion during a car shortage direct the railways to make an equitable distribution of empty grain cars to all stations in proportion to the amount of mull available for shipment from such stations.


Levi Thomson: I think
the word ' stations1 should be changed.. As this section stands, only persons loading at stations have any rights; those who. load at a siding are left unprovided for.


George Eulas Foster: I assumed ' station ' to be a general term. It is provided that a man can order his car to a siding or loading platform.


Levi Thomson: There am sidings at the stations. But, as the minister says, provision is made in the Act for ordering cars to points where there are nostations. Provision is made in the Act, under which, even if the loading platform will not supply the requirements, cars may be placed on a siding to be loaded from the ground. We want the rights of all protected, and not the rights of those only who load at stations.


George Eulas Foster: Make it ' stations or sidings.'	.


Levi Thomson: That
would answer the purpose. Add the words ' or sidings ' after the word ' stations in third line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On' section 223,-time for loading cars.
Levi Thomson: I think the time from which this 24 hours will be reckoned is hardly right. It is reckoned from the time at which the car is placed at the disposal of the farmer, whereas, the 24 hours should be reckoned from the time notice is given to him, as provided by section 201. Section 201 provides that:
The railway agent shall post uj>
daily in a conspicuous place a written notice signed by him, giving the date of application and [DOT] ame of each applicant to whom lie has on Lhat day awarded cars for the loading of -rain, and the car numbers so awarded respectively.

The station agent might he very prompt in doing this or he might not. Sometimes he might be delayed quite innocently, and the farmer is obliged under this Act to have his car loaded within 24 hours from the time the oair is placed on the siding for him, while the time he has actually, may be very much less. The general practice is for tlie farmer to make some provision for some one to notify him after the notice is posted np in the station, and that is the first notice he has of the fact that the car is at his disposal. I think the time should not start until after that date, and I would therefore suggest the insertion of the words ' or 'after the notice provided for in section 201 of this Act has been posted as therein required, wherever is the later.'


George Eulas Foster: I do not want to waste any time, but I will note my hon. friend's point. I took it at first that ' placed at the shipper's disposal ' would be after he was notified of it, but I do not think that is quite a correct reading of the clause. That may pass if you like and we will go back to it if it is necessary to do so.


Levi Thomson: It had better stand.


George Eulas Foster: All right.
Section 223 allowed to stand.
On section 224,-daily statement for nearest station agent.


Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of this requirement, and is there any further use made by the government of the i.nforr motion that is given to the station agent?


George Eulas Foster: It is for statistical purposes entirely.


Frank Oliver: This is a report to the station agent. Does the government get the advantage of that report?


George Eulas Foster: It is primarily, I suppose, for the knowledge of the railway company as to the stock in the elevators, but all these reports can be got by the government if they wish them.


Frank Oliver: It is not for the immediate information of the government?


George Eulas Foster: The immediate purpose of it is statistical information for the railway companies and for the public. A report of the stocks on hand every night is made next morning on the exchanges.
On section 246,-fees for expenses of administration.


Frank Oliver: In my judgment the first part of this section is objectionable in making a declaration that seems to be inappropriate and uncalled for. While wo are quite agreed that the grain trade shall
carry the burden of its administration, that is one thing; but to declare by legislative enactment that the fees shall be fixed so that the result of those fees shall bear all the burden of the administration is another thing, and I would object very strongly to it. In regard to the second part of the section, giving authority to the board with the approval of the Governor in Council to fix fees, I think the proper legislation would be in each instance to lay down the principle which should govern the board in fixing the fees. I do not think a general authority such as this is good legislation. The fees to be levied under this Act are a tax upon business and upon the people, and it is an elementary principle that taxes should not be levied except on the responsibility of parliament. I think ws should not place in the hands of this board of commissioners the right to tax the people except according to well-defined principles and within well-defined limits.


George Eulas Foster: I will note the objection of my hon. friend. It is, I think, a good thing to have a full and free understanding of the matter. From the very start the basis of this whole legislation has been understood, and freely and willingly the grain men have agreed to pay all the expenses of the administration of the Act, and I think it is just as well to have that on the face of the legislation itself, so that there will be nodifference of opinion afterwards. I do not think this is objected to in any way.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: When they called for this legislation they also expressed their willingness that the trade should do in tins case what it had been doing before, that is, bear the expense of ordinary administration by means of fees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frank Oliver: May I call the minister's attention to section 48 to which a subsection was added in committee? On further consideration it would appear to me that the addition of that subsection is not in accordance with the best administration, and I would like on some future occasion to have an opportunity of discussing that amendment again.


George Eulas Foster: We will go back to it; but will my hon. friend state briefly what he objects to in it?


Frank Oliver: The Grain Standards Board is a committee of experts on grain. Every preparation is made for their arriving at a just conclusion in regard to tlis standards. It is a very elaborate preparation. It takes time and trouble and some expense to gather samples from the different areas where the grain has been damaged. It is proposed by the amendment that their conclusions shall be revised by the board of commissioners, who are not experts, and who have not had the opportunities to arrive at a just conclusion such as the members of the Grain Standards Board have had. I am very willing to place responsibility upon the board of commissioners, but 'in the case of a decision by experts it seems to me that under these circumstances it should stand without revision.
Progress reported.



MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the
third reading of Bill (No. 06) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.
Mr. OLIVER, I think there must be some error in connection with this proposed amendment. When it was moved, I asked for a copy and the hon. minister said I would find it in ' Hansard.' But the amendment, as it appears in ' Hansard,' does not convey the idea which was m our minds at the time. The amendment reads in 'Hansard';
That after the word ' collapse ' in the third line there he inserted all places where grain is damn and liable 'to become damp, or for the purpose of distributing seed grain to any point in the western division.',
George Eulas Foster: It should read; damp and liable to become damaged,' are the words in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: The liability to damage would not be a sufficient reason for giving the warehouse commissioner the extraordinary authority proposed. Such authority should not be given, unless the conditions were such as might be expressed in these words:
. -HI places where the grain is damp and is liable to be destroyed by reason of that condition.
There must be the existence of the condition which, under ordinary circumstances, is going to produce destructive results, rather than the double proposition that where the grain is damp or where it is liable to damage.


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: It is not the word ' or.' which is used. If it were I would take the same objection. The word ' and ' is used where the grain is damp and liable to become damaged. It is the one condition which threatens destruction.


Frank Oliver: Then I withdraw my objection to the Bill, because it is only to go into effect in connection with the existing Act, but I give notice that when lie proposes to introduce the like amendment into the Act 'before us we may give it further consideration.


Levi Thomson: I am not sure whether I am justified in objecting at this stage, but I understood, when the matter was before the committee before, that ample opportunity would be given to discuss this question. Do I understand it may be discussed on the third reading of the Grain Bill?


George Eulas Foster: If it forms a part of" the Grain Act, but this goes into the existing Act and becomes repeal- ' ed when the Bill we are discussing comes out. My hon. friend would not be allowed, under the rules of the House, at this late hour, to raise any further objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the adjournment of the House.
Frank Oliver: A provision with regard to the distribution of cars was allowed to stand. I take it for granted there will be an amendment to that. Is it understood that any amendment to that section will be laid on the table some time , before being submitted for consideration?


George Eulas Foster: That clause was allowed to stand as an indication that it is still being considered. If an amendment be desirable, it will be laid on the table as my hon. friend requests.


Frank Oliver: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


George Eulas Foster: First questions and then government orders- very likely numbers 14, 17, and perhaps 18, and' then Supply. The Supply will be Public Works.



THE CARRIAGE OF GRAIN TO DULUTH AND MINNEAPOLIS.

Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) to a Washington despatch with reference to the carrying of grain to Duluth and Minneapolis, and

would ask him if there has been any change in the situation since the statement my hon. friend made on January 23rd last?


George Eulas Foster: There has been no change except for the better. I am not quite sure from memory just how far my statement went, but the condition at present is that wheat and oats for export are, and have been for some time, carried to Duluth and Minneapolis at the same rates as to Fort William and Port Arthur, that applications were made to place wheat and oats for consumption in the United States on the same tariff rates, that these were not allowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States to take place earlier than the thirty days' notice required by that commission. That, however, has now been issued, and speaking generally, wheat and oats for export, and barley, wheat, oats and flax for consumption in the United ' States are either being carried at present at an equal or slightly higher rate to Duluth and Minneapolis than obtains in Port Arthur and Fort William, but by the latter paid of February will be carried at the same nates as to Fort William and Port Arthur. The reason that all kinds of grain and for both purposes, have not been carried sooner is that- the commission in the United States objected to doing the latter within the thirty days* notice necessary for the application to' be made before the tariff goes into effect. That thirty days' notice is required in order to give full knowledge and advertisement to the interests that may be affected in the country itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 7, 1912.