PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 235, from the Senate, for the relief of James Deverell.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill No. 236, from the Senate, for the relief of Anita Allcock.-Mr. Rankin.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have been asked by
several members that in order that the private bills on page 18 of the order paper may be referred to the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the second readings

Questions
be taken now. Of course this can only be done by suspending the rule with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the second readings should be taken now of the private bills on page 18? Then, by leave of the House, we will now proceed to take them up.
Eill No. 197, for the relief of Euphemia Tudor Slade.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Marion Roberts Edmiston.-Mr. MacLaren.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Wilbert Newell Hurdman.

Mr. White.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Maude Craw-foid Ross.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Bertha Matilda Quinn.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 213, for the relief of William Garfield Reed.-Mr. Rankin.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by
Bill No. 199, for the relief of William Morgan Floyd.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Harry Iven Jones.

Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Edith Smith. -Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Mary Helen
an asterisk.)

Mr. WHITE:: What are the names, places of residence and dates of appointment of all persons appointed by the federal government since December 6, 1921, as judges in any court in Canada ?
Wallace.-Mr. German.	Hon.	Mr. LAPOINTE:	
	Residence		Date
Name	on appointment	Court	of Appointment
		Supreme Court, Can.... Exchequer Court, Can..	Sept. 16, 1924
			Nov. 2, 1923
		Supreme Court, Ont		Feb. 15, 1922
		Supreme Court, Ont		Oct. 7, 1922
		Supreme Court, Ont		Aug. 31, 1922
		County Court, Ont		Feb. 15, 1922
		County Court, Ont		Jan. 25, 1922
		County Court, Ont		May 19, 1925
		County Court, Ont		Aug. 23, 1924
		County Court, Ont		Mch. 29, 1923
		County Court, Ont		Aug. 14, 1923
			Mch. 29, 1923
			Mch. 30, 1922
Hon. A. R. Hall .			Nov. 14, 1922
			*Ian. 25, 1922
		Superior Court, Que	 Superior Court, Que		July 22, 1922
			Dec. 22, 1922
		Superior Court, Que		Jan. 30, 1924
	Riviere du Loup....	Superior Court, Que		May 5, 1922
		Superior Court, Que		Jan. 15, 1923
		Superior Court, Que		April 25, 1923
		Superior Court, Que		Oct. 14, 1922
		Superior Court, Que		Oct. 1, 1924
		Superior Court, Que		July 22, 1922
	New Glasgow		Supreme Court, N.S....	May 15, 1925
		Supreme Court, N.S.... Supreme Court, N.B....	April 11, 1923
			Oct. 1, 1924
	Campbellton		Supreme Court, N.B....	Mch. 4, 1924
		County Court, N.B		June 15, 1923
			April 14, 1923
		K. B. Man		May 1, 1922 Mch. 16, 1922
			
			July 4, 1924
			Nov. 9, 1923
			Jan. 23, 1925
			Jan. 25, 1924
			May 27, 1924
		Supreme Court, B.C		May 8, 1922
			July 22, 1922
		District Court, Sask....	July 22, 1922
Hon. J. R. Boyle		Edmonton		Supreme Court, Alta-	Aug. 27, 1924
Questions


ACTING CUSTOMS OFFICER LAPOINTE
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Was there a complaint made in December, 1924, or January, 1925, against Acting Customs and Excise Officer Lapointe of St. Leonard, Madawaska County, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what date was such complaint made, and by whom ?
3.	Was the complaint made by one Joseph Desjardins, of St. Leonard?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 21, 1925. It would be contrary to established practice to divulge name of complainant.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


TIMBER AND GRAZING LANDS
Mr. McTAGGART:: Has the Department of Timber and Grazing made disposition of any or all of the following Dominion lands, and if so, what disposition has been made and who are the beneficiaries: Section 31-14-24-W. 3rd M., North Half 30-14-24-W. 3rd M., Section 12-14-25-W. 3rd M., Section 36-14-25-W. 3rd M., North Half 25-14-25-W. 3rd M.?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: While no actual disposition has been made of these lands up to the present time, a departmental inspector has recommended that the north half of section 30 and section 31, township 14, range 24; and ther north half of section 25 and section 36, township 14, range 25, west of the 3rd meridian, be leased to Mr. Robert Mitchell of Big Stick, Saskatchewan, and that section 12, township 14, range 25, west of the 3rd meridian, be leased to Mr. William Bell, of Wapashoe, Saskatchewan.


POPULATION, EXPENDITURE AND DEBT OF CANADA
Mr. MARLER:: For the fiscal years ending 1871, 1872, 1881, 1882, 1891, 1892, 1901, 1902, 1911, 1912, 1921, 1922 what was:-
(a) The population at the end of each year?
Cb) The net consolidated debt at the beginning of the year, the interest on the debts including charges of management, discount and exchange in each year, the total ordinary expenditure, the capital expenditure, special expenditure exclusive of demobilization, and war expenditure, the whole in each year?
(c)	What was the total expenditure in each year?
(d)	What was the net consolidated debt at the end of each year?
[Mr. Lapointe.}


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 
EXCISE DUTY ON RAW LEAF TOBACCO
Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: 1.	What is the date on which an excise duty af five cents a pound was imposed on raw leaf tobacco and the date on which that duty came into effect?
2. What is the date on which that duty was removed ?
3.	What amount of money has been collected under that duty at the Joliette division for each of the following fiscal years, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Bill assented to May 24, 1918. Effective from September 1, 1918, inclusive.
2.	May 24, 1922.
3.	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1918, nil. Fiscal year ended March 31, 1919, $7,601.95. Fiscal year ended March 31, 1920, $134,616.45. Fiscal year ended March 31, 1921, $136,476.36. Fiscal year ended March 31, 1922, $148,755.71. Fiscal year ended March 31, 1923, $22,321.20.
Inland Revenue Division of Joliette absorbed into the port of Montreal, upon amalgamation, April 1, 1921. Statistics for the two fiscal years last quoted refer to collections for the territory formerly comprised in the Inland Revenue Division of Joliette.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon) (for Mr. Doucet):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government, the Department of Public Works and La Compagnie Cooperative Telephonique des Comtes de St-Jean-Chicoutimi, since May 24, 1923, with reference to the lease or sale of the telephone lines between Chicoutimi and St-Ambroise and St-Ambroise and Peribonka in the constituency of Chicoutimi-Saguenay, Quebec.


I. WILSON SALMON FISHING STAND
Mr.   BRACK@Yukon) (for Mr. Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the D. partment of Marine and Fisheries and others with reference to a salmon fishing stand near Derby Junction on the southwest branch of the Miramichi in the county of Northumberland, New Brunswick, and known as the I. Wilson stand.


WEIR LICENSE-GRAND MANAN
Mr. GRIMMER:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries or any official thereof and any person or persons, respecting the refusal to grant a weir license to Hartford Boynton of Castalia, Grand Manan, New Brunswick, and of any and all reports relating thereto.


NATIONAL FLAG FOR CANADA
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, letters, orders in council, relating to the question of a new
[Mr. Robb.J
Canadian flag for use on shore, with any recommendations made by the Department of National Defence, and also the names of the sub-committee appointed by the ortfer in council.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I read to the House at a previous sitting a copy of the order in council based upon a recommendation of the Department of National Defence for the appointment of a committee to study various suggestions that have been made with respect to a national flag. At the time I announced to the House that the government would not think of taking any action in this matter without parliament in the first instance adopting a resolution with reference thereto. Under the circumstances, it has seemed advisable to the government that no action should be taken, even by the sub-committee, until parliament itself takes action in the matter, and a subsequent order in council has accordingly been passed, a copy of which I shall read to the House and lay on the table. The order in council reads:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 20th June, 1925, from the Minister of National Defence, submitting that in accordance with representations made in parliament by the Prime Minister on the 17th June, 1925, with respect to the procedure that should be followed in regard to the question of the adoption of a Canadian national flag for use ashore and that it is desirable that the matter should be decided by parliament before any action should be taken thereon by a committee, and recommending for these reasons that the order in council of the 23rd April, 1925 (P.C. 623) appointing a committee to consider and report on the most suitable design for a Canadian national flag for use ashore, be cancelled.
The committee concur in the foregoing, and advise that the said order in council be cancelled, accordingly.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Nothing will 'be done except what parliament sanctions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has thought it advisable that the matter should be discussed and settled in parliament first. A resolution with respect to this matter is at present on the order paper.


An hon. MEMBER:: How did the matter first come up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order,
as the hon. member will see on perusal^ came, in the regular way in which ordinary routine business of the government departments comes up. It came in the first instance from the Department of National Defence. It was purely a departmental matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Guthrie

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Alexander Robb: On the 13th May, on the motion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), an order of the House was passed respecting the operations of the Finance Act. I am advised by officials of the Department of Finance that the information required under this return is in course of preparation, but that it will take several days before the information is completed. It will be remembered that when the motion was under discussion I drew the hon. member's attention to the fact that the information desired was of a very extensive character, practically covering in detail the operations under the Finance Act from its inception to date. While the information is all readily available from the records of the department, it has been found necessary to re-tabulate a considerable portion of it in order to answer the questions.


MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I notice the Minister of Labour has returned from his mission to the Nova Scotia strike area. Has the minister any statement to make to the House as to the actual conditions in Cape Breton, as to what prospects there are for an immediate settlement of the dispute and a removal of the troops?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: It would, perhaps, be inadvisable
to make any extended statement in regard to the situation as it exists in Nova Scotia at the present time. As has been stated to the press, the company made a proposal through me to the district board of the United Mine Workers on the 17th of this month and that was presented to the board the next day. When I left Sydney on Friday morning last, the district board were to canvass the proposals for a settlement made by the company with (their locals of the organization and possibly through a referendum, vote of the United Mine Workers, and the decision of the mine workers and, in any case, of the locals will be indicated to the district board within the next few days, when possibly further discussions will be held to ascertain if a settlement can be reached on the basis that is Droposed.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GUTHRIE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I desire to rise for a moment on a
matter of privilege. On my return to the House of Commons this morning after an absence of about ten weeks, my attention was called to a statement appearing in Hansard of the 16th April last at page 2209, in a speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte), in which speech these expressions are used regarding me:
1920 and 1921 the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) took a trip to England and his expenses charged up to the government amounted tc $9,400.
Then in the following column:
I do not care what business he was on, he could not eat up $9,400 properly on any such trip.
Had I been in my place when the statement was made, of course I would have put the matter right at that time, but I was absent. The amount referred to is to be found in a return brought down to this House in the session of 1922. It covers the expenses of a trip in the year 1920 and a subsequent trip in the year 1921. In the year 1920, at the request of the government then in power, as Minister of Militia, I went to England to attend a meeting of the Imperial War Graves' Commission which was called in London for the purpose of settling the policy which should pertain in respect of war graves of soldiers of both the Imperial government and the Dominion,. I was also appointed by the Dominion government on that occasion to attend as its representative the international financial meeting at the city of Brussels called by the League of Nations. I attended the meeting of the War. Graves Commission, and subsequently I went to Brussels to attend the meeting of the financial delegation which sat there for, I think, about ten days. Later, I went through the war zone for the purpose of demobilizing a large number of Canadian soldiers who were still at work there. On my return to London I investigated the case of many men who were then on the pay list of Canada and, as I thought, unnecessarily so, and I demobilized the remainder of the Canadian army then in Great Britain with the exception of some twenty-five or thirty men. In the month of June of the following year, I was requested by my leader, then the Prime Minister, to proceed to London in connection with the Imperial conference. I was not actually one of the delegates at the conference, and I think I attended the sittings of the conference on only three occasions. But as a great many matters pertaining to mili-
Rules oj the House

tary subjects, and also the question of air armaments, were to be discussed, I was asked to be present for that purpose. The chief purpose, however, of my visit on the second occasions was to settle outstanding claims between the Ministry of Shipping and the Department of Militia of Canada involving a great many millions of dollars. I took over for the purpose an accountant of the department here, and after four or five weeks of strenuous work we settled all questions save one. As a result of our efforts we succeeded in having the bill of the Ministry of Shipping reduced by several hundred thousand dollars. The amount mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond is the total expense of the two trips and not of a single trip, as the House would infer from his statement.



SOLICITOR GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Seeing that the portfolio of the Solicitor General is at present vacant, has the government considered the advisability of amalgamating this office with that of the Minister of Justice, thus bringing all legal matters under the one department and, besides, making a large saving in matters of expense?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has already considered the point which the hon. member has brought up, and will make an announcement a little later of its decision.



DISTURBANCES IN CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Has the government received any representations from the Chinese Consul regarding the exploitation and shooting of Chinese workers by British soldiers? Has Canada, as i member of the League of Nations, taken any iction looking to the removal of the causes of the present disturbances in China?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of any representations having been received along the lines indicated by my hon. friend. I shall make inquiries at once and see if there have been any.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to answer the second part of my question, as to whether Canada, as a member of the League of Nations, has taken

any action looking to a protest against the causes which have given rise to the troubles in China? As a member of the League of Nations we have a right to act in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The troubles in China at the moment are the subject of correspondence between the British government and our own. I am not at liberty at the present time to disclose the nnture of that correspondence, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that so far as Canadian citizens arc concerned the government is taking every precaution to see that their lives and property are safeguarded to the greatest extent possible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope I have mads myself understood. I was not speaking primarily of taking precautions to preserve the lives of Canadians in China; I was referring to any action the government might have taken to prevent, through the League of Nations, the exploitation of the Chinese which is now taking place and which is likely to cause considerable world trouble. Has our government, as a member of the League of Nations, taken any action at all, and if so what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a member of the league the government has not taken any action such as my hon. friend suggests. It is rather a large subject and at the moment I can only promise to see that the matter will be taken into consideration.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Why not inquire into
Chinese attacks on the British?



RULES OF THE HOUSE REPORT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: 
Mr. CRERAR:: That, I thought, was clear at the time.


Hewitt Bostock: I had been under the impression that the discussion of the proposed amendments to the rules of the House would take place this morning, but I yield to the request made by several members that, as the session is soon to conclude, the matter may be allowed to stand until next session. I desire to say, however, that the child is full of life; it is not an orphan. If I am here next session I will press for the consideration of the subject.


Arthur Meighen: I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is a matter of real regret to myself that the advantage of the work of the committee cannot be availed of this session. It is only the fact that a discussion of that kind would be necessarily somewhat detailed and lengthy that prompted me to make the suggestion which I offered on Saturday night. I know of no work of any committee that appeals to roe as having been more thoroughly carried out than that of the committee which revised the rules this session, and I sincerely trust that those of us who are back next year will be prepared to consider the matter. I assure the House that the party which will be in control at that time will not allow to pass into oblivion the work of the committee during this session.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: As a member of that special committee I should regret very much if we could not take advantage of the work which it has done so very carefully. If the matter is postponed until next session, will it be necessary for the work of that committee to be done over again?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Undoubtedly another committee will have to be appointed, I trust the same; and I should think that as a matter of course the same report would be adopted. I do not think we can improve on the report that has been brought in, except by general discussion. I repeat, however, that the child is by no means an orphan; it is perfectly legitimate and it will be present here next session.


William Irvine: As the mover of the resolution that led to the investigation of this question, and in view of the fact that the next year is uncertain for a whole lot of us, I should like to see the matter proceeded with this year.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): I want to assure the hon. gentleman 'as well as the House and the country that the revision of the rules will be looked
into next session. I want to offer the assurance, from this side of the House, that the party which will be in power at the next session will see to the matter.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: May I ask
what obligation another parliament would be under to proceed with this matter? Suppose the composition of the next parliament were considerably changed, would there be any obligation upon it to take up this important question?


Hewitt Bostock: At least a moral obligation.
MOVEMENT OF ALBERTA COAL On the Orders of the Day:


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Will the Minister of Railways say what accuracy there is in the report that appears in the press this morning with reference to the moving of Alberta coal? The newspapers say that Sir Henry Thornton is not going on with the experiment with regard to a lower rate owing to the fact that it will be looked upon as affecting the whole rates schedule. That does not necessarily follow. Time and again when I was chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners we had emergency low rates put into effect, with the accompanying intimation that such rates were not commercial but were purely to meet an emergency.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): I have no intimation on this matter except the news item that has appeared in the papers. I did receive information indirectly some days ago that there was some difficulty regarding the question as to what parties were to make up any deficiency as a result of the arrangement. I think the railways will accept the coal at $7 provided that the losses will be guaranteed by the other parties to the arrangement. However, I shall inquire into the matter.
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Is it the intention of the government to bring in an amendment to the Superannuation Act of last year making provision for the children and widows of civil servants who were superannuated under the old act?
. Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :	Since the adoption of the Superannuation Act last year there have been representations on behalf of several organizations for amendments. It is not the intention of the government to submit any amendments to the act this session.
Soldier Settlement Act



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 208 to amend The Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Before the motion carries I want to correct a mistake I made when discussing this measure on a previous occasion. I said at that time, speaking without my notes in answer to a question by the minister, that as far as I was aware there were forty settlers in the particular neighbourhood of which I was speaking, that is to say Courtenay. There are 144 settlers there. Whilst I am on my feet I want to quote briefly one or two paragraphs from the petition they presented to the government in connection with this matter:
And whereas many settlers have been compelled to abandon their farms, whilst in this district alone, although only sixteen cases are shown as actual salvage cases, there are upwards of forty settlers out of 141 who have left their places with no intention of returning, making a percentage of thirty-two per cent.
And whereas the government will at the present time sell any of these abandoned places to the public at cost price plus amount spent on permanent improvements, thus showing a complete loss of amounts spent Dn stock and equipment as well as loss of all interest due.
And whereas very few salvage properties have been re-sold and in some cases where re-sale has taken place the properties have again reverted to the board, thus indicating that such properties are considerably overvalued.
And whereas the prevailing price of wild land in this district is $7.50 per acre and the average price paid by soldier settlers averages $40 per acre. Whilst cost of clearing same is from $200 to $300, making cost of further clearing prohibitive at original price paid for this land, such land being valueless for farming purposes until cleared.
And whereas it is believed that any reasonable adjustment as hereinafter suggested will in the aggregate cost the country less than the alternative, namely, a number of salvaged farms to be sold at a considerable loss and an equal number of ruined farmers.
Therefore the following alterations in legislation affecting soldiers are suggested:
1.	To make the reductions in the repayments due to
the board so far as livestock is concerned in accordance with the recommendation of the special committee on Re-establishment of the Returned Soldiers as set out in clause one, sections A and B of their report to the House.
2.	To make a reduction of 25 per cent on original cost
of cleared land and permanent improvements purchased and made in the years 1919, 1920, etc. Also a reduction of 50 per cent on original cost of all uncleared land purchased during those years.
I hey end up by saying:
We respectfully request that you give your support to the above alterations with special reference to Vancouver Island, where conditions are altogether different to any other part of Canada.
I earnestly trust that the minister will give an expression of his determination to have his

officials examine certain districts where the conditions are so flagrantly unjust and unsatisfactory that some measure of relief will have to be granted by way of revaluation, if not this year, then at any rate not later than next year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed1 to.
Title agreed to.
Mr. WARD:: Mr. Chairman, before you report the bill, I wish to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that if we pass this bill in its present form the Soldier Settlement Board will be instructed to at once examine into conditions in certain sections of the country and see if something cannot be done to bring about some form of revaluation next session. Since the debate first took place in this House I have received several communications from my constituents, not only from the settlers themselves but from business men, urging upon me to oppose this bill and to press for something further in the way of revaluation. I wonder if the minister will give us an assurance to this effect before the bill passes.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the proposal that provision be made for the revaluation of lands in connection with this bill. I am sure that the officers of the department are familiar with the situation and know that in certain districts it is imperative that revaluation should be made, otherwise the land will be completely abandoned and will be unsaleable to anyone else. One section I have in mind is between the lakes in Manitoba, in the constituency I have the honour to represent. During the early days the board by some means or other got hold of some stony scrub land, with very shallow loam and a gravelly sub-soil, that is absolutely unfit for farming purposes. I can show the minister farms in that district with only ten or fifteen acres under cultivation that were sold to the soldier settlers at from $20 to $25 an acre. It was because of this unsatisfactory condition that the board made a cleanup of its Winnipeg office-in 1920 I think it was-and got rid of practically all the valuators who were in the field at the time the original purchases were made. I submit that that is an acknowledgment that something was done at the time that should not have been done. In view of this acknowledgment, it was certainly the duty of the government

thpn, and the duty still remains upon the government to-day, to compensate the soldier settlers who have been put in such a serious position because their land was not as represented to them at the time they acquired it.


Mr. MILLAR:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
support the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. Possibly it is too late now to do anything more than the bill provides for, and if that is so I am quite willing that the bill should pass, but I believe his suggestion is a good one and should be adopted. It seems to me it would be a great mistake to allow some of those soldiers, who are good farmers and are doing their very best to succeed, to be forced off their land, which they took up when prices were so high that they are never likely to be able to free themselves from debt.


William Irvine: What was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni?


John Millar: I understand his suggestion to be that after the session is over the officers of the department be instructed to look into the revaluation of lands in certain districts where it appears they were too highly valued at the time of purchase. I have received several telegrams complaining bitterly that the bill does not go further, but I realize the difficult position in which the minister is placed, and I certainly would prefer to see the bill go through as it is rather than have it withdrawn. I know of one particular case in my own district where the land was valued at $30 an acre, and I am sure it is not worth more than $10 an acre. If the officers of the department were instructed to look into such cases, I think something could be done to relieve the soldier settler of his heavy burden, and so encourage him to remain on the land. In this way the soldier himself would gain, and the country as a whole would also gain.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the government has not seen fit to go as far as recommended by the special committee. I have felt very keenly for the last three or four years that the obligations assumed by our soldier settlers were such that under any circumstances it was impossible for the men to discharge them. In the early part of the session I had correspondence with some of these returned men, and their expressed determination then was to leave their farms. The question in the mind of one man in particular was, would he make another payment on his land or would he leave. I wrote and advised him to hold on just as long as possible for I felt sure that the parliament of Canada
Soldier Settlement Act
would recognize the situation as I saw it and that relief would be forthcoming. I regret now that I gave him that advice, for he has made another payment and will be simply that much more out of pocket. There is no question that the time must come when the country will have to assume a larger share of these obligations than it has assumed up to the present time. It is all very well to say that the lands that are being sold are bringing higher prices; the answer is that it is the best of these lands that have been sold. I can take you to one comer of my own district and s\iow you farms-one in particular-that I would not take as a gift if I was compelled to make my living on them. The district I represent is one of the best agricultural districts of the west, but some farms have been taken there by these returned men on which it is not possible for them under any circumstances to relieve themselves of the obligations which they have assumed in connection with them. When I left home at the beginning of the session I made inquiries from the municipal clerk and I found that about one-third of the farms had already been abandoned. I am quite satisfied, without knowing the actual figures, that fifty per cent of these farms are already abandoned, and in some cases the men who still hold their land are simply holding on in the hope that the government will come to their relief. I have advised them to hold on, and I know there will be disappointment in these quarters. Of course we must accept this bill as granting relief as far as it goes, but I repeat that the time must come, and will come, when this country will have to assume a much larger measure of these obligations.


William Irvine: I do not think there is any better example of how the rules of the House play into the hands of the cabinet than this bill before us. It proposes a small reduction to returned soldiers on the value of their stock. The cabinet knows very well that the House generally is in favour of some reduction, but the reduction proposed by the bill is only a little more than a gesture, and we cannot vote against it because we are anxious to get as much reduction as possible. On the other hand we are precluded from moving an amendment to get a larger reduction, because the rules of the House will not permit us lo make any motion which involves an expenditure of public money. So the government goes ahead with a small reduction vrhich means very little except that it may sound well and make it appear as if the government is very solicitous of the welfare of the soldiers. But
Soldier Settlement Act

it really does not get anywhere. And here we are, absolutely helpless; we have to vote for something that is nothing but a sham. We cannot take a step that will lead to something definite, to something of value.


Mr. McCONICA:: I feel that this bill should pass rather than that we should have no legislation on the subject, but I am quite certain that it will not attain the object sought. I had hardly realized the situation of the soldiers in my community until just before coming to Ottawa. A meeting was held of some thirty young soldiers who were holders of land. I canvassed that meeting thoroughly and I found just one man who was in better shape financially now than when he began. He was a bachelor, had few expenses and had managed to get a little ahead, but there was not another man in the entire company who was not hopelessly involved from the financial point of view. There has been but one aba i-donment, so far as I know in my
12 noon neighbourhood, but the men have been going back year by year, and the stock to-day will not have a proper valuation even when this forty per cent reduction is made. The prices at the time they bougot were far in excess of the prices of to-day, and there has been some depreciation. They can surrender every dollar's worth of property they have and go out and buy at lower prices than they will be paying under this reduction. I have not so much complaint as to the value of land in my vicinity; I believe the soldiers will take care of their land obligations, but the reduction on the personal property is not enough. I certainly hope that the government will see its way clear to give us at least a thirty and fifty per cent reduction; forty and sixty per cent would be even better.


Mr. EVANS:: I think the government is overlooking a very important feature in soldier settlement if they do not do something regarding the revaluation of land. At a convention held in Saskatoon in March, the Great War Veterans' Association there passed the following resolution:
Whereas the price agreed to be paid by soldier settlers for land bought from the Soldier Settlement Board is too high in most cases and is a burden which will be impossible to carry and unless adjusted will result in the abandoning of the land, the failure of the scheme, the loss of the settler's stake and hardship and suffering;
Therefore be it resolved that the Soldier Settlement Act be so amended as to make provision for the revaluation of all land (particularly raw Crown land) purchased by soldier settlers from the Soldier Settlement Board, such valuation to be on an arbitration basis, to be optional with the settler and to be based on the condition of the land at the time of purchase, and that the necessary adjustments be made accordingly.
rMr. Irvine 1


James Alexander Robb: May I interrupt my hon.
friend? What was the price paid for the crown lands?


John Evans: It does not say what the price was, but I suppose it would vary, according to the district. In some cases I know that the price was too high. The resolution goes on to say:
That there be a revaluation board in each district consisting of thr. e members, one to be appointed by the Great War Veterans' Association, one to be the district superintendent, the third to be a disinterested man familiar with land values to be appointed by the two already appointed.
The loss of these men engaged in primary production will be a distinct loss to the country, and I do not think the help they are calling for would cost any more than the outlay involved in putting immigrants in their places, based on what each immigrant is costing the country at the present time. I sincerely hope the government will take this matter into consideration.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: A few evenings ago, in
the discussion on the Calgary and Fernie Railway bill, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) took the ground that this House was under an obligation to pass that bill almost without question, because it had been passed by a committee of the House. I am very sorry that the government does not adopt the same attitude toward the recommendations of the committee which dealt with the revaluation of soldiers' property. It seems to me that there is only one way in which we will get this thing down to a proper basis. An arbitrary reduction, after all, is not fair. In some cases the stock and the land may be not overvalued at the present time, and a revaluation would not be fair to the government or to the whole people. In a great many other cases the land is very much over-valued, and any ordinary reduction is of no use either to the soldier or to the department. The only fair way to handle this whole matter is to place a board in control of it and have a reappraisal made of all the stock and of all the land. Some of this land was well chosen, some of it is the best in the country; but in other cases its condition is such that it is impossible for any settler to make a living on it, and the valuation must be greatly reduced, otherwise the soldier cannot possibly remain on it. To write off these amounts would not in itself be a distinct loss to the government as it might appear to be, because the government is going to lose anyhow; in the last analysis it is only a matter of book-keeping. I appreciate the attitude

Soldier Settlement Act
the government may take in pointing out that it would be an addition to the national debt and would perhaps show against their particular regime-I suppose that would be the official way of looking at it. But in so far as the nation as a whole is concerned, the loss must be accepted in the last analysis. What I consider the great crime in connection with the handling of this question in the past has been that after the original soldier settler was forced off the land, after he found he could not make it go, could not pay the interest on the principal and live, there was a reduction made in a great many cases to a proper basis, and the land was resold to another man. In a great many cases, had the land with that reduction been offered to the original soldier settler, he could have remained on it and made good. But now the best years of his life are gone, he has lost what little stake of money that he had, and now he has nothing at all; and some other settler has secured the benefit of his work and sacrifice. In a great many cases the trouble is due entirely to officers of the department. In one particular district in my constituency a large number of soldier settlers were brought from the eastern part of the country, from Ontario mostly, men who had never worked on	the land
before and who knew little or nothing about farming, and they were placed in a heavy bush district where an experienced farmer would never have located at all. Those men were placed there because the land was homestead land. It was a long distance from the railway, and contained very heavy bush that had to be cleared. A great many of these men had been wounded overseas and were seriously impaired physically, and were not at all in a position to clear that heavy bush. When I go through that district I find that these men are living under the hardest possible conditions. Most of them are young married men, raising families, and making an effort to get along, but the district is so poor that there is no possible chance of their making anything but a bare living. They can never pay off their indebtedness, and in the last analysis there is bound to be a loss to the country. In this particular case the land was homestead land. I want to point that by the time they are able to prove up and clear sufficient land, it will cost them a good deal more than ordinary land near the town could be bought for.


James Alexander Robb: How does my hon. friend propose to revalue homestead land?


Milton Neil Campbell: In these particular cases there is no revaluation of the land necessary. I am trying to show that the trouble in the first place was due to officers of the department, and that something is due these men. With the small amount of stock and implements they have, the only thing I can suggest to the government is to wipe off their indebtedness entirely. That is the only way these men can hope to remain on the land. They cannot possibly pay for it. The acreages are small, and while the question of ownership of the land is not involved, I submit that the land itself is of practically no value I believe with regard to most of these quarto; sections that I refer to, that if they were thrown on the market, they would not sell for $500 apiece; in fact, I do not know that they could be sold at all.
Let me point out another phase. Two years ago a branch line bill was submitted to this House and passed by this House, but it was turned down by the Senate. Now that particular branch line was supposed to serve a district where there are a large number oi' soldier settlers located, men who were brought there by officers of the board and located on the land on the definite promise that this branch line was to be constructed. Just a few days after this branch line was turned down by the Senate, I understand, the Canadian Pacific Railway let a contract to run a branch line through the same district, but about fifteen or eighteen miles farther west, where it could not possibly serve these soldier settlers. They are in a position to-day where they cannot now and probably never will secure railway accommodation. They are trying to get along under the hardest possible conditions, but conditions that, as I see them, they cannot possibly overcome. There is no possible chance of their making good with the liabilities that they have. In cases like that I think there is nothing the department can do but wipe off the whole indebtedness, because eventually the country must accept a great loss in any case. The machinery and stock that these men have has depreciated to such an extent that it is now worth very little. It is possible in the prairies to-day to buy a fairly good horse for $30, and a milch cow which when these men settled there would be worth from $75 to $S0, is to-day worth not more than $25. So the government must face a loss anyhow.
I think the government is responsible in another way. Let me point out that the drastic reduction in the value of these lands was due primarily to the sudden deflation of
Soldier Settlement Act

the currency that was brought about in 1920. That was really responsible for the deflation in the values of land and stonk. Now the government must accept some responsibility for that. It was part of the governmental policy, or if it was not, at any rate the government adopted a passive attitude towards it and permitted it to happen. So there again the government must in the last analysis accept a good deal of the responsibility.
I appreciate the position of the minister. T know there are a great many difficulties in the way, that re-appraisal will cost a good deal and will take considerable time; but I submit it is the only way in which this question can be definitely settled, and that a minor reduction such as is proposed in this bill is only prolonging the agony; It is not really dealing with the question at all. I do not want the minister to think I am opposing the bill. I appreciate the fact that the government has given the men this amount of reduction. In a good many cases it will help materially, but I think the minister should take into consideration all these various phases of the question and before long undertake and complete a revaluation of all these holdings with a view to bringing them down to the present values of land and stock.


Alan Webster Neill: Before the minister replies, T would like to dissociate myself-and I rather think there are others who would like to do the same-from the extravagant language used by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) when he told the House that this measure is but a gesture and a sham. If it is allowed to go on record that the House or members on this side of the House were of that opinion, the Minister of Finance would perhaps be justified in saying: " Well, if it is only a sham and a gesture, I will withdraw the bill and save $5,000,000." I think we shall find that it is anything but a sham and a gesture when we come to look at the aggregate cost of this reduction on the books of the treasury.
As far as I am concerned I am glad to get at least what this measure proposes. I wou'd feel very much embarrassed if I had to go home to my soldier constituents and say to them that we were offered a rebate of $5,000,000 but that owing to extravagant and unjustified language used in this House we got nothing at all. While the reduction is not as large as I would like-I shall not go into that matter again-it is some measure of assistance at least. If I owed $500 on stock, and I got a rebate of $200, I should consider that as something better than a sham, something more than a gesture.

I would like to ask a question on a point which is not quite clear to me. Section 1 says that this amount, whatever the man is found to be entitled to, shall be deducted from his indebtedness if he has not repaid his indebtedness to the board. Take the case of a man or his wife who comes into a little legacy- that is the only way he would be able to repay his indebtedness-and we will suppose be pays off with the legacy his indebtedness on his stock, but has not paid off his land indebtedness. Will he be allowed to apply this reduction on the stock to what he now owes on the land?


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to commit myself on that without looking carefully into it. That might involve the possibility of an interpretation that would include those who had sold out altogether and left the land.


Alan Webster Neill: I am asking if it would apply in the case of a man who had paid off his indebtedness on his stock, but who still owed on the land?


James Alexander Robb: It would depend whether he
was on the land or not. The bill is clear that he must be on the land.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, the act calls for that. It says it shall not apply to a man who has repaid his indebtedness or who has abandoned his land. But what I want to have made clear is whether a settler shall be entitled to apply this reduction to what he owes on the land- if, for instance, he has come into a little legacy and has paid off his indebtedness on his stock. I think he should be entitled to deduct that payment on account of stock reduction from what he now owes on the land.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I think that point is
quite covered in the bill. Before 1922 the lands, it is true, were on a differential basis. There were specific loans on stock and specific loans on land. In the amendments of 1922 all the loans made up to that time, which would indue all the loans made for live stock, which would come under this act, were consolidated into one loan, which would amount to a new loan being issued which would cover all the indebtedness in October, 1922. I do not think there can be any doubt this would apply to any indebtedness as the stock loan would be merely a portion of the whole loan as consolidated in 1922.


James Alexander Robb: It seems to me that in the interpretation of the act we might very safely leave this in the hands of the Soldier

Soldier Settlement Act
Settlement Board. They are sympathetic to the settlers as they are soldiers themselves, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by continuing the debate.


William John Ward: Since I spoke a few moments ago I find a letter in my file which is a fair criterion of many cases in the northern part of Manitoba. This gentleman has written me several letters. He says:
I am taking the liberty of writing to you again. I am given to understand by the Free Press newspaper that there is to be no revaluation on land. My payments will amount to $371 and taxes $75 next year which is impossible to pay. (Farm bought at $4,000). The most it is possible to pay is $200 including taxes. The quarter adjoining mine was sold for $1,200 last year,	and if I	cannot	get	mine at that price Iwill have	to leave	it as it	is	impossible for a manto stay on a farm and not get enough to eat. At the present time the main part of my crop is under water owing to the recent heavy rains. I wish you would see	into the	matter	and	let me have a replyas soon as	possible.	Hoping	this	is not causing you too
much trouble.
And he says that is the value prevailing in the district. I think that is a fair description of the situation all through northern Manitoba. I have often made the statement that if a physical revaluation were made by practical men it would be found that the reai value would not be over thirty per cent of the original price paid. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in making these protests which we have made for revaluation we are backed up by resolutions passed 'by each of the prairie province governments in the three successive years. We have unanimous resolutions passed by the union of municipalities of the three prairie provinces, and we have supporting us the unanimous resolutions passed by each of the conventions held in each of the last three years by the farmers' organizations in the several prairie provinces, besides thousands of other organizations throughout those provinces which have been passing such resolutions.


William Irvine: What is the use of making all these speeches about these matters when the hon. member for Comox Alberni is perfectly satisfied?


William John Ward: I do not think the hon. member for East Calgary is quite fair to the hon. member for Comox Alberni. I do not think the hon. member for Comox Alberni is satisfied by any means.


William Irvine: Why does he not say so?


William John Ward: I think he is just as emphatic as I am in his feeling that revaluation should take place. I will make a suggestion to the minister that he should add to this bill a 296
clause providing that the Soldier Settlement Board may, from the time of the passing of this bill henceforth, take into consideration revaluation in certain sections of the country.
I will be almost afraid to go back to my constituents without some such clause in this bill.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: I would like to know from the minister what he proposes to do with those men who have to replace all their stock, who have lost all the little capital they put in their land and now they have no stock from which to get any recompense. What are you going to do with them?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I sympathize a great deal with the minister in reference to this legislation, because it is not an easy matter to give the people immediately everything they want or everything they should have. I would like to suggest to the minister that his officers take notice of special districts or particular districts where a man has settled on land that is unsuitable for agriculture, and that in such cases there should be a revaluation of the land as well as a revaluation of stock and machinery. The men placed on land in a great many districts in the eastern part of Manitoba, even if you wipe off everything they owe on stock and machinery, cannot make a success of it. I know the minister has difficulties, and I sympathize with him. I do not agree with what the hon. member for East Calgary says-that it is a sham. However, we are getting something, although we are not getting everything we want, and I hope the measure will go through.


William Irvine: My hon. friend is doing a lot of talking.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think the hon. member for East Calgary has done more talking than anybody else, and if I have the permission to make a few remarks I would still urge upon the minister that the board should make a special study of any special district such as I have referred to. I agree with my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in his statements, except where he said he was living in the best farming district of Manitoba. I do not agree with that, but I subscribe to everything else he said.


Mr. LEADER:: I wish to support this bill before the House, believing as I do that it will give some measure of relief. It does not. go far enough, but I understand that we have to get this or nothing. I support those hon. members who advocate a revaluation of the soldier's lands. I believe that would afford a most permanent measure of relief. Wf

Soldier Settlement Act

have in this country an immigration policy costing millions of dollars. At the same time we are allowing many of our returned men to forsake their country. Let me give an illustration. In my district a returned man purchased a quarter section of land for $35 an acre. After trying to farm it for one or two years he gave up the job and drifted into the city. That land is still vacant, and the board is offering it for sale for $15 an acre with no takers. I understand this bill does not affect the man who has abandoned his land and quit. I would like to see an invitation sent forward to the soldiers who abandoned their land, who could not make good on the land, under the conditions existing at that time, inviting them back to the land, so that they would be able to accepts the benefits provided under this bill. If the board decides to go on and revalue the lands afterwards, they will be able to have their land revalued, and perhaps they will be willing to come back and be reinstated. The result would be that they would become good citizens of the country. When the bill was up before I mentioned the fact that some municipalities in the country, especially in Manitoba, and more particularly in my own riding, are working under a handicap in the fact that many of the men have abandoned their lands and those lands revert back to the crown and are exempt from taxation. Hon. members can understand that where the municipalities have built roads and schools, the burden falls on the settlers who are left there to maintain those roads and institutions; so that I am going to ask the government now if they will consider in the very near future the taxation for local improvements of soldier's lands on which they have advanced money. I would urge upon them that during the recess they undertake to give this matter serious consideration and afford a measure of relief to those municipalities who have been handicapped by reason of the soldier's settlement lands reverting to the Crown.


Mr. McMASTER:: I add my support to the statement made by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). In my own county, which is a very small one, I know the municipalities have found that they are very much hampered by having to lose taxes on properties that belonged to certain soldiers which have been abandoned by them, with the taxes thereon unpaid.


Mr. KNOX:: I had not intended to take any part in this discussion because I thought it had been fully discussed on a former occasion. But the suggestion of the hon. mem-
ber for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) in regard to taxation of these abandoned lands is a very important matter just now. In some localities I know there are school districts which have great difficulty in carrying on owing to lack of those taxes. I might say, as a member of the special committee which considered this matter and brought in the report, that we gave this question every consideration and we still stand by the report brought in. At the same time, I do not want to say anything that would in any way endanger the passing of this measure which we have before the House at present. There is also a danger that if we did ask for anything more and did get it through this House, it would not finally find its way any further. At the same time, I would ask the government to consider the suggestion of having officials of the department go into the matter further, because I am convinced that eventually, before the matter is finally concluded, a revaluation will have to take place.


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: Not having been in
this House when the matter was under discussion before, I should like to add my weight to what has been said by hon. members around me with regard to revaluation. I should like it to be clearly understood that I am not opposing the passing of this measure. Like other hon. gentlemen-all except perhaps the one who has been mentioned-we are extremely grateful to the government for this measure of relief. If I had known that this discussion was coming on this morning, I would have had with me some of the letters which I have in my desk upstairs with regard to land revaluation. It was quite natural, of course, that we should get many letters from returned men complaining of their circumstances, but I have letters outlining the actual conditions under which those men are labouring and suffering, and I am quite sure that after having read those letters the committee would understand that many of those cases are hopeless and it is absolutely necessary that land revaluation should take place. I want to support very heartily the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) who brought this matter up first and to urge upon the government that, if we are to retain these men as settlers, something in the way of revaluation of land must take place,


Mr. SHAW:: I cannot allow this occasion
to pass without reiterating the opinion I have expressed on numerous occasions in this House previously. This problem of revaluation in regard to both the land and live stock of soldiers is one which invited the very serious attention of the House. The committee of

Soldier Settlement Act
last year, after a careful analysis of the situation and after listening to the officers of the department, came to the conclusion that a revaluation of sixty and forty per cent on live stock was the proper basis on which to start. The minister, in the legislation proposed, has reduced those figures, for what reason we are not told, to forty and twenty per cent. I think the minister should have adopted the committee's figures in the matter. The committee had some further recommendations in connection with revaluation. I did not concur in the method of revaluation proposed by the committee, but I think this is a pressing problem. Revaluation of land is something that must be done. It is going to be done, why not do it now? Why not provide the machinery now to do it, and not wait until calamity is added to calamity, until abandonment succeeds abandonment, before parliament takes action? I am going to support this measure, but I am going to support it only as a partial measure. It does not solve the problem. We are going to be face to face [DOT]with it for years to come, until we actually face it squarely and provide the necessary machinery for the revaluatoin of the land in order that the soldiers may continue to exist on lands purchased from the government.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: In extending the work of the committee at this time, we have not the privilege that we on this side of the House would use if the rules of the House so permitted. If we could have put into an amendment the advice and suggestions we are offering now, I am sure every one of us would have been glad to have that done and to have the matter settled by a vote. Particularly, as we note the empty benches that are opposite to us and the full benches on this side of the House, that settlement would have been highly satisfactory to us. But it is not within our power, and I hope the minister is in a receptive mood for the suggestions and advice offered at this time. I am wholly in accord with those who state that we do not want to defeat the bill that is offered by the minister, but we would like to see it amended. We do not think it goes far enough even as regards reductions on live stock. The committee recommended that the reduction on live stock should be sixty and forty per cent. As regards land, those of us who know the conditions of settlers in western Canada, know it is an actual fact that, in some districts at least, there are settlers endeavouring to meet their payments on the land who will find themselves, in the long run, wholly unable to do so and will eventually have to abandon that land. We the 296i
people of this country will have to shoulder the loss in the end. If we could have persuaded the minister to amend the bill so that the loss would be taken now in cases like that and the soldier be put into a position whereby he might hope to make a success, we should have been glad to have him do that, although I am forced to admit I do not think it would be possible in some cases for soldiers to make good settlers on lands oq which they are now located and provision should be made for the removal of them frdm such land and the settling of them in better, districts on more suitable holdings. These comments that have been made are made wholly because we realize the situation in which many of our friends the returned soldiers largely find themselves at the present time. We know something will have to be done eventually. I agree with the statement made m this debate that no set 'amount should be placed in the bill for reducing the price of land. That should be turned over, perhaps, to a board, as the resolution, I think, of the Great War Veterans themselves asked.


Mr. POWER:: Is it not the opinion of
ninety per cent of hon. members directly opposite that the land should be given free altogether to the returned soldier?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I do not
think I would agree to that.


Charles Gavan Power: They will never be satisfied until it is. *


Charles Wallace Stewart: There are
soldier settlers in my constituency who are quite well satisfied with the land they have taken and the price they are paying for it. But there are a goodly number who are not satisfied with the price they are forced to pay for their land. Now that they are working it and see the returns they can get from the land, they realize that they are being asked to pay too much. Perhaps, rather than lose the equity which they have in that land, they will struggle along. Some of them will meet their payments, but it will be an injustice to them. Others will fail eventually, and we as a country will have to shoulder the loss. Would it not be better for us to do that now?


James Alexander Robb: When the resolution was before the House some weeks ago, it was brought on early in the evening and we debated it until well on towards midnight. This morning we started fairly early at this legislation; it is now approaching one o'clock and we are still discussing it. All I have to say briefly is that if the legislation does not go through.
Soldier Settlement Act

the responsibility will not be upon the government. When the matter was up before, I think, I made fairly clear the policy of the government as regards revaluation. I should like to add that already we have given instructions to officials of the Soldier Settlement Board to look into certain districts. I am convinced that in some sections of Canada too much was paid for this land, but that is not at all universal. The records of the department go to show that most of this land has been well purchased. Some of it has been sold at a profit. I am particularly impressed with the situation as represented by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). I think that if there is one section of Canada where apparently the soldiers were not well used, where the valuators were favouring the seller rather than the purchaser, it was that district.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Will the minister not
add Selkirk to that?


James Alexander Robb: Probably Selkirk might be in the same position. I think the valuators were the same. But I am not sure that it is in the best interest of Canada for us to go into the revaluation of soldier settler lands as a general scheme. What are the conditions of the purchase of this land? We have all the records in the department. They know in the department where this land was acquired. A good deal of it was homestead land, a good deal of it was crown land bought at the prevailing price for crown land, which was not a high price, but a low price. Out of the total of 25,000, some 13,000 were sold outright. But hon. gentlemen must remember from whom the land was bought. They bought from their fathers, brothers and sisters, members of the family; and because the government was the real purchaser, high prices were paid. It is well to reflect on these conditions before undertaking any general revaluation of soldier lands. We must have regard to all the taxpayers. We must consider not only the 25,000 soldiers or so who settled on the land but we must keep in mind the interests of the other 475,000 soldiers who did not go on the land. Under all the circumstances, I think we are giving a pretty fair measure of relief. I again promise my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft), as well as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that their representations will be submitted to the board. Indeed, I shall represent matters to the board myself and have a report made next session. For the present, having devoted considerable time to this bill, hon. gentlemen might allow it to pass.


Harry Leader: Would the minister consider the question of some relief in the matter of the taxation of abandoned lands?


James Alexander Robb: We have a record of that,
but I would point out that the municipalities are suffering not on account of the government alone. There are a lot of people in that part of the country who are not paying their taxes.


Robert Forke: But in those oases the tax still remains a charge against the land.


James Alexander Robb: And so it does in this case.


Robert Forke: I do not like to contradict the minister, but I know he is wrong.


James Alexander Robb: I have a memorandum from the board to the effect that they are doing their best to help the municipalities to collect the taxes, and sometimes they forego their own in order that the municipalities may get theirs. I do think that so far as school taxes are concerned the crown should not stand too closely on its rights.


Mr. WARNER:: Did I understand the
minister to say that the taxes unpaid were a charge against the soldier settlement land, as in the case of the private owner?


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: W7ould the new purchaser of land a year or two hence, acquiring it from the board, assume the taxes?


James Alexander Robb: If the land were sold at a profit. I shall have the matter looked into.


Robert Forke: Every year I am honoured with an invitation ,to attend the union of Manitoba municipalities, and on every occasion this is a lively subject. I shall be careful to get the exact words of the minister to read to them the next time, so that they may know that he has promised to look into the matter.


James Alexander Robb: And my hon. friend might
remind them that there are. a good many people in those municipalities who are not paying their taxes.


Andrew Knox: I would point out to the
minister that in the case of lands privately owned the taxes can be realized by the municipality; but this is not so with crown lands.


Mr. SPENCER:: How much will this relief to the soldiers amount to in the aggregate?


James Alexander Robb: I have already given all those figures to Hansard. My hon. friend will find them in a previous debate of a few weeks ago

Rural Credits


Joseph Tweed Shaw: On the third reading of this bill, will the minister consider an amendment for the purpose of empowering the minister upon the recommendation of the chairman of the board, to transfer soldier settlers from lands that are considered wholly unsuitable for agricultural purposes to other available lands, and to transfer the debt?


James Alexander Robb: Without making any commitment I promise to take the matter into consideration.
Bill reported.


James Alexander Robb: In view of the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) I would ask that the third reading stand until later in the day.



RURAL CREDITS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from June 17, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Hon. Mr. Robb-Mr. Gordon in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide :
(a)	that the Governor in Council may authorize advances to any one or more of the provincial governments for the purpose of assisting agriculture by enabling the provinces to make long term loans to farmers;
(b)	that such advances shall be secured by the issue and delivery to the Dominion of bonds of the provinces ;
(c)	that the aggregate of advances to be made by the Dominion shall not exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
William Irvine: How does the minister propose to raise this $10,000,000?


James Alexander Robb: That will be made clear when the bill is presented. It will be through the sale of bonds or an advance of money from the department if we have it.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I presume that this legislation is intended to supplement the present farm loan acts of the different provinces. I would point out however that there are provinces that have no farm loan aots or, if they have such acts, they will not be able to take advantage of this measure.


James Alexander Robb: That will not make any difference.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like the minister to consider, when his bill is before the House, the advisability of making provision for rural credits in those provinces where the system is not in force, for these provinces
certainly need such legislation much more than those parts of the Dominion which have rural credits legislation in force.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 237 to authorize advances to assist agriculture by providing for long-term farm loans.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting trade relations with Australia, and to provide,-
1.	That the Minister of Finance be authorized to enter into an agreement with the government of the Commonwealth of Australia under which Australia shall grant to goods the produce or manufacture of Canada when imported into Australia the benefits of the reduced rates of duty set out in schedule I to this resolution, and Canada may in return therefor grant to goods the produce or manufacture of Australia when imported direct into Canada the benefits of the rates of customs duty set out in schedule II to this resolution;
2. That after the said agreement is brought into force and so long as it remains in force, goods set out in schedule II to this resolution, the produce or manufacture of the Commonwealth of Australia, which are imported direct into Canada shall be admitted to Canada at the rates of duties set out in the said schedule;
3.	That the tariff concessions authorized by this resolution to be extended to goods the produce or manufacture of Australia shall be so extended on and after a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, which proclamation shall be published in the Canada Gazette;
4.	That subject to the provisions of The Customs Tariff, 1907, the Governor in Council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country;
5.	That the Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent of this resolution and of the said agreement and may, upon giving six months' notice to the government of the Commonwealth of Australia of his intention so to do, order and direct that the tariff concessions extended to Australia by this resolution, shall cease and determine, whereupon they shall cease and determine accordingly;
6.	That the operation of all laws inconsistent with the giving to the provisions of the said agreement and of this resolution their full effect shall from time to time be suspended to the extent of such inconsistency.
Schedule I
(A) British preferential tariff concessions by Australia to Canada:
Australia will grant to the undermentioned goods, the produce or manufacture of Canada, when imported into Australia, the rates of duty for the time being applicable to goods to which the British preferential tariff in the customs tariff 1921-24 applies, viz:
Australian Treaty
[Stage Direction]
Australian
Tariff
Item
Articles
British
Preferential
Tariff
113
334
Fish, viz.:-
(B)	Fresh, smoked or dried (but not salted), or preserved by cold process.
(C)	Preserved in tins or other airtight vessels including the weight of
liquid contents	Per pound
(D)	Potted or concentrated, including extracts of and caviare..ad. val.
(E)	N.E.I	Percwt.(F)	Oysters, fresh, in the shell	Per cwt.
Gloves, (except of rubber), viz.:-
(B) Gloves of textile	ad. val.
Machinery, viz..-
(A)	Linotype, monotype, monoline, and other type composing machines,
printing machines and presses; typewriters (including covers); machinery used exclusively for and in the actual process of electrotyping and stereotyping; aluminium rotary graining machines; adding and computing machines and all attachments... .ad. val.
(B)	Cash registers	ad. val
Paper, viz.:-
(C)	(1) News printing, not glazed, mill-glazed or coated, in rolls not less
than 10 inches in width or in sheets not less than 20 inches by 25 inches or its equivalent	Per ton
(2)	Printing, n.e.i., (glazed, unglazed, mill-glazed or coated) not
ruled or printed in any way in rolls not less than 10 inches in width or in sheets not less than 20 inches by 25 inches or its equivalent	Per	ton(3)	Printing, n.e.i	ad.	val.(F) Writing and typewriting paper	(plain),	not including duplicating.(1) In sheets not less than	16	x 13 inches	ad.	val.Deferred duty	ad.	val.
Id.
Id.
25 per cent 5s.
2s.
10 per cent
Free
Free
Free
Free
15 per cent.
5 per cent. 20 per cent.
(B) Intermediate Tariff Concessions by Australia to Canada:
Australia will grant to the undermentioned goods, the produce or manufacture of Canada, when imported into Australia, the rates of duty for the time being applicable to goods to which the intermediate tariff in the Customs Tariff 1921-24 applies, viz:-
152
359
Apparel, articles of, viz.:-
(C)	Corsets	ad.	val.
(A) Iron and steel tubes or pipes (except riveted, cast, close jointed or cycle
tubes or pipes) not more than 3 inches internal diameter; iron
and steel boiler tubes	ad.	val.Deferred duty	ad.	val.Goloshes, rubbers and boots and shoes and plimsolls	per pair.Or	ad.	val.
Vehicle parts, viz:-
(D)	Parts of vehicles with self-contained power, propelled by petrol, steam, electricity, oil, or alcohol, n.e.i., whether incorporated in the complete vehicle or separate, viz., (IJ^Chassis, but not including rubber tires:-
(a)	Unassembled	ad.	val.(b)	Assembled	ad.	val.
(F) Vehicle parts, n.e.i., including undergear (inclusive of axles, springs
and arms), axles, n.e.i., springs, hoods, wheels, n.e.i. and bodies,	ad. val.
40 per cent.
5 per cent. 35 per cent. Is. 9d.
30 per cent.
per cent. 10 per cent.
50 per cent.
'Mr, Robb.l

Australian Treaty
.	Schedule II
Subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1907, there may be granted to the undermentioned goods the produce or manufacture of Australia when imported direct into Canada, the rates of customs duty hereinafter set out, viz:-
Tariff
Item
8
14
16
18 86
97
99c
108
Articles
Meats, fresh, n.o.p., per pound	[DOT]	 * * ,y :[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]:
Canned meats, canned poultry and game; extracts of meats and fluid beef not
medicated, and soups of all kinds	 * [DOT]
Lard, lard compound and similar substances; cottolene and animal steanne
of all kinds, n.o.p	
Tallow	
Beeswax	 [DOT] [DOT]	
Eggs	
Cheese	
Butter, per pound	
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn and baked beans, m cans or other air-tight packages, n.o.p., the weight of the cans or other packages
to be included in the weight for duty	 [DOT] [DOT]
Apples, dried, desiccated or evaporated, and other dried, desiccated or
evaporated fruits, n.o.p	*[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	
Pears, quinces, apricots and nectarines, n.o.p., per one hundred pounds..
Raisins and dried currants	[DOT]	[DOT]*[DOT][DOT][DOT]	'
Fruits in air-tight cans, or other air-tight packages, n.o.p., the weight ot the cans or other packages to be included in the weight for duty, per pound..
Honey in the comb or otherwise, and imitations thereof, per pound	
[Stage Direction]
Sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour when imported by a recognized sugar refiner, for refining purposes only, under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Excise; and sugar, n.o.p., not above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, sugar drainings or pumpings drained in transit, melado or concentrated melado, tank bottoms, sugar concrete, and molasses testing over fifty-six degrees and not exceeding seventy-six degrees, when not exceeding seventy-six degrees o*f polarization, per one
hundred pounds	* [DOT]	
when exceeding seventy-six degrees but not exceeding seventy-seven
degrees, per one hundred pounds	: [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
when exceeding seventy-seven degrees but not exceeding seventy-eight
degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding seventy-eight degrees but not exceeding seventy-nine
degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding seventy-nine degrees but not exceeding eighty degrees,
per one hundred pounds	[DOT]	
when exceeding eighty degrees but not exceeding eighty-one degrees,
per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding eighty-one degrees but not exceeding eighty-two degrees,
per one hundred pounds	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]; [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
when exceeding eighty-two degrees but not exceeding eighty-three degrees, per one hundred pounds	* y [DOT]
when exceeding eighty-three degrees but not exceeding eighty-four degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding eighty-four degrees but not exceeding eighty-five degrees,
per one hundred pounds	[DOT] [DOT]	
when exceeding eighty-five degrees but not exceeding eighty-six degrees,
per one hundred pounds	* [DOT] [DOT]	[DOT]	
when exceeding eighty-six degrees but not exceeding eighty-seven degrees,
per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding eighty-seven degrees but not exceeding eighty-eight
degrees, per one hundred pounds	;.
when exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not exceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	:	[DOT]	
when exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceeding ninety degrees,
per one hundred pounds	,	[DOT]	
when exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding ninety-one degrees,
per one hundred pounds	[DOT]	
when exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding ninety-two degrees,
per one hundred pounds	 * [DOT]	....[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	
when exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceeding ninety-three degrees,
per one hundred pounds	;	[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]
when exceeding ninety-three degrees but not exceeding ninety-four degrees, per one hundred pounds	; [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT]:.... [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] -.
when exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceeding ninety-five degrees,
per one hundred pounds	 [DOT][DOT]	
when exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding ninety-six degrees,
per one hundred pounds	;

	[DOT]	
when exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceeding ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds	I
Tariff
Rate
5 cent 15 per cent Free
10 per cent Free Free Free 1 cent
Free
10 per cent 25 cents Free
\ cent 1 cent
35-00 cents
35-	50 cents
36-	00 cents
36-	50 cents
37	-00 cents
37-	50 cents
38-	00 cents
38	[DOT] 50 cents
39-	00 cents 39-50 cents 40 00 cents
40	* 50 cents
41-	00 cents
41	[DOT] 50 cents
42	-00 cents
42-	50 cents
43-	00 cents
43-	50 cents
44	[DOT] 00 cents
44-	50 cents
45-	00 cents
45	[DOT] 50 cents
Australian Treaty
[Stage Direction]
Schedule II-Concluded
Tariff Item	Articles	Tariff Rate
	when exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceeding ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds		46-00 cents 46-50 cents 12| per cent Free Free Free
	over ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds...	
232	Glue, liquid, powdered or sheet and mucilage, gelatine, casein, adhesive paste and isinglass		
264 781	Essential oils, n.o.p., including bay oil, otto of limes and peppermint oil	 Fruit pulp, not sweetened, when imported by manufacturers of jams or preserves for use only in their own factories in the manufacture of jams or preserves		
782	Eucalyptus oil		
		
Provided that the proportionate difference between the rates set out opposite the items above enumerated in this schedule and the general tariff rates under the said items respectively shall at no time be less than it is at the time when the said above-mentioned rates come into force.
Provided further that any of the goods above enumerated in this schedule the produce or manufacture of Australia imported direct into Canada shall be entitled to the benefit of any reduction in duties or preference granted in respect of like goods imported from any British country.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On paragraph 1-Authorizing minister to enter into trade agreement with Australia.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall paragraph 1 carry?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Surely, Mr. Chairman, we are to have some explanation from the minister with respect to this treaty before we pass the resolution?


James Alexander Robb: 
Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. member
not know about the general election before he left?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I am glad my right hon. friend reminded me of that. I will be very frank with the committee. When the Prime Minister sent for me to go to his office and discuss with him the matter of going to Australia, I said, "Have you read the morning papers?" The Prime Minister said, "No." "Well," I said, "there is an item in the morning papers which states that there may be a general election in Australia." Well, the reply was that we had had an invitation from Mr Hughes and that Canada could not very well afford not to accept it. So I started out. The morning I reached Vancouver I had a message from the Prime Minister instructing me to hold myself in readiness to return to Ottawa; that the Australian parliament had dissolved the day before and that a general election was on; and the Prime Minister intimated that he had cabled to Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes replied to the Prime Minister that the elections would not in any way interfere with the negotiations, and again renewed his invitation that we should send a minister to Australia. In the face of these conditions, with that statement from the Prime Minister, my right, hon. friend himself, had he been prime minister, would have instructed his minister to proceed. After negotiating from away back in 1889 and receiving the first invitation from Australia to go there for the purpose of negotiating a trade agreement, we could not very well decline that invitation.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose the Australian
Prime Minister, like the present government, thought he would be returned to power.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I imagine that he did
expect to be returned to power.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


James Alexander Robb: At one o'clock I had referred
to the defeat of the government of which Mr. Hughes was the Prime' Minister. Mr Hughes himself was not defeated in that election as a member of the Commonwealth government, but after the election he found himself unable to carry on. There were in that campaign three parties: the party of Mr. Australian Treaty

Hughes, known as the Nationalist party; the oarty led by Dr. Page-who is now Treasurer of the Commonwealth government-known as the Country party; and the Labour party. An arrangement was made whereby Mr. Bruce, who had been the Treasurer of the Commonwealth government, was able to form a government by taking in the Country party and a certain number of representatives of the Nationalist party. But although the government of which Mr. Hughes had been the Prime Minister was defeated, the idea of preferential trade with Canada was not defeated.
Until 1922 Australia had no preferential agreement with any of the British dominions, but early in that year an arrangement was made with South Africa for a very limited preferential trade agreement, and in the same year a limited trade agreement was also effected with the sister dominion of New Zealand. There have always been difficulties in arranging a trade agreement with Australia. That was where Hon. Mackenzie Bowell in 1889 failed; that was where Sir George Foster found difficulties in 1913; that was where the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier found some difficulties. It was largely because of our own tariff. As hon. gentlemen know, the great exports of Australia are wool and hides. Australia is essentially a wool country. The wool clip in- Australia is to Australia what the wheat crop is to Canada. Wool is free in our tariff. Hides are also a large export commodity with the sister dominion of Australia; they also are free in the Canadian tariff. When we opened negotiations, the representatives of the government of Australia, through their tariff board, were most insistent that we should change our tariff policy and place a small duty on wool so as to give them a preference. I pointed out to them, and I believe every hon. gentleman in this House will agree with me, that in a, cold country like Canada, to place a duty upon wool was not economically sound.


John Evans: What about woollen goods?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that in a
moment. I pointed out also that to place a duty on hides would add to the cost of boots and shoes, harness, and in fact of every article that requires leather in its production.


Donald Sutherland: If it is so important that wool and hides should be on the free list, why should there be a duty of 35 per cent on blankets, and a similar duty on harness?


James Alexander Robb: There is much to be said for
that view, and we may meet some day on that question. I pointed out to them, and I

believe every hon. gentleman in this House all agree with me, that we offered a considerable preference on manufactured woollens, and I said bo our friends in Australia:	"You produce the finest wool in the world, you have an abundance of that commodity. You have also an abundance of leather. Why don't you cultivate the Canadian market for your manufactured products of woollen and knitted goods and tweeds?" And they do manufacture in Australia very excellent knitted goods, but their development of tweeds has not been such as they themselves would desire.
I also found down there that they were manufacturing a splendid line of leather belting, and I pointed out to them that there was a market in Canada for leather belting, that there was a preference, and urged that they should consider that feature of it. As I said before, that argument did not appeal very much to them. They said to me: "Mr. Robb, you say our men and your men, our soldiers and your soldiers, fought side by side on the fields of Flanders. They shared with each other all the hardships of the war. You are trying to re-establish your soldiers in Canada, and we are trying to re-establish our soldiers in Australia. You have provided certain legislation for placing soldiers on the land in Canada; we also are providing to place soldiers on the land in Australia. In the Madura district of Australia we are developing an industry that appeals to soldiers. We are growing raisins there, and they are very excellent raisins. Why can't you give more of a preference on raisins?" Hon. members will recall that at that time Australia had been urging the Mother Country to give them a wider preference on raisins, and incidentally may I say that the duty on raisins in the Mother Country has always been considerably higher than the duty in Canada. The Mother Country replied that they thought the duty on naisins was a fair method of collecting revenue, that they had imposed the duty on raisins for revenue purposes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend say the amount of duty?


James Alexander Robb: I do not recall what the duty was just at that time, but I think it was slightly over two cents a pound, 2\ cents a pound, I think, but I will come to that in a moment. I suggested to our friends in Australia: Suppose we change our duties and put on the same rate of duty as there, is in the Mother Country. But that did not appeal to them; they claimed that they could not compete on that basis in Canada with the California raisin grower, who is much closer,

Australian Treaty
and they urged that we should give them a preference of three cents a pound on raisins. Well, I looked up the duty charged by the different countries of the world on raisins, and I found that three cents a pound did not appear to be at all out of reason. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) asked me a moment ago what was the duty in the Mother Country on raisins, and I think I might as well put that on record now.
The present duty on raisins in the United Kingdom-I think the duty wias changed under the McKenna tariff-is seven shillings per 112 pounds, and the preferential rate 5s. lOd. These duties work out respectively at $1.52 per 100 pounds for the full duty, and $1.27 preferential. The United States have a duty of two cents a pound on raisins. Argentine has a duty of eight and a quarter cents on raisins, but when placed in large receptacles that duty is five and two-thirds cents a pound. That is the minimum duty in the Argentine. In Newfoundland the duty is just about $3.30 a hundred pounds. Norway has two rates on raisins, maximum $7.31 per hundred pounds, and the minimum $1.83 per hundred pounds. Chile has a duty of ten cents a pound on raisins, Belgiun $6.54 per hundred pounds, on the basis of the franc a little over four cents. Under the proposed duty in Canada they will be free under the British preferential, and three cents a pound under the general tariff.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Could the minister give the committee the retail price for raisins asked in each of the countries?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have not that information.


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be interesting.


James Alexander Robb: I think the present duty on
raisins is about two-thirds of a cent a pound. If hon. gentlemen will refer to Hansard of 1923 they will find that Right Hon. Mr. Fielding made a statement regarding this matter. Some person had asked a question with regard to the production of raisins in Australia, and Mr. Fielding is reported as follows:
The Australian crop of raisins is considerable and is increasing yearly.
And that is proven by the statistics. It has almost doubled in the last two years.
And especially in the Madura district and in other parts where returned soldiers have been engaged. They have been producing a splendid quality of raisins in large quantities. There is such a bulk of raisins there now (1923) that some difficulty is being found in marketing them, and as hon. gentlemen may have noticed, they have been urging the British government to give
them a preference in this direction. While it is true that in the tariff we are proposing to increase somewhat the duty on raisins, hon. gentlemen have lost sight of the fact that we are making them free in the British preferential list; that is to say, if raisins came from Australia or any other British possession they will enter Canada free.
That is the position to-day. We are removing the duty altogether on raisins from British countries. Australia produced a considerable quantity of raisins. South Africa produced large quantities of raisins. And incidentally I may say that under the new tariff recently introduced in South Africa they are withdrawing some of the preference that we have enjoyed in that market, principally on some agricultural products that we have been sending down there. We have been urging South Africa to give us a wider measure of tariff concessions and we are not without hope that we will succeed when it is brought to the attention of South Africa and that they will come in under this arrangement.


Mr. WOODS:: Could the minister tell
us the quantity of raisins imported from South Africa into Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I will give that information
in committee, if my hon. friend will ask that question later. I want this statement to go on record. We are making some other concessions in this measure as it is presented to parliament to-day that will remove and lighten the cost of living and reduce the cost from the breakfast table without in any way injuring the Canadian trade. We have looked into this very carefully. As the measure was presented to the Australian commonwealth parliament, it was suggested that there would be some changes, some increases, in the Canadian tariff. As Australia was not willing to accept the measure and allow us to issue a proclamation last year, we have thought it better to bring it before parliament as it is, and I think I will be able to convince hon. gentlemen that the breakfast table reductions we have made in the cost of living will not in any way interfere with the industry in Canada. But I am bound to admit that it will to a degree take away some revenue from the department.


William Charles Good: What industry has the minister in mind when he speaks of the industry
in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that in a
moment. There are no general increases in the tariff excepting those that I have mentioned.
Australian Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is just
one change, that on raisins.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Well there is another
slight change. We have offered Australia the full benefit of our preferential rate on raw sugars, and we have also promised to Australia that any concessions we may make to other countries on raw sugar will also be extended to the people of*Australia. It may take a little time, but I think it is well to put some figures on record, so that the matter will be all cleaned up:
On meats, fresh, not otherwise provided, the agreement rate is h cent a pound. Present rates: 2 cents preferential, 2J cents intermediate and 3 cents genera!.
And in any case wherever the general tariff has been disturbed we have the same protection against all other countries that we had before.
The estimated decreased revenue on the basis of imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925, $2,950.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell me how he arrives at that?


James Alexander Robb: On the reduction of duty as
we are making it, on the basis of the same import.


Henry Lumley Drayton: From Australia?


James Alexander Robb: From any British country.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Does the minister anticipate an increase of imports at the lower rate of duty?


James Alexander Robb: I will give hon. members the
flow of trade during a period of years and they will judge for themselves.


Mr. COOTE:: What tariff is Australia
enjoying now? What tariff will we charge Australia? Is it the intermediate preference or the general preference?


James Alexander Robb: Australia comes under the
general tariff now.	'
The imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925 on these products:
Lbs.	Values
From Australia	 117.969	13.527
From other countries.. .. 9,245,124	1,370,070
Total	 9,363,093	$1,383,597
Hon. gentlemen will observe this:
9,245,124 pounds during the same period when our total imports from all countries were a little over 9,000,000 our exports were over 37,000,000 pounds.
Now is a country which is exporting four times the amount of their total imports going to be hurt by extending -this preference to Australia?

Oh canned meats, canned poultry and game, extracts of meats and fluid beef not medicated, and soups of all kinds. The agreement rate is fifteen per cent, and the present preferential rate 17J and the general rate 27i, estimated decrease in revenue on the basis of imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925, $134.
Imports for consumption during the year ended 31st
March, 1925:
From Australia	$	5,364
From other British countries.. ..	134,925
From other countries	 1,345,587
Total,


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: And the
exports?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the exports of
that. I imagine the exports in that line would not be very great.
Lard, lard compound and similar substances; cottolene and animal stearine of all kinds, n.o.p.
Agreement rate per pound, free.
Present rates: Preferential, 1^ cent. Intermediate, 1| cent; General, 2 cents.
Estimated reduction in revenue on the basis of imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925-Nil.
Imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925:
Lbs.	Value
From Australia	
From British countries ....	58	$	8From other countries	
6,138,500	767,778Total	
6,138,558	$767,786
Exports for the period to all countries:
Lard	
10,597,400	$1,681,462Lard compound and substitutes	
1,849,200	238,787


Robert Forke: 
James Dew Chaplin: The minister says that
there is practically no loss of revenue. Suppose this treaty should turn the egg business that is now coming from the United States, to Australia, would there !be no reduction in revenue?
Mr. R.OBB:	There would certainly be a
reduction in the cost of living to the Canadian householder. The government would probably get less revenue but we would not be any worse off.
Cheese.
Agreement rate, Free.
Present rates per pound: Preferential, 2 cents; Intermediate, 3 cents; General. 3 cents.
French Treaty rates, 2.70 cents.
Estimated reduction in revenue on the basis of imports during the year ended 31st March, 1925, Nil.
Imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925:
	Lbs.	Value
From British countries.. .	,. 3,092,192	$661,754From other countries	. 1,452,293	463,364Total	,. 4.544,485	$1,125,118Exports for the same period to all countries	..126,963,200	24,112,475Butter per pound. Agreement rate, 1 cent. Present rates per pound: Preferential, 3	cent; Intermediate, 4 cents; General, 4	cents.	
Estimated reduction in revenue on the basis of imports during the year ended 31st March, 1925, Nil.
Imports for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925:
	Lbs.	Value
From New Zealand	162.848	$ 59.579From other British countries	11,245	3,998From other countries.. ..	24,248	10,712Total	
Exports during the same	198,341	$74,289period to all countries. ..	24,501,981	$8,715,962
And New Zealand is four days nearer than Australia.
If you will allow me to make a personal reference, may I pause to say that next to that of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), I think I represent the largest [DOT]dairy constituency in Canada. The census
shows more milch cows in that constituency than in most of the other constituencies. I am a little bit selfish like most men. I am here to look after the interests of my constituents, and if I thought this treaty was going to hurt the dairymen of Chateauguay-Hunt.ingdon, I would hesitate to present it to parliament. A country that exports 24,300,000 pounds of butter more than it imports and that exports 122,000,000 pounds of cheese more than it imports is not afraid to compete with any other country in the world.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would the same argument not apply to all manufactured goods?


James Alexander Robb: We are not discussing that
just now.


Robert Forke: I was rather astonished to
hear the minister say that he would hesitate if it was going to interfere with his constituents.


James Alexander Robb: Just like my hon. friend the
hon. member for Brandon, I am looking after my constituents.


Robert Forke: What about the rest of us?


James Alexander Robb: 
Arthur Meighen: I do not see that
eucalyptus oil is increased.


James Alexander Robb: There is a decrease of five per cent in the preferential. The change in the revenue in the decrease of importations from Australia will be $6,186 and from British South Africa $255 or a total of $6,441.


Mr. DICKIE:: In what way will the breakfast table, as the minister puts it, be favourably affected by the change in the tariff?


James Alexander Robb: To this extent, that if we purchase these products from Australia instead of from the other countries the government will not collect the revenue which it has heretofore got from that source.

Australian Treaty


Charles Herbert Dickie: Is it the intention to allow
eggs and butter to come in cheaper than at present?


James Alexander Robb: We have exported almost as
many eggs as we have imported.


Charles Herbert Dickie: But how is the breakfast
table to be affected?


Arthur Meighen: Largely by eucalyptus
oil.


James Alexander Robb: Because we shall not be
collecting the same revenue as we did before. Why is it of advantage for Canada to make a trade agreement with Australia? Well, the seasons in the two countries are exactly opposite. It is now summer in Canada,-the growing period; it is winter in Australia. Today our commission merchants have their agents throughout the country buying eggs, butter and cheese to place in cold storage, on which they will have to pay storage charges, interest and insurance. Those carrying charges will be paid by the Canadian breakfast table next winter. But we will be saved this burden if we can effect an economic arrangement with Australia whereby there will be a continual flow of these products from our sister commonwealth, while we are shipping our products to the United Kingdom, where there is an unlimited demand for them, and to other markets of the world, and so our producers will be that much better off.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do our eggs
enter Australia free?


James Alexander Robb: Our eggs do not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know they
do not.


James Alexander Robb: Our eggs go to the best
market in the world, the United Kingdom,- one week away from Canada, while it is seven weeks away from Australia. Why should hon. gentlemen hesitate to ratify this agreement with Australia? About one-half of the total population of Australia resides in six cities. During recent years this government has effected traRe agreements with France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and seventy-five per cent of the advantages under those agreements will enure to the agricultural sections of Canada. We have recently concluded a trade agreement with Finland, under which our agriculturists will benefit to the extent of ninety per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Ninety per cent of nothing.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all. I put that before my right hon. friend very clearly the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend spoke about seventy-five per cent of the benefits under these treaties going to our agriculturists. Take the French treaty, my recollection is that there is no advantage in respect of wheat, which is the principal thing.


James Alexander Robb: I am quoting from information given me by the officers of the department who have made an analysis of our trade with France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid they have not studied the trade at all.


James Alexander Robb: They have. During this session we have heard a good deal about keeping our water-powers for the development of the Dominion, but unless put to use the water is flowing to waste. We have also been told that we should manufacture our pulpwood into paper. Well, what are we going to do with the paper unless we get a market for it? I submit that this arrangement will provide an additional use for our water-powers, and an additional market for our manufactures of paper. It is perfectly true that under this agreement the benefits will go very largely to the manufacturers of paper; but, in turn, those benefits will help the man who cuts the pulpwood on his farm for manufacture into paper. So we submit this treaty for ratification, believing it is a good measure for Canada and that it will open up new markets for these products. As the years go by we expect the door will be opened wider. In fact we are now negotiating with the Australian government to secure more favourable consideration for other of our products. We have had complaints presented to us, particularly by our friends in British Columbia, that Australia has placed an embargo on the apples of that province, on the ground that it is to keep out fire blight from their orchards. But they are not the only sinners. The British Columbia authorities keep out Australian apples because they say there is codling moth in the Australian orchards.


Mr. STIRLING:: Has that embargo just
been put on?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have a statement here
from the Agriculture department of British Columbia admitting that they have placed an embargo on Australian apples, but justifying it on the ground that there is codling moth in the Australian orchards, and that if the apples pass inspection on this side they are allowed entry. But as a matter of fact the Australian apple growers say that they cannot afford to ship apples on a twenty-one-day voyage and run the risk of having them
Australian Treaty

rejected. I think there is some unreasonableness on both sides, and I hope we will be able to arrange between the agricultural departments of British Columbia and the Commonwealth of Australia for the removal of these restrictions, or at least to have the inspection conducted in such a way that there will be no ground for complaint on the part of the Australian apple growers.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have detained the committee long enough in my presentation of this treaty, which I have tried to place before hon. gentlemen fairly and truly. As I said in opening, we have long sought to negotiate a trade agreement with Australia, and while this is not as favourable to Canada as we would wish, still it is a commencement in the right direction. Hon. gentlemen will have observed that I have refrained from boasting about the advantages of this agreement to Canada. I have done so deliberately. The parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is now in session and the Prime Minister of Australia has intimated to the Prime Minister of Canada that just so soon as this treaty passes our parliament, a similar measure will be introduced in the Commonwealth parliament. Now, we must keep in mind that there is a certain amount of opposition in Australia to this trade arrangement, and I hope that hon. members [DOT] will discuss it with moderation and discretion.


Arthur Meighen: I can assure the minister that I would find it very difficult to make very much of our advantages, so the Australian government will be perfectly safe as far as my speech is concerned. But for the moment I only want to ask a question. Is it not a fact that Australia ratified the treaty?-that she did her part as far back as last October? So what is the use of worrying about Australia?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my right hon. friend was not in his place a few moments ago when I said that this treaty was somewhat different from that which was introduced in the Australian parliament last session.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the difference?


James Alexander Robb: We are giving Australia an additional item on raw sugar, but instead of putting up our tariff in some places we have made reductions that, after a very careful review of our trade, I am satisfied do not prejudice this country. Canada exports so many of these products that even if we wiped out all our tariff duties we could still compete with the world.
iMr. Robb.]


James Dew Chaplin: Why were onions cut out of the list? Will their omission help the breakfast table of Canada?


James Alexander Robb: If onions are not on the list it is an omission and will have to be rectified.


Neil Haman McTaggart: What advantages will our agriculture industry derive from this treaty?


James Alexander Robb: It depends on what part of agriculture my hon. friend is referring to. The man who grows pulpwood, for instance, will certainly have an immense advantage. I said a few moments ago that under the previous treaties seventy-five per cent of the advantage, in some cases, and ninety per cent in one case, was to the agriculturist. We do not claim that this is going to be of any materia! advantage to agriculture, but we do claim that it will not injure agriculture.


Robert John Woods: Perhaps the minister will
answer my question with regard to the imports of raisins to Australia. I would also like to know the total imports of raisins into Canada.


James Alexander Robb: The total imports of raisins
in 1914-and hon. gentlemen will observe that the increase in the import corresponds with the period when the different provinces adopted prohibition-were 21,664,379 pounds; in 1919, 34,337,814 pounds; in 1924, 38,792,033 pounds.


William Anderson Black: Will the minister
give the imports under item No. 86, tomatoes and other vegetables, and so on?


James Alexander Robb: There was imported for consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1925, from British countries, 18,911 pounds; from all other countries-and in respect to these the duty is not changed-13,589,631 pounds. During that same period we exported 14,217,665 pounds.


Mr. FANSHER:: How much was imported from Australia alone under that item?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that figure before
me, but I have given the total imports from all British countries, including Australia-18,911 pounds. I imagine there were none from Australia.


William Charles Good: What were the imports of
raisins and currants from Australia?


Mr. SPENCE:: The minister stated a few
moments ago that if a treaty was consummated between Canada and Australia it would not be necessary for dealers or speculators in these products to buy them at this time of the year and put them in cold storage; that they could be exported to a market which was with-

Australian Treaty
in a week's journey from this country. But how does he know that that market is always good? Does he not know that there is a surplus this time of year in all countries? Then he says, "Go ahead and import these products again from Australia in the winter months." Does he want to kill all the storage enterprises in this country? That is the lamest excuse I ever heard in my life. This stuff has to be bought by the speculators or dealers; if it were not for them the producers of this country would get very little for their products. Yet the minister makes the statement in this House that it would be in the interests of the producers if the dealers did not buy this stuff.


Mr. MACLEAN (Prince):: The minister was about to give the total trade between the two countries.


David Spence: Will the minister answer
that? How is he going to make it better for producers to eliminate the specu-
4 p.m. lator or dealer and not allow him to buy this stuff? A man should be trained in business before he makes a statement of that kind in this House.


James Alexander Robb: I do not claim to have the
same wide business experience that my hon. friend has.


David Spence: You have not the experience in that.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps not, but if there is no market, they will not ship. The greatest purchaser of butter and cheese in the world is the United Kingdom. We find that during the year 1924 Canada supplied to that market over 1,500,000 pounds of cheese. During that same period Australia supplied 630,000 pounds.


David Spence: At what time of year was
that?


James Alexander Robb: That was for the twelve
months ended December 31, 1924.


David Spence: Not in the middle of the
summer. These were stored and then shipped afterwards.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has been crossexamining me; let me ask him a question. What is to hinder the commission man, or the man like my hon. friend, who has a cold storage warehouse, from going out now and buying butter and cheese if he wants to, and storing it?


David Spence: But you say that is a bad proposition for the producer. I cannot see it myself.


George Perry Graham: Does it not amount to
this?-The speculator buys from the farmer at cheap prices the products we are now discussing, and holds them until the price gets higher. There is where he makes his profit. It is the man who speculates, not the farmer, who benefits by the rise in price.


David Spence: Many a time he makes a
loss, too.


James Alexander Robb: For the year ended 31st
March, 1925, the import of raisins from Australia was 158,458 pounds. I will acknowledge at once that practically all our raisins have heretofore come from the United States.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does the minister anticipate that this will reduce the price of butter to the Canadian consumer? If so, at what season of the year?


James Alexander Robb: No, I did not say that, but
I do say that if the Canadian consumer uses imported butter and buys it from Australia he will not have to pay a toll to the government, through the custom house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Don't we use butter on the breakfast table?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister said a few moments ago that this treaty would reduce the cost of the breakfast table in this country, and he evidently had in mind that butter was going to be reduced in price. What other commodity is going to be cheaper?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend cannot jockey me into that position. I made it very clear that so far as the government were concerned we were not going to collect toll on the breakfast table through these items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Therefore butter would be cheaper.


Mr. LADNER:: Would the minister explain why it is that in this new revision of the treaty lumber products and shingles have beim omitted entirely? Is there any possibility of them being included in the agreement?


James Alexander Robb: They have not been changed.


Arthur Meighen: If the consumer at the breakfast table has to pay just as much as before, would it not be better for the government to get some revenue?


Donald Sutherland: The minister has stated that he has attempted not to boast about the advantages which Canada is to secure under this treaty with Australia. I have paid close attention to. the scheme now before the House as outlined by the minister and I am sorry I cannot congratulate

Australian Treaty

him upon his modesty because I cannot see where we are to reap any advantage, but the very opposite. We have been in session here for nearly five months. The budget was brought down on March 24, and the budget debate closed on April 30, and contained no reference to these tariff changes and we now have interjected at this late stage of the session what is really a new budget, involving the most important changes which have been made in our tariff regulations for many years. I wonder if the minister or the government think it is fair to parliament to thrust this matter upon it on the twenty-second day of June, after this House has been in session since the fifth day of February. The government have refrained from giving us the information which they had at that time and which should have been contained in the Address at the opening of parliament. They evidently knew . at that time what they intended to do; there is no question as to that at all. And yet they aillowed parliament to( sit in session here month after month, and after a great many hon. members had found it necessary to depart for home, anticipating the close of the session, this new treaty with Australia is laid before the House-and the government ask for power by order in council to negotiate similar treaties with the other dominions, because 1 see that paragraph (4) of the resolution states:
That subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff, 1907, the Governor in Council may, by order in council. extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country.
That is a great deal wider than a trade treaty with Australia. If the same privileges sure to be given to every British dominion as are contained in this trade treaty with Australia, we may as well look at it from that standpoint.
In view of the minister's one claim for some advantage coming to Canada out of this treaty, that it would affect the breakfast table of consumers in this country, we may rest assured that it is the intention of the government, if this resolution is adopted, to apply these very same principles to New Zealand and the other British dominions.
It seems a little late in the session to review the advantages or the disadvantages which may accrue to this country in connection with those treaties. We have had some * experience with regard to treaties which have been negotiated by this government since coming into office. The minister mentioned nearly half a dozen of them. When the treaty with France was made it was pointed out to the government that in so far as agriculture was concerned, it would not be benefited, but on the contrary would suffer as a result

of the treaty. The worst feature of it was that other countries which had made trade treaties with us were placed on the same footing as France, and the experience we have had shows conclusively that the trade treaty with France was a disadvantage rather than an advantage to agriculture in this country. We find that other countries have been increasing their tariffs, particularly during the last four or five years, and some of them raising their tariffs very high indeed. Canada, on the contrary, has been lowering her tariff, and at the same time we are entering into negotiations with those countries which have a reasonably high tariff, and consequently we are at a disadvantage in attempting to negotiate treaties with these countries. The first step the government should have done was to see that our tariff would compare favourably with the tariffs of other countries, and then we would be in a strong position to negotiate on even terms with those countries. That the government have seen fit to disregard that consideration, and have proceeded along the lines they have, is something that they are responsible for and something that must be diseased at this stage of the session in connection with this treaty.
I wish to consider briefly some items mentioned by the minister. He dwelt upon the item of raisins. He expects an increase in our revenue of $1,000,000 under this treaty mainly because of the increased duty on raisins. Does he consider that this is going to benefit the breakfast table. Is that his object in deriving revenue from this source? Fortunately we have some information as to what took place in the Australian parliament in connection with the treaty negotiated and agreed to in August, 1924, and I must candidly say that if we could only trade governments with Australia we would make a much better bargain than we are doing under this treaty. The Australian government apparently are looking after their own country, and its interests, but God only knows whom this government we have in Canada are looking after; it is certainly not the people of Canada and their interests.
Questions have been repeatedly asked of the government since early in the session with regard to the steps which were being taken with regard to this trade treaty with Australia. On March 16, on the Orders of the Day, the right hon. leader of the opposition referred to press notices of government announcements that a treaty had been made with Australia and ratified by the Australian parliament, and said:

Australian Treaty
May I ask if there is any reason why it has not been presented to this House for ratification, and if so what the reason is, and when we may expect it?
Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance): Further negotiations with Australia are in progress.
Mr. Meighen: Do I understand that no treaty has been effected?
Mr. Robb: After the government of Australia had passed their legislation they passed an order in council changing the percentage that should apply to goods that would come under their tariff. I think my hon. friend understands that under our tariff, if twenty-five per cent of the goods are manufactured within the British Empire they are admitted. That was changed by Australia to seventy-five per cent. So, we are negotiating with them to have this more clearly defined.
Mr. Meighen: Is there any reason why the Acting Minister of Finance should not lay on the table, and perhaps distribute, the treaty as already accepted? It may be subject to these negotiations, but the treaty ha? now a definite form. I see no reason why we should not have it.
Mr. Robb: I am not sure that there are any good objections. I will let my hon. friend know later.
Mr. Chairman, the matter ended there for a time, but no information was given until the 20th of June.	It was, however,
referred to prior to this in connection with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture who at that time predicted the time would come when there would be stores in the cities of this province and of the other provinces of Canada selling the dairy products of Australia and New Zealand. I inquired of him at that time if that was the object the government had in view in making the treaty with Australia which they had negotiated. He stated that he was a member of the government and had to concur in whatever the government saw fit to do, and would accept his share of the responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: What date was that?


Donald Sutherland: The 17th of February. On that occasion the minister referred to the trade treaty which had been made with New Zealand a number of years ago and stoutly maintained that we had such a treaty with New Zealand, whereas we have no treaty, it is simply the application of the British preference which we have with New Zealand. In answer to a question I put to him on that occasion he said:
The hon. member for South Oxford wants to know if I am encouraging the dairy industry when I am lowering the duty on Australian butter.
He also said:
Not at all. I am not Minister of Trade and Commerce. I acquiesce in the treaty as a member of the government of Canada and hold myself responsible for it. But there is a difference between consenting to a treaty and originating it. The campaign against "oleo" originated with my department; that was an entirely different matter. The negotiation of a trade treaty comes directly under the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Of course I am jointly responsible for anything that is done in con-
297i
nection with it. It is not done without my knowledge or I would not be able to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) that there is such a treaty with Australia.
The Minister of Agriculture was at that time aware of the agreement with Australia. It was understood by the government that there was a treaty with Australia, subject to ratification by parliament and the statement of the minister on that occasion confirms this. Later on it was referred to again, and the minister contended that the only way to head off this avalanche of dairy products from Australia and New Zealand wtould be to produce better butter and cheese. That was the only hope for the country. Evidently he had in mind the intention of the government to remove the entire duty we had against the imports of such commodities from other countries-in other words no tariff at all. We have heard a good deal about Canada's ability to compete with other countries. I have here the report of the Dairy Commissioner for Canada, who was for a time dairy commissioner of New Zealand and as such was responsible for putting the dairy industry in New Zealand on the sound basis on which it is to-day. He refers to the climatic conditions in the two countries. In New Zealand and Australia the dairy cattle graze the year round; there is no frost or extreme heat, and the cattle are not stabled at all, no stabling being required. Whereas in many parts of Canada the cattle are stabled for six, eight and ten months in the year. How is it possible for the farmers of Canada to compete in dairy products with a country where the cattle graze the year round and where transportation facilities are so favourable as they are from Australia and New Zealand to Canada, by water right to Montreal? This matter of outside competition was also referred to by the Acting Minister of Finance a short time ago-on May 12-when, dealing with the dumping clause in the tariff, he pointed out the effect of a country getting rid of a surplus of anything it may have by exporting it to some other country; how it had a tendency to stabilize the home market. The minister is evidently taking this means to see that at a time of the year when there is increased cost in producing commodities in this country the consumers are to be put in the position of securing such commodities from some other country where they can be produced more cheaply than in Canada by removing the entire tariff against those commodities. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) referred to a break in the butter market in New York a year ago when there was an over supply and 'how the shipment of
Australian Treaty

thirty or forty carloads to Canada at that time relieved the situation in the United States, by having the products disposed of in this country. He pointed out that the market immediately went up in the United States, when this was done but that it had a most disastrous effect on the market in this country was of no concern to him so long as it affected his breakfast table. The minister also pointed out the advantage of retaining the duty on some manufactured articles and not having any tariff at all on primary products such as wool, hides and so on. There was a motion in This House on March 16, to reduce the tariff on automobiles. The general tariff on automobiles is 35 per cent, and the motion was to have it reduced and put on an equality with other tariff items. This was opposed by the government. At that time I quoted from the Montreal Gazette market reports of that date, March 16, the statement that there were 219,452 boxes of New Zealand cheese and 16,878 cases of eggs from the United States sold on the Montreal! market. This is to be encouraged by the government. The minister endeavoured to estimate the decrease in the revenues of this country as a result of this treaty. How can you estimate the decrease in the revenues when you have no idea what the volume of imports will be? I suppose this decrease is based on the importations at the present tune, because the tariff on those goods will bo entirely removed and no revenue will be obtained from that source. Let us see what was said in the Australian parliament by the minister who had the matter in charge. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on June 19, again brought this matter up and asked for further information. The Prime Minister on that occasion said that, with regard to the treaty anyone could find out what it was by consulting the records of the Australian parliament. I have here the Hansard of the Australian parliament for 26th September, 1924. We will see what the Australian government had to say with regard to the matter. On a motion moved by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Bruce, that gentleman stated:
Arrangements having now been made for a reciprocal treaty with Canada, the earliest possible opportunity should be taken to make the facts public. Another reason why I suggest the postponement of the remaining orders of the day is that the ministry has entered into an arrangement with the government of Canada or an announcement of the proposed agreement to be made in this House as near as possible to 2.30 p.m. today as a similar announcement will be made in the Canadian parliament at the same time.


Arthur Meighen: What date is that?
[Mr. Sutherland.!


Donald Sutherland: 
Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the hon.
member. Is that under the present treaty?


Donald Sutherland: 
James Alexander Robb: This matter has been brought to the attention of the government of the Commonwealth. Apparently they made a

mistake in transmitting the details to us, and so that there shall be no misunderstanding with Australia we shall direct their attention to the point. I am glad that my hon. friend has referred to the matter.


Donald Sutherland: Is it the intention
of the government to increase the general tariff?


James Alexander Robb: No, it will remain where it
is.
, Mr. SUTHERLAND: Do I understand then that onions will be placed on the free list as in the first treaty?


James Alexander Robb: Onions in their natural state
are now free under the British preferential.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister include
lumber when he is making the changes?


Donald Sutherland: rapidly. But to-day they are faced with an entirely different condition. Taxes in this country have reached such a pitch that there is likely to be little or no increase in the values of land,. How are they going to manage? How long can they continue to grow grain for export and to mine the fertility of the soil? Mixed farming and live stock is the only alternative. This is a tariff proposition; you may call it a trade arrangement, but it is an onslaught on the small protective tariff which we have in this country on agricultural products to-day. The minister says this is a cold country and we must have free wool, yet he allows a tariff of thirty-five per cent on woollen blankets. There is the kind of treatment our farmers have been subjected to in the years that are gone; now their difficulties are to be increased.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend support
me if I bring in a resolution some time to reduce that tariff?


Donald Sutherland: I will do just as
I did when the resolution to reduce the tariff on automobiles was before the House, on the ground that we had a tariff that gave preferential treatment to certain people; I voted in favour of a reduction of the thirty-five per cent duty on automobiles, and I will do the same with regard to the thirty-five per cent duty on blankets, if the minister wall give a reasonable duty, with regard to the things farmers produce. Let us have some degree of equality in tariff in Canada. I have taken the ground repeatedly in this House and elsewhere that the farmers of this country are just as much entitled to and as much in need of protection as any other class. A small specific duty of one per cent a pound is being left on butter coming from Australia, and cheese is free. Why not remove the whole thing and be done with it and end the farce? I suppose it will be claimed by the government to be another "step in the right direction "*-or towards free trade. The government's policy seems to be that of concealing their designs whenever they can, but always aiming at this objective. The assassin under cover of darkness sneaks out with a stiletto awaiting his opportunity to give his victim the cowardly blow. This government have dealt such a blow to agriculture and have absolutely broken faith with the people; they are now endeavouring tc smuggle through a measure that will do this country incalculable harm. It is a measure which will empower the government to negotiate similar treaties with the other British dominions and to give a preference 
that will make it absolutely impossible for the farmers of western Canada to continue the policy which many of them have recently adopted, that of going into the dairy industry and stock raising. The prediction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the Australian government will be fulfilled to the letter-you cannot foresee, he said, the tremendous advantages which will accrue to Australia as a result of the agreement which has been entered into.
Eggs also are affected under this agreement. We find that during the last five years we imported into Canada 35,788,903 dozen eggs and we exported 23,483,955 dozen; in other words, we imported nearly 12,000,000 dozen more than we exported. Will anyone contend that this great agricultural country, with its vast resources, is not capable of producing a sufficient quantity of eggs to satisfy the demands of its eight or nine million people? The same applies to butter. It is true we exported 71,426,000 pounds, but at the same time we imported 15,544,140 pounds. These imports would seem to come within the category of what our Labour friends call strike breakers; they are frequently brought in to deprive the Canadian producer of a home market when the prices are profitable. Of pork products we imported 293,292.716 pounds and we exported 666,769,000 pounds. Of wool, an article to which the minister referred, during that period of five years we imported 71,212.947 pounds and we had to ship out and find a market abroad for 32,809,012 pounds. The minister also referred to cattle hides; we must not have a dutv on cattle skins, he says, because if that is done the price of harness and leather will go up. Hides come in duty free. We imported 138,818,837 pounds of hides and we exported 183,974,500 pounds; that is, there were nearly 50.000,000 pounds more for export than we imported. Will any one contend, then, that there is any need to allow surplus hides to come in from Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine duty free? If so, why should there be a tariff of thirty-five per cent on harness and leather? If we are going to have a protective tariff we must be consistent; we must see that all classes in this country have the same degree of protection or equal rights in order that they may carry on whatever their business. If you are going to place agriculture under such serious handicaps as these, you cannot wonder at the boys leaving the farms as they grow to man's estate, and engaging in some other occupation. What farmer with any common sense or self-respect would advise his boys to stay on the farm

Australian Treaty
under conditions such as we have in this country?-conditions which it is proposed to perpetuate and accentuate by a treaty such as this. There was a resolution moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition during this session which set forth the policy that this country needs at the present time, namely, a policy which will give protection to the agricultural interests as well as other industries. They are more in need of it to-day than any other class in Canada. Continual reference is made to the number of people who are leaving the country and going to the urban centres, but if we legislate along the lines proposed by the minister in this treaty, that condition will continue and increase ; the people will leave the farms for the towns and cities, or go to foreign countries. We must adopt sane, common sense business-like methods. Let us take note of what the great country to the south has done and what the results of their policies have accomplished. Their policy was not to leave it to the government to gratify their own particular whim, to take an axe and slash a limb off the tariff here and add something there to suit their political inclination or the source from which pressure might arise. We have a tariff that is absolutely a freak; there is no reason, no merit, no justice in it. It needs revision from top to bottom to put it on a stable basis and to give a reasonable degree of protection to everj7 class in the community. That is the feature that has been absolutely lost sight of by this government. The government of the United States have adopted such a policy. They have a tariff board with full power to inquire into and report on all these matters. The government have brought in here what is practically a new treaty. It has little or nothing in common with the treaty that was made by the government in September of 1924, the treaty which was ratified by the government of Australia, and an announcement with respect to which was to be made in Australia and in ithe Dominion of Canada at a given hour on the twenty-third day of September, 1924. It is now the twenty-second day of June, near the end of a session which has run nearly five months, the government knows that everybody is anxious to close and go home, and at this stage we are asked to give this new treaty consideration. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible at this stage to give it the consideration which it ought to receive, and I am absolutely opposed to it and the principle embodied in it.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member for
South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has dealt with
this matter from the point.of view of the mixed farmer. I also propose to address a few remarks to the committee from that point of view, for I can see in these proposals nothing more nor less than a deadly blow at the mixed farmer. Although they are not all articulate, I think almost every sane man in Canada believes a certain measure of protection is absolutely necessary.


William John Ward: Not all.


Grote Stirling: I said almost all.


James Dew Chaplin: And he said "sane."


Grote Stirling: A very large number
consider that the irreducible minimum has been reached. It is therefore necessary, it appears to me, in arranging a trade treaty with another country that the general tariff should be raised to such an extent that the preference may be taken care of. With the very limited amount of information about this secret treaty which was allowed to escape, we did understand that these general increases would be made. The Prime Minister drew my leader's attention to the fact that if he took the trouble to look at the Australian Hansard he would see the terms, which had been tabled in Australia, and had he done so he would have found the reference to the increases which Canada proposed to make in the treaty. Unfortunately for the farmer, when the treaty is brought before us, we find that those increases have not been made. This change of front will be extremely bad for the fruit farmer, the vegetable grower, the poultry man and the dairyman. We presume that the government's object in negotiating this treaty is to increase the export trade of Canada, but they have neglected an opportunity for doing so in that they have not succeeded in bringing about the removal of the Australian embargo against our apples, to which the minister referred a little while ago.
In 1922, before the minister made his trip to Australia, the facts and the views of the fruit growers were laid before him. In February, 1921, the Commonwealth government of Australia had imposed an embargo against our apples. I hold a copy of it in my hand, and the essential part of it reads as follows:
I do hereby prohibit the importation into Australia of apple trees, hawthorn trees or any part thereof, including the fruit, which were grown in any country in which pear blight or fire blight exists.
This was issued on the 16th of February, 1921, and signed by W. Massey Greene, the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
On the minister's arrival in Australia he allowed himself to be misled by misstatements of fact in Australia with regard to the Cana-
Australian Treaty


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not true that generally speaking the price of dairy products in Canada is fixed, not in Canada at all, but in an export market, namely in Great Britain?


Grote Stirling: I think not.


Mr. HUGHES:: Everybody else thinks that is correct.


Grote Stirling: I differ with my hon.
friend. There is a sting in the tail of the agreement in that a new item is put in of which we knew nothing, namely, fruit pulp. Fruit pulp can be preserved by the use of a preservative other than sugar and can be kept a considerable time. The jam manufacturer will be able to buy the Australian fruit pulp which comes in, and they will not be so ready to take the small fruit in pulp from our fruit growers. I wonder how the hon. member who supports the government, and who represents* Fraser Valley (Mr. Mjunro) will meet the fruit growers in his district on his return. It seems to me he will be in a somewhat embarrassing position. He will have to pass on some of the minister's remarks in regard to it being unlikely that the farmers will be hurt by this, and he will certainly be able to tell them that no revenue will be lost thereby, if he is as great an optimist as the minister. Then my hon. friend, the government's sturdy henchman from Cariboo (Mr. McBride)-


Mr. McBRIDE:: If the hon. member will
take care of himself he will find that the member for Cariboo is quite able to look after the interests of the people he represents.


Grote Stirling: -who so often enlightens a dull debate by physical facts from his varied experience, I think, will have some difficulty when he meets the fruit grower and butter producer of his riding and explains to him that in the minister's view his feeling at the breakfast table will be improved, even though the butter is no cheaper, and that the
Australian Treaty

revenue will not drop. I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay)-


Thomas George McBride: Does the hon. member for Yale know that when the government which he supported was in power they put oleomargarine on the free list thus striking at the very root of our dairy industry?


Grote Stirling: I am not aware of that
fact.


Thomas George McBride: Well, it is the fact.


Grote Stirling: But I wonder whether
the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) will use all his eloquence in speaking for his constituency and his province on this matter, for I can see in it only a very severe blow at mixed farming throughout British Columbia. One other point that I should like to draw attention to is that it is at the Conservative party that the: taunt has .been thrown in the past that they are the friends of the big interests. I do not think that taunt can decently be thrown at them any more, for if there is one thing clearer than another, the industry which will benefit by this trade agreement if it passes, is a big industry in Canada and that big industry will rea.p its benefit at the sacrifice of the farmer.


James Alexander Robb: I just want to have this on
record for the benefit of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). He quoted what appeared to be the minutes of some gathering or delegation that waited upon me in Australia, but he did not quote exactly what I replied. When I urged them to admit British Columbia fruit to their market, they met me with this: This is a copy of the Agricultural Act of British Columbia of 1915:
8.	No package containing any such fruit or vegetable products shall be opened by any person except in the presence of an inspector.
9.	In case any such fruit or vegetable products or packages are, in the opinion of the inspector, found to be infested with any pest, the inspector may direct:
(a)	That the same shall be forthwith re-shipped and exported from the province by the most direct route;
(b)	That such fruit or vegetable products or packages shall be destroyed by the importers or consignees thereof by such process and within such time as may be required by the inspector.
I recall one person there admitting frankly that their measure of regulation regarding fire blight was protection, but another member advanced this, that British Columbia had the same item and this also is protection.


Arthur Meighen: It is not.


James Alexander Robb: It works out in about that
way, and the men in Australia who are very far away do not like to take the risk any

more than the men in British Columbia, of shipping products and having them later on turned down.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister tell
them we would be glad to have our law in Australia?


James Alexander Robb: I did my best to. On the
same vessel that carried me to Australia, there were carried I do not know how many thousand boxes of apples. Sometimes we hear complaints that the British Columbia apple grower overcharges the Canadian consumer, but it was pointed out to me there that apples were sold at auction in New Zealand and they brought $2 per box more than they could get for them in the Canadian market. Therefore, I can quite understand why my friends would like to get into the Australian market. It is reasonable that they should and that Australian apples should come in here. The seasons are exactly opposite. When we are growing apples it is winter time in Australia, and when Australia is growing apples it is winter time in Canada.


Grote Stirling: Is it not a reasonable
contention of the people of British Columbia that if the Australian shipper ships apples which should be refused, they should be either destroyed or sent back?


James Alexander Robb: That rather contradicts part
of my hon. friend's argument of a moment ago. He stated that they might ship them on east. I am not entering into that side of the matter.


Mr. CLARK:: The minister, of course,
knows that the British Columbia act applies against every other province of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: I think it does.


John Evans: As regards this treaty there are a few features which I should like to discuss very briefly. Trade treaties are essentially a feature of countries that establish protection by tariff privileges, and they must, of necessity, be just as unfair to seine class within those countries as the tariff itself. They may be considered, along with the tariff, as class privilege. This treaty is a treaty really for the benefit of the Canadian manufacturers and one other class is sacrificed to obtain those benefits. The Canadian manufacturers are getting the benefit in the Australian market by a reduction in duty on certain commodities which affect agriculture.


James Alexander Robb: Would my hon. friend prefer shipping pulpwood to Australia rather than paper?

Australian Treaty


John Evans: I am not concerned with pulp-wood. I quite agree that the pulpwood manufacturer should find a market wherever he can, as we are doing. Moreover, we are tied up in the production of our products and we have to find a market for them against the competition of the whole world. This treaty directly affects agriculture in that way. The lowering of the Australian duty is a benefit to the Canadian manufacturer and along with the fact that it is unfair to the agriculturists there is also a loss of revenue on articles which immediately affect agriculture. As regards the item of currants and raisins, which was, perhaps, the most ridiculous feature of the treaty in its original form, it seems to have been substantially improved now by the duty being lowered to two-thirds of a cent.
An hon. MiEMfBER: It has been increased.


John Evans: I should like to know if this treaty goes into effect, if the duty will be raised to three cents again.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is quite clear and even at that they will not be so much higher than in the United Kingdom where my hon. friend lived for many years.


John Evans: It does not matter what the duty is on raisins, this agreement is a cla'5s privilege and it is going to benefit only one class, a class that really does not need any more privilege in this country. I refer to the distributors. The price of raisins is going to be set by the American importations. Any importations we shall receive from Australia will be of so much benefit to the distributing class, which benefit will not reach the consumer. It may be that the dealers, jobbers and, perhaps, the wholesalers in some cases will receive benefit, but the chief benefit will be to the importers. It will not even descend to the retailer, and as for cheapening the cost of living, it will not do So in any sense whatsoever.


Edward Joseph Garland: When the hon. member says: "It will not affect the cost of living in any sense whatsoever." I wonder if he has taken into consideration the fact that we must still continue to import the bulk of our raisins from the United States, and we will put a tariff to-day upon them that will add about a million dollars a year to the cost of living.


John Evans: In that case the price of raisins will be enhanced rather than lowered. The minister says that the cost of living will be lowered without injuring the trade. He
must have meant the distributing trade because no other will benefit by it.


James Joseph Hughes: How will the distributing
trade benefit?


John Evans: The hon. member was not
paying attention. It will be because the price of raisins will be set by the importation from America or other places where we get the bulk of our supplies now. The importation of raisins from Australia at the present time is rather a joke than a reality, for it cannot be considered for a moment that 158,000 pounds of raisins will set the price as against 38,000,000 pounds imported from other sources.
I say that any trade treaty in this country is useless that does not tend to lower the cost of production in the basic industry of the country, the industry to which we must look for the biggest part of our national income each year. Anything that does not do that is simply useless and cannot but be in the interests of one class only. A number of agricultural products is put on the free list, and while I welcome anything approaching freer trade I think it should be done with some equity and with some idea of justice in view. The truth is that agriculture has again been sold for the benefit of the Canadian manufacturers who will get a preference in another country. Surely we should be doing all we can to lower the cost of production in this country, particularly in the case of the basic industry upon which all others depend. If there is anything the Canadian manufacturers may hope for it will be in keeping down the cost of production rather than in increasing it and at the same time increasing the cost of living. There is only one way in which this country can ever hope to compete with the United States, for instance, and that is by making Canada a country where production will be cheaper than in any other place on earth. And that can be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us how.


John Evans: Well, we have a trade policy in this country which enhances the cost of production; and it is enhanced to such an extent that the very advocates of protection here do not believe in that policy. Through protection to-day the cost of living is enhanced while the wealth of Canada is concentrated. And where are those earnings spent?


Mr. ANDERSON:: Is the cost of living
cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada?


John Evans: I will come to that. Where are the earnings spent which are being
46&i
Australian Treaty

accumulated here? We find that they are invested in foreign countries, and this in face of the fact that we are importing raw material while our own mines and forests abound in what is required. Why, the protectionists in the House do not believe in their own policy; they have more confidence in investments abroad. I can give you instances if any are needed.


Mr. MANION:: Give us some instances.


John Evans: To-day, for example, the
British Empire Steel Company is importing iron ore; and not only that, it is importing coal from America into Montreal at the present time. We have suffered from foreign investments; such as Savanah Railways, and so on, while we should be developing our own natural resources. Instead of that our capital is going to foreign countries to increase the production with which we have to compete.


Robert James Manion: Is the hon. member aware that no Canadian iron ore has been discovered of a quality that compares with the iron ore of the United States or of Newfoundland, and that the only way we can use it is to aPPly the protectionist method of granting a bounty to encourage the production of it?


John Evans: Then I would ask the hon. member why it is that this country has seen fit to spend millions upon millions in tariffs, bonuses and bounties to produce that material m our own country which we are now told we must import.


Robert James Manion: We have not spent any
money to produce iron ore in this country. No bounty has been given by the federal parliament, whatever the provincial governments may have done; and this is something I have been advocating.


John Evans: I cannot answer the hon.
member offhand but I think he is wrong. To-day our manufacturers are scouring the' whole world for scrap iron instead of producing it here. Canada, the most highly protected country, is to-day an importer of scrap iron.


Richard Smeaton White: Does the hon. member know that the United States takes from Canada twice as much as Canada imports of scrap iron?


John Evans: I am not sure of that. Now, we should be doing all we can to foster primary production in this country and particularly in the basic industry, which is agriculture. And if this country is to prosper this must be done.


Robert King Anderson: Are we doing it by means of this treaty?


John Evans: No, that is what I am
saying. One of the worst incongruities in this treaty is seen in the arrangement regarding fruit. After protecting the fruit grower of British Columbia and the Ontario peninsula by a high rate of duty, and hedging him about with dumping acts and classifications under the tariff which absolutely prevent any competition from the foreigner, we are putting some of these things on the free list. In regard to some of these things like the dumping clause and other incongruities in the Customs Act, such as the classification of the citizens of the country into five or six categories-as, for instance, consumers, retailers, wholesalers, dealers, jobbers and manufacturers, every one of them having some right under the tariff-if the government would abolish all measures that restrict trade it would tend to lower the cost of living and the cost of production, and the farmers would have a chance to compete with producers of other countries in the markets of the world. This whole thing is an absurdity. It might have benefited us if we had fostered trade with one of the countries that must of necessity import what we produce naturally.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Do we not produce pulp
and paper? And is not fish one of our natural productions?


John Evans: Certainly.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Then what is the hon.
member talking about? Are these non-natural products?


John Evans: That is only one, and it is
practically only a side line of the Dominion.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What is a side line?


John Evans: Pulp.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Pulp and paper a side
line? That is one of our greatest industries.


John Evans: What is it compared with
agriculture? Agriculture, I gay, is sold for the benefit of others. Because of privilege carried to an absurdity in this country we shall always be in the position of seeking trade treaties which are bound to be unfair to one class or other in Canada. The farmers of this country desire no privileges. All they want is to be free to develop their own industry, to work out their own destiny, and to be able to compete on an even footing with the rest of the world.

Australian Treaty


Mr. ROBINSON:: Mr. Chairman, as the
representative of an apple-growing district, I am interested in that phase of the treaty which has to do with dehydrated fruit. I am compelled to say that my constituents take the same stand as the member from British Columbia (Mr. Stirling) who spoke just recently on the question. In my constituency we have one of the best dehydrating plants in the Dominion, and it was built without any government assistance. The industry of dehydrating fruit is growing, and I think it is my duty to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that I have received a number of telegrams from the fruit growers and other interested persons in my riding objecting to the clause in the treaty dealing with the admission of dehydrated fruit at 10 per cent.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it
is regrettable that this treaty was not brought down earlier for discussion, but now it is before us I think it should be discussed on its merits. It seems to me that we have to ask ourselves: What disadvantages do we suffer in entering into this treaty; and what advantages do we acquire? The disadvantages, as far as one can judge, are not many. The question as to whether the treaty adversely affects our agricultural interests has been debated; but can we say with any degree of reason that Australia can compete with Canada in agricultural products in view of the great distance separating the tVo countries?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does not the
hon. member admit that the Australian people think they can compete with us and secure a market here for their agricultural products?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I hope this treaty will
prove very satisfactory to Australia in many ways. It would be futile for us to attempt to negotiate any treaty unless the party on the other side were to receive some advantage. But I believe the advantages which Australia is to receive will be beneficial to her and will not be prejudicial to Canada.


David Spence: Will the hon. gentleman
tell the House whether he himself believes this will be a good treaty for Canada?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes.


David Spence: Tell us why.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am proceeding to do
so. I do not see how under this treaty Australia can export many articles to Canada on advantageous lines, but there are some she can export, and I hope she will build up a good trade in those lines which we ourselves cannot very profitably produce.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon.
gentleman kindly give us those articles?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Raisins and currants, for
example.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What else?


Herbert Meredith Marler: There is no reason why
Australia should not export to us her fruits in the winter season.


James Dew Chaplin: Does that apply to dried
fruits?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It might apply to dried
fruits.


James Dew Chaplin: Dried peaches, for instance ?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes. It seems to me that if we cannot manufacture dried peaches just as cheaply as Australia we should not manufacture them at all.


James Dew Chaplin: You are beginning to be quite a free trader.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all.


John Evans: Would the hon. gentleman apply that to manufactured goods as well.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In some cases, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which?


Herbert Meredith Marler: In which cases?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which cases?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My bon. friend surely does not expect me to enter into an argument on the tariff?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just which cases?


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us be fair, let us discuss the proposed Australian treaty. There is no reason, so far as I know, why Australia should not compete with us in certain ol these commodities. But, on the other hand, there are distinct advantages to Canada under this treaty in that a market can be found in Australia for a great deal of our pulp and paper. The duty against us at the present time is $15 a ton. At one time it was considerably less, but when Australia increased it to the present figure, our exports to that country dropped from 29,400 tons to only 2,000 tons. The exportation of pulp and paper to Australia, I am frank to say, mean? a largely extended and growing market and will be distinctly advantageous to our manufacturers of those commodities. But I ask hon. gentlemen across the floor, how in any woy will the extension of that market be disadvantageous
Australian Treaty

to agriculture? There is no possible reason why it should be.


John Evans: Is not this enlarged market being obtained at the expense of agriculture?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not in any way. As has been quite properly said to-day, how are we going to utilize our water-powers for the manufacture of our forest products unless we are able to export those products in a reasonable way? Further than that, in extending our exports of pulp and paper there will be this distinct advantage, that the companies engaged in their manufacture will earn more money and consequently will pay more taxes into the treasury, and in addition afford greater freight for our railways and shipping. It does seem to me that in viewing this treaty we have to look at what are its disadvantages and what its advantages to Canada. I have stated one distinct and known advantage which will accrue to the pulp and paper manufacturing industry of the Dominion. I cannot see that any other industry will be injured by the advantage to be gained by the pulp and paper industry.


Robert King Anderson: Mr. Chairman, although I am not apposed to the advantage given the pulp and paper industry under this treaty, yet I do not believe it is proper that that advantage should be gained by sacrificing our agricultural interests. I think our agriculturists need just as much protection as any other branch of Canadian industry. Under this treaty they will be up against almost a free trade proposition with respect to the farm products of Australia, the import of which must result to their serious disadvantage. In that regard I do not feel that I can support this treaty, although I agree that we should do everything possible to get a market for our manufactured products. But we should also conserve our own market here in Canada particularly for the agriculturists, and especially those who are engaged in mixed farming. I am satisfied that our friends from the west who support this treaty now will find it detrimental to them when they go into mixed farming a few years hence. I should think that they ought to look a little bit into the future.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I point out that the three prairie provinces to-day, taking into consideration the rural population, produce more butter and cheese per head of population than all the other provinces?


Robert King Anderson: Then I will guarantee
they will feel the competition coming from Australia more than the rest of Canada will,

and that when the treaty comes into operation they will be sorry they voted for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not voted
for it>
yet.


Robert King Anderson: Will hon. gentlemen
support it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert King Anderson: The government seems to have failed to realize what a menace there is in this treaty to the agriculturist. I support strongly what the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) said this afternoon so effectively. I am not opposed to the industries of Canada getting a market for their product, but I cannot see my way clear to support such a concession to industry by the betrayal and sacrifice of agriculture.


David Spence: At the outset I wish to
assure the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that I have no financial interest whatever either in packing plants or in cold storage. My interests are with the men who produce the stuff. I have not enough backbone to be interested in a packing plant or cold storage plant. The man who to-day can plunge into the buying of butter and eggs has more backbone than I have, and if he can make a profit he deserves it, because when he makes a loss he takes it with good grace. I do not like to hear the minister say anything about men of that type, because they are just as necessary, and cold storage is just as necessary in this country, as any implement the farmer has on his premises, because without them the farmer could not get anything for his produce. 1 have to congratulate t'he hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) on the splendid address he made this afternoon. He gave the government good advice, and I hope they will pay some attention to it. Apparently it does not seem to have any effect on some of them. I do not care what the tariffs are as between Canada and any other country, or the amounts exported or imported; we are now discussing a specific treaty which to my mind is detrimental to the producers of this country, and I mean those who produce from the soil. Tinkering with tariffs and making treaties has been this government's specialty. We had the French treaty of a year or two ago, and without doubt it has not been beneficial, so I hope the government will endeavour to forget entirely about this one. The French treaty has been detrimental to the fruit interests of this country. For years past there has been a market in Canada

Australian Treaty
for literally millions of bushels of Canadian cherries, but since this treaty came into effect, those who formerly bought the Canadian product are buying French cherries, which they claim to be a better article, and the result has been that during the past two years it has been impossible .to sell our own cherries in the markets of Toronto and Montreal. Anybody who knows anything about fruit growing will bear me out in that. So that the French treaty is one treaty that we should not have had. I should be delighted to see a business built up with Australia, if we got the better of the deal. I am always looking for the best of the deal, and I think everyone here when he makes a deal hopes to get the best of it. Australia being one of the British dominions, we should try to build up trade with her. Now, I am a protectionist, but I am a consistent protectionist and I am not going to sit here and see the interests of the producers from the soil sacrificed in order to help another industry. My policy and the policy of this party is to protect all industries alike; we have no favouritism in that respect. I can say after thirty-five years' experience in connection with fruit-growing, truck farming and dairying that this treaty will ruin the fruit growers, truck farmers and dairymen. The canning factories cannot hope to make the same money they have made in the past. You all know that Australia with her favourable climatic conditions can produce more stuff at half the cost than Ontario can, so that you will eliminate thousands of our people who are now employed in the canning factories all summer. The treaty will therefore be detrimental to the extent that it makes for more unemployment. The government seem determined to do away with whatever employment they possibly can. Australia's climatic conditions, I say, are very favourable to that country and against Canada, so far as the operation of this treaty is concerned. We all know that if those who produce from the soil are not prosperous there is no hope [DOT] of the industrial centres being prosperous. Only if we make the producers from the soil contented and happy can we have a prosperous and contented people. As a rule it does not take much to agitate them or make them mad. So far as I am concerned I am always trying to appease their hunger and keep them out of trouble. I wish that this government or any government would consult in connection with these trade conventions someone who has special knowledge of these various lines of business. I am not saying that the ministers are not con-298
versant with some lines, but this is the day of specialising, and the gentlemen who negotiated this treaty should have had the benefit of the advice of somebody who knew something about the commercial world and fruit conditions. Now, Australia is making very few concessions to this country under the treaty. The first thing I object to is that the treaty gives too much power to the Governor in Council. It says:
' Subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1907, the Governor in Council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country.
At six oclock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


David Spence: Mr. Chairman, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was discussing the Australian trade treaty. I had made the statement that Australia was not making veiy many concessions to Canada. I feel that we are making very many more concessions to the Australian Commonwealth than they are making to us. I have already referred to clause 4 of the resolution, but I will read it again:
That subject to the provisions of The Customs Tariff, 1907, the Governor in Council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country.
I think that is altogether too much power to give to the Governor in Council. Any action of this kind should be taken by parliament itself. Under this clause these privileges may be extended to New Zealand, and I wonder how my hon. friends to my left, after they have developed their butter and cheese industry in the west, particularly in Alberta, would like to have to compete with Australian butter sent in here under a duty of one cent a pound, and cheese coming in absolutely free?
I will enumerate one or two different items on which we are getting a preference:
Fish, smoked or dried, but not salted. I wonder how it would be possible for anybody to send fish from Canada to Australia if it was not salted. So that is of no interest to Canada.
The next item is gloves, except of rubber. There is no preference given to rubber, and in this country rubber gloves are manufactured in nearly every rubber factory in the land. We get no preference on that whatever. The only advantage we get so far as I can see is in machinery, and pulp and paper. We are getting a slight preference in these articles.

Australian Treaty

On apparel we get a duty of 40 per cent, which I consider a reasonable duty to pay for those goods going into any country.
On iron and steel tubes or pipes we get a duty of 5 per cent; goloshes, rubbers and boots and shoes and plimsolls, Is. 9d., or 30 per cent, which I consider a reasonable percentage.
Now I come to the rates of duty we are going to allow to Australian goods. First of all is meats, fresh, not otherwise provided, half a cent per pound; canned meats, canned poultry and game; extracts of meats and fluid beef, and soups of all kinds, 15 per cent. So you can see the privileges we are giving to Australia are much greater than we get.
Lard, lard compound, cottolene and animal stearine of all kinds we allow to come in free. On tallow we impose a duty of 10 per cent. That is one of the worst things in the treaty, in my opinion. The duty should be at least equal to what we are paying, 30 per cent. Tallow is produced in Australia very abundantly, and anyone who knows the industry in Canada knows that this will probably do more injury than anything else in the treaty. Sheep are raised in Australia by the hundreds of thousands. They are raised very quickly, and Australian mutton is very fat. In the early days some of you remember that when Australia had not developed a market for its sheep and mutton the sheep were shorn, and then driven into the sea. That was the only way they had to dispose of their mutton. But now Australia has developed a big trade in mutton and lamb, and the most of their mutton that is of a lean variety is shipped to this country and England, and their fat sheep are shorn of their wool, and then used for making tallow. There will be an enormous quantity of this stuff come into Canada under this tariff.
Then beeswax and eggs and cheese come in free, and on butter the duty is 1 cent per pound. I wonder how my hon. friends to my left will feel when they have to compete with Australian butter, and possibly New Zealand butter coming in here under a duty of 1 cent a pound?
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including com and baked beans, in cans or other airtight packages come in free. Everybody knows that this country produces more tomatoes and other vegetables than can be consumed in this country. If we had the time, there would be no difficulty in canning all our corn and tomatoes in the summer time. We could can more tomatoes and more com and various vegetables of other kinds than could be consumed both in this country and Australia.

Apples, dried, desiccated or evaporated, and other dried, desiccated or evaporated fruits come in here under a duty of 10 per cent. Anybody who saw the big apple crop this country had last year will know that there is no possible hope of our farmers succeeding in raising fruit under competition with Australia sending her fruit in here under a 10. per cent duty.
Pears, quinces, apricots and nectarines come in under a duty of 25 cents. As far as that is concerned, it will not make much difference to this country.
Fruits in air-tight cans come under a duty of half a cent. That will compete with the fruit canning industry in this country, and will eliminate the employment that is given to thousands of our people in our canning factories in the summer time.
The next two items are honey and sugar; I do not know much about honey. Then we go on to the other articles mentioned by my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling): fruit pulp, not sweetened, when imported by manufacturers of jams or preserves for use only in their own factories in the manufacture of jams or preserves. That comes in free. I am utterly opposed to that. It may not hurt the manufacturers of this country, but it will do a great injustice to the fruit growers. If the manufacturers of jams and preserves and jellies and things of that kind cannot buy the fruit they want at their own price, they can simply let it go to waste, and import their stuff in barrels, and use it all winter, putting it up in a small way, in one and five-pound tins, and so on. That will be a great disadvantage to the fruit growers in this country. In the last three years the fruit crop in Canada has been so abundant that there has been hardly any possible hope of consuming the stuff, and the canning factories and the jam people have had so much fruit pulp on hand for so many years that they have been unable to buy the surplus stuff that could not be consumed. For the last three years, the fruit growers in this country have been receiving the lowest prices for their fruit in history. That has partly been due to a number of people being out of work and there being a lack of money in the country, but it is also due to the big surplus crops in the last three years, and no one could make any money out of fruit except the people who made the containers, and the transportation people. The growers of fruit and other people in the industry worked for nothing. Last year peaches could not be sold for more than 50 or 60 and sometimes 40 cents a basket. Plums of the very best varieties were sold on the Toronto and Montreal markets for as low as 10 and

Australian Treaty
15 cents for an eleven-quart basket. Now I ask, is it possible for the fruit growers of this country to compete with fruit brought in from Australia when they are not able to get a price for their own stuff in this country at the present time? The growers of peaches and plums and pears will be very much injured by this treaty.
I trust the government will make up its mind not to press this resolution through, because it will do a great injustice to the farmers of this country, and it will certainly put a number of the smaller ones entirely out of business.
Reference was made a few minutes ago to the fact that onions are on the free list. I do not know why a number of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House should mention onions; but I am sure they thought as I did, namely, that the Minister of Railways, representing an onion growing county, took care to see to it that onions were taken out of the free list. Possibly I might have done the same thing if I had been in his position; but he had the advantage and the opportunity to do it.


Edward Joseph Garland: The treaty is objectionable to me principally on the ground that it constitutes a discrimination against Canada. Canada stands to gain so little by it that I am surprised the Finance minister should waste the time of the House by introducing it. Let us take a glance at the treaty and see who are to be benefited by it. The principal industries picked out for special treatment are those producing automobiles, automobile parts, pulp and paper, rubber goods, canned salmon and agricultural implements. All these are especially favoured under the treaty. Looking at the general trade of Canada with Australia, we find that Canadian exports to Australia amount roughly to about $20,000,000 annually, and we import about $1,035,000 in round figures. It looks to me as though we already had a pretty strong advantage over the manufacturers in Australia, but I would like the House to notice, that out of the total export trade the articles mentioned for special treatment constitute 85 per cent of the trade. The automobile industry constitutes almost half of it. Lumber accounts for about $4,000,000 out of $20,000,000, about one-fifth, and as I say all these get special treatment. I think the House should know that the general average of Australian duties is higher than the Canadian duties. In other words, the Canadian manu-facurers have been able to go over there, traverse that long stretch of ocean, and com-298i
pete on the Australian market against all comers to the extent of $20,000,000. It looks to me as though the Australian exporter or manufacturer, on the other hand, can certainly come back and compete with the producers of goods and with importers of this country, when we have a lower rate of duty. These are the principal people who benefit particularly under it.
Let us see who the people are who are discriminated against and do not get any advantage, and I can sum them up in a sentence. They are the consumers of Canada. They will lose under this treaty to the extent of $1,935,000 in the direct application of an increased duty on raisins and currants alone. I will give some figures to illustrate this. Excluding the imports into Canada from Great Britain and Australia, Canada imported in the year ending 31st March, 1924, 43,842,396 pounds of raisins and currants. If you will multiply that by the increase in that duty announced by the Acting Minister of Finance you will find it will mean a per capita tax on the people of this country to the tune of about $1,035,000. That is a very conservative estimate. When we remember that the increased duty will also be made the basis for a sales tax, the committee will readily realize that when I have given those figures I have given the minimum figures. In addition to that we will also remember-those of us who have suffered under protection for so long- that when a .protective duty is imposed on any commodity we pay far more than the actual duty itself. We pay the duty plus the profit to the importer, plus the profits of the wholesaler, plus the profits of the retailer, and when the duty finally reaches the unfortunate consumer he finds the tariff duty has been increased many times. I would then, Mr. Chairman, be justified in making an estimate that it will cost the people of Canada $1,250,000 in the increased price of currants and raisins alone. But someone will say that we are going to get all those from Australia free under the new arrangement. Let me give the House some figures. According to the Australian Year Book for 1923 the total production of raisins was 30,242,240 pounds, and of currants 18,159,232 pounds.
The total consumption in Canada in 1924 was 38,792,039 pounds of raisins, and 5,598,777 pounds of currants. What does this mean? It means that when Australia had looked after her own requirements she had for export in raisins 12,986,553 pounds and in currants 10,937,598 pounds, while Canada in 1924 required over 38,000,000 pounds of raisins alone. In
Australian Treaty

other words, the total production of Australia was 8,000,000 pounds less than the total Canadian consumption of raisins. I will put it in another way; the total surplus export of raisins from Australia falls short of Canada's requirements by 26,000,000 pounds. How are they ever going to make up that increase in a few years? It is going to take years, even with increased raisin production, even if the treaty goes into effect, before we can take advantage of it. In the meantime we must import from other countries, such as the United States under the increased tariff duties which the Acting Finance Minister intimated would be applied.


James Alexander Robb: They come also from South Africa.


Edward Joseph Garland: A very small quantity, over that long distance. I am glad my hon. friend raised that point. Australia could supply our requirements in currants, but only at the sacrifice of all her present markets and only at the sacrifice of all the markets she is building up by a foolish and stupid proceeding on her part.
In 1924 Canada imported 35,690,194 pounds of raisins from the United States of America, and from Australia she imported 29,502 pounds. Is it not ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, that a treaty of this kind should come before this House? In currants-and the hon. Acting Minister of Finance might have paid attention to this-our requirements come from one country chiefly, namely from Greece, and we import from Greece 4,768,228 pounds. I understand we have a very heavy loan in Greece which has not been paid, and the importation of currants into Canada is one of the few means Greece ever had of paying her debt to us, yet the Acting Finance Minister now makes it more difficult for Greece to pay the loan which Canada made to her some years ago. As I have stated already, it will take many years to increase the Australian production, even if the treaty goes into effect. I am opposed to the treaty in general and I can summarize my opposition to it best by quoting a conclusion arrived at by an eminent writer who discussed this treaty recenty. He said:
The treaty does give the Australian farmer a profitable market for his raisins and currants in Canada, and it will tend to reduce the price he has to pay for his rubber goods, canned salmon, automobiles and agricultural implements. It is a pretty good treaty for the Australian farmer and reflects considerable credit on hi3 government for its bargaining ability.
For the Canadian farmer it means an increase in his cost of living, increased competition in his home market with agricultural products from Australia, and not the prospect of a reduced price for manufactured goods of any kind. From his standpoint, the Austra-

lian government put it all over the Canadian government.
The treaty may be very acceptable to certain manufacturers and the canners of salmon, but from the standpoint of the mass of the people it is the kind of reciprocal trade agreement that the country would be better without.


James Alexander Robb: The gentleman who wrote that displayed his ignorance of the treaty in saying that it gave an advantage to agricultural implements. That is one of the points we have been urging very strongly upon Australia, but they would not concede anything. I may say incidentally that the duty on agricultural implements is about 45 per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad
the suggestion was made in that regard. As I intended to say at the outset, this article was written when the announcement of the first treaty came out. In conclusion, let me say this. We have here an absurd situation. We have Canada pretending to desire, through its Acting Minister of Finance, to develop trade with Australia. We have Australia apparently anxious to consummate trade with Canada. We have these two countries facing each other across a great stretch of ocean anxious to trade with each other. Why cannot we arrange it under some such terms as these? Why cannot Caffada say to Australia: We would like to get your goods. We are exporting $20,000,000 worth to your $1,000,000 worth at the present time. We know you can afford to buy more goods from us and we are willing to make it possible for you to do so. No duty will be imposed against you in our markets. Come on; buy goods from us, and we know we shall have to buy more goods from you. That would be the com-monsense way to bring about an increased trade. We have, during the period of years from 1893 to this day, spent the enormous sum of over $4,721,000 on a subsidized steamship service for the purpose principally of developing trade and maintaining trade routes, and this country still stands in the extraordinary and illogical position of developing trade routes by maintaining subsidized steamship services, but of preventing trade by maintaining tariff barriers.


Mr. TOLMIE:: If we look over the treaty as we have it before us, it is quite apparent that, as regards British Columbia and other parts of Canada, it will be very beneficial in certain respects. I refer particularly to the export of fish and also of timber products, I quite agree that it is necessary for us to seek export markets and, in doing so, I think it is quite proper to cultivate and develop inter-empire trade as far as we can. In this regard the treaty is all right; it is a good

Australian Treaty
one and it will increase our trade. But we cannot overlook the fact that this has been accomplished at a very great sacrifice to a seven billion dollar investment we have in Canada-agriculture. In the first place, in lowering the tariff on many of the products of the farm, including fresh meats, tinned meats, vegetables and also fruits, we are striking at the very crux of our agricultural success in Canada. We are bringing into competition with the producers of this country competitors that can turn out their articles at a much lower price than we can. This is largely due, in the matter of meats, to the splendid pasturage conditions they have in those countries where they are able to run their cattle in the open all the year round and where they do not face the very severe winters that we do in our range country and in those sections where it is necessary to house cattle in the winter time. This means a tremendous advantage for the producer under those conditions.
The prices that cattle are sold for in Australia may be of interest to producers in this country. In western Australia, they were selling their cattle last year, 1924, at $2.90 per 100 pounds dressed and $1.32 for rejects. These are prices, I am sure, that anyone acquainted with the cattle business in this country will agree will furnish a competition that we cannot possibly meet. Live beef animals were selling in the same section of that country at $19.20 up to $21.60 per head, prices that have not prevailed in this country, I think, within the last thirty or forty years, prices that we used to know of in the western mountain territory of British Columbia in the early days when we had no railways and the market was very limited. We find in western Australia where these prices prevailed last year, in one government packing plant, they put through about 30,000 head of these cattle. In addition to that, the Australian receives, for every animal exported, $2.40 per head, so that, in addition to the low prices and cheap cost of production, we are putting our Canadian producers up against a bonus of $2.40 per head. The Australians are naturally very anxious to secure a market. Their principal market is the frozen meat market in Great Britain. Of late years, owing to the closer proximity of the South American market, they have met with competition down there that has made it very difficult for them to carry on, first, on account of the distance of that market, and, second, owing to the fact that the South American beef, as it is produced to-day, is of better and more even quality and better finished than Australian meat. They are,
therefore, searching about for an outlet for this particular product, and they have secured, I think, an excellent market indeed under this proposed treaty.
As regards the question of our sheep population in Canada, "this has been dragging for a number of years. We reached 3,750,000 about three years ago. This has shrunk to about 2,500,000 at the present time as compared with between 80,000,000 and 90,000,000 in Australia. Australia is the largest sheep-growing country in the world. She can produce sheep under ideal conditions, and she could simply flood this market with her mutton if she decided to do so with the cheap transportation that is afforded her. In this particular connection also, we are bringing our producers in this country, in a struggling industry like the sheep industry, face to face with unfair competition.
The item of tallow was referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence). As he very well pointed out, as regards the production of tallow in a country where animals are so cheap, we cannot face such competition in Canada.
As regards dairy products, the cattle in Australia have the same advantage in the production of dairy products as they have in the production of beef. That is, they are able to graze outside during the whole year and, therefore, they can be maintained at a lower cost so that their products can be put on the market a,t a lower price.
We have the same disadvantage in competing with the egg producer in Australia as we have in competing with the egg producer in California or the southern states. That is, that during certain seasons of the year, we are faced with very heavy winter conditions. We have to provide warm houses and to feed expensive feed, and eggs are produced only at a heavy cost, while on the other hand, in Australia they do not have that disadvantage and they are able to place those eggs on the market at a lower price than we could. In that particular instance, we are to be faced with free eggs from Australia, and in that way we are inflicting an unfair competition on the farmers of this country.
With regard to fruit, we are up against the production of free fruit pulp for making jams and preserves of various kinds. I think this is unfair for the reason, as was pointed out by a previous speaker, that the buyers of that material in Canada will be able to take an independent stand and cut and force down the prices of our producers even worse than they have done in the past.
As regards the matter of canned beans, let me give the committee an illustration of how
4G72
Australian Treaty

the United States view the importance of those products in that country. They have a duty of no less than $1.05 a bushel as compared with a duty of only 25 cents imposed on beans coming into this country. Now by this treaty we propose to let them come in absolutely free. In a treaty of this kind, which has something good in it and a good deal that is bad, it is rather difficult to know how to decide. But in this instance, speaking as a private member, I see no other course to pursue than. to be guided by the demands of my constituency and also by the requirements of the province from which I come. But in doing so I want to emphasize the protest that I have made against the heavy price that we are paying.


Mr. SNOWBALL:: For several years we
have been looking for markets outside Canada for the products of this country, and especially within the empire, and I think that the agreement before us to-night which has been reached with Australia is one of the most far-reaching and beneficial that we have considered for some years. As I have listened to the speeches that have been made on the other side, it has occurred to me that possibly the tone that characterizes them is due to the disappointment felt that this should be another feather in the cap of the Liberal administration. The treaty has found a market free of duty for our paper, automobiles and farm machinery, three of the largest employing industries of Canada, all of which are looking for outside markets. As we know, Australia is not a manufacturing country; and I am hopeful that by means of this treaty we shall be able to enlarge the demands there for our products and make it more profitable for each of these industries to which I have referred to carry on, employing still further labour.
I find that prior to 1921 Canada had built up a considerable export trade with Australia in newsprint, shipping at that time almost :$8,000,000 worth of this product. About that time Australia put on a preferential tariff in favour of Great Britain of $15 per ton on newsprint and 15 per cent on the other grades of paper. From that time on Canada's trade in that direction has dwindled until now there is hardly any export of newsprint to the Australian market. The pulp and paper industry is, I think, next to agriculture, and coupled with lumber the second industry we have in this country and it is worth all the consideration that can be given it. Furthermore, it is an industry that can be increased from the natural products of our own land. I find that in 1923 the export of pulp and paper from this

country amounted to $100,000,000 and from the records, as nearly as I can trace them-, the exports for 1924 ran to almost $140,000,000. Last year Canada produced 1,322,944 tons of newsprint of which she exported 1,219,384 tons. Of that export 1,192,699 tons went to the United States, 156,000 tons to Europe, and only 132,600 tons were used in Canada. It will be seem therefore that if we intend to increase the production of pulp and paper in this country we shall require to find other markets; and this market in Australia, within our own empire, is naturally the one to which we should look in this connection.
I find also that the United States produces only 1,471,000 tons of newsprint, the rest of her imports of this article coming largely from Canada. So that the United States cannot become a competitor with us at any time so far as that product is concerned. While looking into this matter another interesting item came to my notice. For instance, we exported to the United States in 1923 1,384,000 cords of pulp wood and if we had manufactured that raw material into pulp we should have had 1,195,000-tons of pulp worth $36,000,000, while if -we had converted it into paper it would have yielded $89,000,000. That is to say, the expenditure would have gone largely into wages, employing people in the country. If therefore we can find markets outside which will induce the establishment of paper mills in Canada more largely than at the present time we should take every advantage of any possibility in this direction.
It has been suggested that this treaty will interfere with the farmers; but from experience in this business, with which I am personally connected, I do not think that there is any industry in Canada which is so beneficial not only to the farmer himself but to everyone associated with the land, as this basic industry of lumber, pulp and paper. From the very inception in the woods with the log the products of the farm come into play; horses, hay, oats, beef, pork, beans, everything that is produced by the farmers enter into the production of lumber, pulp and paper. If therefore we can increase that output by establishing other mills and manufacturing more fully the products of our own country, finding markets for our newsprint, a great benefit must inure to the farmers of the Dominion. The western farmer with the increased production that will take place on the Pacific when other mills are built there will benefit. I noticed in the paper the other day that two five million dollar mills are to be erected in Nova Scotia for the manufacture of pulp and paper, so that the maritime provinces will benefit as well. This treaty

Australian Treaty
therefore, giving us an outlet for our pulp and paper, is something to be commended. There has been some discussion as to the farmer not being able to compete owing to the products of the farm coming in free from Australia under this agreement. I would ask this question: How is it that the Canadian farmer can compete in the open market of the world, in free trade England, with Australia sending there a large amount of butter, cheese, wheat, beef and other products, entering into competition? Our friends opposite are afraid that Canada will be deluged with these products from abroad. I do not think there is any danger so far as that is concerned. I live in New Brunswick, a part of which province I represent here, and I hope that this agreement will go through, for I believe it will be beneficial not only to the Maritime provinces and Quebec but to every part of the Dominion which is interested in the lumber trade and where there is any considerable territory in which lumber is produced. As the years go by I am sure we shall find that the Liberal policy as embodied in this treaty will prove a great advantage to Canada. We have entered into treaties with France and other countries, but this treaty is one between component parts of the empire. It will tend to bind those two parts of the empire more closely together. We are sending our products, pulp and paper, farm implements and automobiles, while they are shipping to Canada the products of their country. On the whole, I think the agreement is in favour of the Canadian people and I wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and those associated with him in the negotiation of it on having submitted to the House to-night a trade arrangement that must commend itself to the approval of the Canadian people.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I envy the happy feelings of the member for Northumberland N.B. (Mr. Snowball), for he finds in this proposed treaty with Australia nothing but what is good. After listening to some of the speeches by hon. members to my right, I am beginning to wonder if there is anything that we can produce just as favourably as any other country. I do not understand why it should be so, but whatever line of industry is mentioned we are told by certain hon. gentlemen that Canada is not able to hold her ownr against other countries. Now, I have never taken that position. I am perfectly sure that in the majority of cases, given equal chances and unhampered by artificial restrictions, we can hold our own with any country in the world. In this treaty I think there is much that is good, and I am afraid much that
is not very good. That is why I referred to the speech by the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B., because if I were able to say the treaty was very, very bad, I would feel quite at ease; and if I could say it was very, very good, I would feel equally at ease. In my opinion it is a mixture of good and evil.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Like all human things.


Robert Forke: This is very human, anyway. With respect to making trade treaties with the sister dominions, I am British enough to rejoice in anything that will bind the empire closer together. At the same time, I recognize that there is not much sentiment in trade, and in fact I believe it will ultimately work out for the betterment of all concerned if we do not try to guide trade routes along sentimental lines. Nevertheless I should like to see some closer connection between the various self-governing dominions.
As to the advantages that are to ibe received iby Canada under this proposed treaty, I notice that motor car parts are given preferred treatment; but I also notice that Australia is now beginning to assemble these parts, and I do not suppose we shall get as much advantage in this direction as we have had in the past. Last year something like eight million dollars worth of motor car .parts was exported to Australia, and we are .to get the benefit of the preferential tariff on these articles. This benefit may accrue to some of the big manufacturing plants, but I do not think that the people of Canada as a whole will derive much advantage from the concession. Presumably the greatest advantage gained by Canada will be in respect to paper, we being put upon an equal footing with Great Britain and the other paper-producing countries. This should increase our paper exports to the commonwealth, and I am free to admit that I should like to see Canada enjoying every advantage she can get in this regard.
I do not want to protest against the duties being taken off some of the articles that have been mentioned by the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie). I am not afraid of Canada ever importing eggs from Australia to such an extent as to prejudice our farmers, nor am I afraid of our importing Australian butter in sufficient volume to affect the price of our own product. I think it is pretty widely recognized now that the prices of practically all our farm products are regulated by the prices in the markets of the world, and that it is these prices which the farmer gets. Therefore we are not likely to be affected by any importations of these products that we
Australian Treaty

may receive from Australia. I am a little astonished though that onions have been left out of this treaty. I think there must have been some manipulation on. the part of the Minister of Railways.


James Alexander Robb: No, that was a clerical error.


Robert Forke: I do not wish to be taken seriously, anyway.


George Perry Graham: It is a strong subject.


Robert Forke: It is suggested to me that it is also a tearful subject. I should like to have supported this treaty, but I find that the apple-growers of British Columbia are not satisfied; neither are the farmers of Ontario- why I do not know. Perhaps those who will find least comfort in the treaty are the great body of consumers in the Dominion. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) stated this afternoon that he was interested in the welfare of his own constituency. Now, when I look out to the west I remember that the people there are great consumers of raisins

perhaps no other dried fruit is more generally used in the prairie provinces, and when I think of my own constituency and the large amount of duty they will be called upon to pay under this treatj', I feel that I will have to vote against it. It is all very well to say that we are going to get raisins from Australia free of duty. As pointed out by the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), for many years Australia will not be able to supply the Canadian market, and notwithstanding the fact that I should like to see Australian raisins sold in Canada, I believe that even if this treaty goes into effect the Canadian people will be eating California raisins for many years to come, because despite the duty of three cents a pound I fear the Australians will still find it very difficult to compete with the raisin-growers of California. It is contrary to the principles which we have. always professed that tariff rates should be increased, consequently I feel as a matter of principle that I cannot support this treaty, although I do not entertain perhaps the same hostility towards it as the hon. member for Bow River, but, balancing the whole thing, I think I will be compelled to vote against the measure.


Mr. STANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, in my view a treaty is a bargain betweejn two nations to which both contribute something and both receive something in return. I am in sympathy with all that has been said about the desirability of encouraging trade within the empire, but I am unable to view this treaty as a fair bargain from the standpoint of Canada. In fact, I can scarcely con-
ceive of a Scotchman being guilty of making such a poor bargain as this trade agreement appears to be. We would naturally expect a bargain of this kind to be mutually advantageous, but there is one thing that strikes me at once' in the treaty-our farming and other industries are paying the price for securing certain concessions to a few big manufacturing industries. If similar interests in Australia were paying for these concessions, I would think it a mutually fair agreement, but on the face of it I can only interpret the treaty as a bargain secured in the interests of one class in this country to the detriment of all other classes. I am quite willing to subscribe to the doctrine of protection, in fact I believe it is. the only fiscal policy for Canada under present conditions, but my idea of protection is that it should benefit all classes, and I have no sympathy with that form of protection which would benefit a few favoured interests at the expense of the wellbeing of all other Canadians. Just where this treaty is going to work out to the advantage of Canada generally, I fail to see.
In the matter of raisins, I could not be expected to find the same objection as that offered by hon. members to my left, because frankly I think the situation the Acting Minister of Finance finds himself in to-day is due to the fact that you will always find just such a difficulty when you attempt to bargain or make treaties between a country having almost no protection, or very little, and a country which is very highly protected. The minister experienced this when he began to deal with raisins, because it is something which Canada cannot produce and something which Australia can produce in abundance. But we already had such a low tariff that he found it necessary to increase the general tariff before he could bargain. I can easily understand the advantage of selling to Australia those things which they do not produce and buying from them products that we need. But with the exception of raisins and perhaps two or three other commodities, Canada is making a sacrifice in respect to products which we produce abundantly ourselves, and we now have to open our market wide to their competition. .
Is there any reason in the world why [DOT]Canada, should not produce her own butter, her own eggs, fruit and vegetables? To my mind it is preposterous, with the small amount of protection that is at present afforded to our farmers, when we are already buying food products to a far greater extent than we should owing to insufficient protection, that we should open the market wider

Australian Treaty
to competition. I know the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) does not see any danger in that; he says that Canadians can produce as cheaply as anyone else. I am quite willing to agree with him in that respect, but here is the practical way in which it works out:	manufacturers, dealers, farmers, any
other interests you like to mention, are actuated by natural human impulses, and the dealer in any of these food products has only to take advantage of the free importation from Australia to bring in, at any time when the market is just a little higher than he would like to see it, a considerable supply of these "goods, demoralize the market, and then for months afterwards reap a profit at the expense of the Canadian farmer and producer. Every one who is in business knows that these things happen, and this is only opening the door wade to such practices.
In Ontario particularly we have built up very large canning industries which are mutually beneficial to the farmer and to the consumer. There is no reason in the world why Canada should not produce and can her own fruits and vegetables. I have in my own riding about six canning factories that will be seriously affected by this treaty. I have protests from all of them, and when they protest, it is an indication that every farmer who supplies fruit and vegetables to these factories will be adversely affected, even to a greater degree than the canning interests themselves. I find here, for example, that there is put on the free list fruit pulp, not sweetened. As I think was pointed out by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), this may be a slight advantage 9 p.m. to jam manufacturers because it will enable them at certain periods to lower the prices to Canadian producers by the importation of large quantities of this pulp, and then they will be able to make contracts to purchase the fruits and vegetables they require at very much lower prices. I simply want to record myself as strongly opposed to this treaty, because it imposes a burden on the very industry that should be protected and looked after. ,It is a common saying that when our farmers are prosperous everybody is prosperous, and we should see to it that our farmers, fruit growers and agriculturists shall, under a proper policy of protection for Canada, be given the benefit of whatever protection we can possibly extend to them. This treaty simply extends a benefit to two or three privileged interests at the expense of thousands of Canadian farmers and other important industries. Some years ago I remember a prize offered for the extermination of rabbits in Australia. When I find that we are now going to import canned meats and game of all kinds from Australia I cannot help wondering if the Acting Minister of Finance is trying to obtain that prize by the importation of Australian rabbits. There is practically nothing of advantage to the farming interests in this treaty. It will work a serious hardship on our producers, our canning interests and other industries, and it will extend a benefit to a few only. The Acting Minister of Finance said he represented a dairy district, and he thought it would not suffer from this trade arrangement. But the district he represents is almost exclusively interested in supplying the milk trade of Montreal, and in that respect he is more fortunately situated than many of the other hon. members of this House. To my mind there is only one thing for this House to do. and that is to reject this treaty as a bad bargain from the point of view of the basic industry of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: We 'have been on this resolution since eleven o'clock; it is now nine, and there was an idea expressed on all sides of the House that we should if possible prorogue this week. Canada has been trying to effect a trade agreement with Australia since 1889. To effect a trade agreement theTe must be concessions on both sides. I was somewhat interested in the statement of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) that he could not vote for the treaty because of the duty on raisins. I may remind the hon. member that had he remained in Scotland he would up till recently be paying a little over two cents a pound by way of duty on raisins, and if he were there now he would be paying a cent and a quarter a pound. We propose to put them on the free list. The difficulties in effecting a trade agreement with Australia have largely been due to what I pointed out earlier in the day. For the year ending 31st March, 1925, our total imports from Australia amounted to $2,634,713 and our total export to Australia for the same period was $12,037,203. Very naturally the people in Australia said, "The balance of. the trade is so much in your favour that we have difficulty in putting a measure through our parliament." I will admit frankly and at once that the greater concession given to Canada under this arrangement is with respect to newsprint. I estimate that on the basis of the total requirements of Australia during the two years 1920-21 and 1921-22, when the average importations were 63,893 tons, the preference given to Canada under this arrangement will
Imperial Privy Council

be worth about $900,000. That $900,000 of a
preference will enable Canadians to manufacture their own wood pulp in their own country rather than export the puipwood, and that is what we have been contending for. Then, another considerable advantage to Canada will be the concession that we are obtaining in respect to canned fish, which, on the basis of the business that we did with them in 1922-23, will be worth $177,983 to the exporters of canned fish. Then there is some concession on motor chassis, which will be worth a little over a quarter of a million dollars. However, to-day I have placed on record, and it will be found on Hansard to-morrow, a statement of the trade, the production and exports of Canadian products that are involved in this agreement. I think it would be better that hon. gentlemen should have the opportunity of studying those statements before being called upon to vote, and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before 'that motion is put, Mr. Chairman, I think it is-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, if t'he motion is to be debatable, it is to be debatable all round. It is not debatable under 'the rules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well. THE IMPERIAL PRIVY COUNCIL



APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE SIR WILLIAM MULOCK AND THE HON. GEORGE P. GRAHAM

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the House, I have a brief announcement which I should like to make and which I aim sure the House will be pleased to receive.
I have been informed that His Majesty the King has been pleased to appoint as members of His Majesty's Imperial Privy Council Chief Justice Sir William Mulock and the Bon. George P. Graham, Minister of Railways and Canals, and that announcement to this effect will be made from London to-night.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to have the privilege on behalf of the government of Which he is a member, and also on behalf of the House of Commons, to congratulate the Right Hon. Mr. Graham upon this merited recognition of his long and distinguished public service to Canada and ito the empire.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the honour of admission to the circle of His Majesty's Privy Councillors is one of the most precious and most prized to which any British subject

can aspire. It comes somewhat suddenly; but I could not say by way of surprise, that this honour should be extended to the two very distinguished gentlemen mentioned by the Prime Minister to-night.
Chief Justice Sir William Mulock had a long and very distinguished career in this House, at the close of which he accepted a position of great consequence and eminence on the bench, from which he resigned bo take the post of Chief Justice of the (province of Ontario. His long years of service in both capacities, the fact that he is one of our grand old men, in the fulll possession of all his faculties, past four score years, certainly warrants the step which 'has been' taken, and he is entitled to the congratulations of us all.
We, of course, in this Commons of to-day are more interested in our fellow-member, and I am sure I speak whole-heartedly the sentiments of hon. gentlemen behind ime, as were I opposite I would speak the sentiments of bon. gentlemen there, when I say this information comes to us as glad tidings, and we whole-heartedly rejoice in the fact that the Minister of Railways has been given this distinction at the hands of His Majesty.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, it is Indeed to me a great pleasure to rise and extend my -congratulations to the two distinguished gentlemen whose names have just? been mentioned. With Sir William Mulock I am not acquainted, but I know something of his long and distinguished 'career, and I am glad of the honour which has been conferred upon him.
But coming to speak of our well-beloved- shall I say?-fellow-member, the Minister of Railways, a few moments ago- I made the statement that when one rises to speak, 'there always seems to be a mixture of good and evil, but on this occasion it is all good. I am sure all of us in this House, without distinction of party or place in this chamber, rejoice in the honour that 'has come to t'he Right Hon. Mr. Graham. We admire his ability, we 'appreciate his humour, we know something about his common sense, but indeed, were I tio attempt to enumerate all his virtues, words would utterly fail me. Without taking up any more time, let me say, and I know when I say this I speak for all associated with me in this part of the House, that we are delighted that this honour has come to our fellow-member.
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I appreciate to the full this distinction, and I appreciate it as a real dis-

Canada Grain Act
timction. In tlhe hurly-burly of public life many things are said, many .things are done, but, after all, kind hearts are more than coronets, and the appreciation of one's fellows is tbe greatest thing under the sun. I want >to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition for his very kind words. I know they are sincere; also my good friend who leads the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), and .to say to .my honoured leader and to every member of the House that I hope the Canadian parliament and the Canadian .people will not regret this step.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 20th consideration in committee of Bill No. 113, respecting Grain.-Hon. Mr. Low.-Mr. Gordon in the .chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: When progress was reported, section 40 was under consideration by the committee.
On section 40-Standards established by grain standards board.


George Gibson Coote: On Saturday last I see I am reported in Hansard as saying that I thought the inspectors at Calgary and other points should be members of the grain standards board. I did not intend to state they should be members, but I think they should attend the meetings of the grain standards board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
On section 44-grain survey board.
George Gibson Coote: I should like to make a
remark or two, but I do not know whether this is the proper place to mention the matter. There has been a great deal of complaint that grades in the eastern division were not of the same standard as those in the western division, and there is some complaint that the survey board in the eastern division should be appointed from persons nominated by the boards of trade of Toronto and Montreal. I do not wish to delay the committee, and I am not going to make any protest against this section, but I would like to present a resolution passed by a local of the United Farmers' Association at Bawlf, Alberta. It reads as follows:
Whereas the grading of Canadian grain is dependent on the judgment of deputy inspectors;
And whereas, operators of private elevators (mixing houses) by reason of direct contact with inspectors may influence them to pass questionable mixtures;
And whereas several large Canadian exporters, millers and corporations operate public elevators in the eastern divisions, and under section 10 of "Rules and Regulations for Sample Market Trading," notwithstanding the provisions of the Canada Grain Act (sec-

tion 229, subsection 5) to the contrary, are permitted to mix grains for their patrons and possibly operate to their own advantage, which practices should be carefully and impartially supervised;
And whereas we believe the grading of "Country run" grain and "Export" grain should be more uniformly the same as to quality;
And whereas we believe uniformity of grading can best be attained bj' frequent interchanging of deputy
inspectors;
Therefore be it resolved that we recommend to our representatives at Ottawa that in the revision of the Canada Grain Act, provision be made for the systematic interchanging of deputy inspectors, particularly as to staff inspecting grains into terminal elevators, and other deputy inspectors also, as to the Eastern and Western routes.
I want to suggest that while we have the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners here, if the survey board in the eastern division are to be nominated by the boards of trade of Toronto and Montreal, many of whom are in this grain trade and it is presumed they would interest themselves in the appointment of this survey board, I think it would be in the interests of the grain producers and of the whole grain trade that these inspectors should be changed occasionally from the eastern to the western inspection division, and in that way possibly they would arrive at some uniformity in the grading of the wheat in those two divisions. At the present time there is a feeling that the grades in the eastern division are lower in standard than the grades in the western division, and as I have pointed out it is affected by this section, because the survey board is the final court of appeal for the grading of our grain. I think that the best way to keep the grading uniform between the two divisions would be by taking the western inspectors and having them work in the eastern division for certain periods of the year, and placing the eastern inspectors in the western division. It is possible this may be covered under some other section, and I may be making the statement at the wrong time, but I do not know on what other section of the act I could bring it up.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. The survey board and the inspection in the east, is for eastern grain, and the appeal board in the west is for the western grain. My hon. friend states that the inspectorial forces might be changed, but they are inspecting different grain, and I do not think the proposition would be beneficial. You could not take the inspection of the Bawlf wheat here and apply it to western Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Would the survey board inspect grain after it left Fort William for Montreal?
Canada Grain Act


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: No, only for the
eastern division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 45 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
On section 57-Powers of weighmaster.
Arthur Meighen: I think those who are carrying these sections have not yet read them. I have tried to follow down to 54 and we are now at 55.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are at 57.


Arthur Meighen: The Chairman does not expect we can carry the sections like that. What is the real change in section 54.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
see any change from the old act here, excepting that they come under the control of the Civil Service Commission. There may be a slight change in the wording, but no change in the meaning.


Arthur Meighen: How was it before?


Charles A. Stewart: It is section 62 of the old act and reads:
The minister, upon the recommendation of the board, may appoint in and for each division a chief weigh-master, whose duties and powers shall be defined by the board, and may also, in any place where inspection of grain is authorized under this act, or where is situate any public, eastern or terminal elevator, appoint a weighmaster and such assistants as are necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 58 and 59 agreed to.
On section 60-Official seal-evidence.
Arthur Meighen: This is for sealing the sample.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a seal
placed on the certificate of inspection and weights. .


Arthur Meighen: They were always sealed, were they not?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 61 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 73-Grain of same grade kept together-certificates for mixed shipment.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain the significance of this change?


Charles A. Stewart: It is simply to include grain loaded into cars as well as grain loaded into vessels.


Arthur Meighen: Does the certificate give the proportions where there is a mixture like that?


Charles A. Stewart: It is on the
face of the certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 74 to 78, both inclusive, agreed to.
On section 79-Research department.
Edward Joseph Garland: Under this clause, will provision be made for the publication and making available to the public of reports of this research work? I remember there was some dispute as regards the research work done by the Dominion at Winnipeg during the last year, and some criticism was levelled, possibly unjustly, at this administration for the absence of reports. I refer to Dr. Birchard.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
speak for the minister, but I see no reason why they should not be made public. They are for the benefit of the trade and the producer. Surely they should be given to the public.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is my opinion, and that is why I was rather astonished to notice that no provision was made for the publication of those documents, for making them available to the public; nor is the minister himself, according to his statement, in a position to assure the committee that these documents will be published.


Charles A. Stewart: I think I
can say on behalf of the government that they certainly would be. The real value of the work would be the publication of the results obtained. I understand recent work of this character has been made public.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will Dr. Birchard be in charge of this laboratory, or is he still with the department?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give my hon. friend information to that effect. I have no knowledge about Dr. Birchard at all. I understand there was some discussion with reference to this gentleman.


Edward Joseph Garland: In that
case, I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that there is going to be unnecessary overlapping. The first subclause of this clause reads:
The Board of Grain Commissioners shall maintain an efficient and adequately equipped laboratory for grain research work and for the purpose of assisting the chief inspector and grain standards board in determining the grades and the milling value of grain.
Determining the latter was certainly one of the chief works undertaken by Dr. Birchard, and if he is still to continue at that kind of

Canada Grain Act
work and to have an additional research laboratory of this kind set up, it looks to me like unnecessary duplication.


Milton Neil Campbell: It appears to me absolutely essential that the services of Dr. Birchard be retained and that he be put in charge of this work. In my opinion-and I have had occasion to consult a good deal of his work-he has done valuable work in this particular line. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) and the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on a previous occasion in the House intimated that Dr. Birchard had not given them reports or had given them very few reports. I have had occasion to look up a number of those reports since, and I find Dr. Birchard has done a great deal of work. It seems to me that his services have not been fully appreciated. Before we pass this clause, we should have some assurance from the government as to what they propose to do, first, whether they expect to retain him in that position or not, and, second, what they intend to do with the reports after they are secured.


Charles A. Stewart: In all probability the minister (Mr. Low) will be in charge of the bill before it is finally passed by the committee, and that matter had better be taken up with him. I have no definite knowledge with respect to Mr. Birchard. I expect he does his work very well. I heard some discussion in the House with reference to his work, but I cannot give a definite promise that any particular individual is going to be retained.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) only minister ad hoc, or has he taken over the department?


Charles A. Stewart: I am acting for the minister just for to-night.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a new venture
or has this laboratory been conducted all along?


Charles A. Stewart: This is not new except, perhaps, that it is new in the statute. This work has been going on.


Arthur Meighen: Is it conducted at Fort
William?


William Richard Motherwell: At Winnipeg.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would ask the minister to let this clause stand until the Minister of Trade and Commerce is here.


Charles A. Stewart: I would be glad to meet my hon. friend's request; but if it is a question of an individual, we will
guarantee there will be a discussion with respect to him. With regard to the clause providing all that is adequate and necessary for carrying on the work of the laboratory, inspectional work, testing work, my hon. friend does not want to add or detract anything from it?


Milton Neil Campbell: No.
Mr. 'STEWART (Argenteuil):	The question is simply one of discussing the present incumbent?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That can
readily be done at a later stage in the bill. I will give my hon. friend the definite promise that opportunity will be given.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the
minister that this scientific work should not be considered part of the administration of the Grain Act so as to be chargeable against the grain growers. This scientific work is done for all other industries in Canada as a government charge. It would not be fair to include it in the cost of the grain administration in order to arrive at the charges that ought to be made against the producers.


Charles A. Stewart: This official is working under the provisions of this act directly in conjunction with the officers who are administering the act.


Arthur Meighen: That is quite proper.


Charles A. Stewart: His salary
and the upkeep of the laboratory do not constitute a very serious matter when the work is beneficial to the whole grain trade.


Arthur Meighen: I am in favour of it,
but it should not be considered part of the general expenses in arriving at an estimate of what the charges should be to the producers. It should be considered separate and distinct from that. Naturally it should be conducted where the grain is.


Charles A. Stewart: Inasmuch as he is associated with all other members of the staff who are dealing with this matter, I cannot see that there should be any serious distinction. I would like to see him continue just as he is.


George Gibson Coote: There was a good deal of
discussion in the House some time ago as regards testing the grain for protein contents. I wonder whether the minister could give us any assurance that this research laboratory which is to be kept at Winnipeg will make chemical tests to determine the protein content of samples of wheat for the producers?
Canada Grain Act


Charles A. Stewart: They are doing it now; that is part of the work.


Milton Neil Campbell: There appears to have been some doubt in the minds of a good many hon. members as to whether this work was to be continued. I understand that the purpose of the section is to equip and maintain a laboratory to carry on the work that Dr. Birchard has been doing. I think we should have some more definite information as to what it is proposed to do. A great many farmers to-day think that they are not obtaining the full milling value of the wheat, and I understand that the purpose of this provision was to permit any farmer to send, over and above the regular grades, samples of wheat to the laboratory at Winnipeg to secure a certificate showing its protein content. That would enable him then to secure a special market if he could establish the fact that he had a product above the average. I presume that is the purpose of this clause.


Mr. SALES:: I do not believe that the government is responsible at all for the introduction of this clause. This was introduced by my hon. friends in this corner of the House. We amended the clause in the committee for two or three different reasons. First of all, it was felt that the laboratory should work more in conjunction with the inspectors, and we thought that the work could be of more advantage if the efforts of the two were correlated so that the inspectors might have the benefit of the chemical tests. This would also be of value to the farmers. There was also a doubt as to whether this laboratory work would be continued in Winnipeg. In discussing the matter the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to be uncertain as to whether it would be continued or not, and that is why we introduced the clause. We are putting the matter under the Board of Grain Commissioners so that there shall be no doubt so far as the laboratory is concerned.


John Millar: At another time I may speak at some length on this matter, because I have been studying it for the last three or four months. I do not propose to take up much time to-night-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Millar: Hon. members fay "hear, hear." Well, I have not spent much time in debate this session and it is my intention to take up just as much time as I need. Hon. gentlemen may therefore just as well sit back and take it easy. There have been some informal conferences with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to the chemical tests, for protein content, of carloads of grain.

For twenty years the farmers have been advocating that the grain should be sold at milling value. They find that this works out very well in the United States. A neighbour of mine had a letter from a friend in Montana a Short time ago and he found that he had sold his wheat at a premium of 16 cents per bushel. In discussing the matter at these conferences the minister has signified his willingness to go as far as we wish him to go this year, and the only request made in that he take a moderate step looking to the time when wheat may be handled in Canada on a basis >of protein content. That is why there has been no effort to press the suggestion that it should be placed in the Grain Act. I think the answer given by the minister in these conferences has been entirely satisfactory. The feeling is that where the mills have in the past been taking out the best of the wheat, getting a product worth six, eight, ten, and anywhere from twenty to thirty cents * more than the average, the farmers ought to derive some advantage in this direction; and it is hoped that in the future they will do so. But there are many difficulties in the way. There is, for example, the difficulty of handling grain and for that reason those around, me who believe that something should be done in this matter are not pressing it strenuously at the present time. Personally I have spent more time considering this subject than any member in this group, and I am quite satisfied with the attitude which the minister has taken.


Mr. OOULD:: I think the change is beneficial in that the laboratory at Winnipeg, or wherever it may be established, will be under the Board of Grain Commissioners rather than under the Department of Trade and Commerce. This I think is wise for the simple reason that the work of the laboratory will be more available to the board as well as to the chief inspector. Being a producer of wheat myself, I have naturally paid some attention to the matter of protein and gluten content of iwheat and I have been interested in trying to find justifiable causes for agitating that a real recognition should be given the merits of the wheat which we produce, so that the producer may be warranted in asking for the full value of his product. I welcome the amendment, which renders unnecessary a good deal of the remarks I intended making. I hope that the chief grain inspector as well as the board will make full use of the laboratory, which is thorough in every respect and is fully equipped, and that as a result of its work there will be an increase in the price of our grain.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Canada Grain Act
Sections 80 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 83-Inspection within Winnipeg district.
Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to have some information regarding subsection (4) relating to re-inspection at Fort William. It is feared in western Canada that the re-inspection as at present undertaken is not unbiased. For example, a car of grain is inspected at Winnipeg and the grade is then wired back before t'he re-inspection is made. We may be wrong, but we believe that the inspector at Fort William is made aware of the grade that is given at Winnipeg, and if this is the case it is a most unjust method of re-grading the grain. The inspector then writes to us a little note something like this: "As requested, I have had the inspector at Fort William again examine the grain in this car upon arrival and I am in receipt of his reply that he found the grain to be only as inspected and could make no change." I wish to know whether the inspector who makes the reinspection at Fort William is made aware of the grade that has already been given at Winnipeg. If that is so it is something that should be stopped.


Charles A. Stewart: He is not made aware of the first grade; he has to make it on his own responsibility from his own sample.
Sections 84 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 87-Board to have control of storage and shipping of grain. Special binning forbidden. Exceptions. Powers of inspector as to cleaning. Stock-taking. Additional stock-taking.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move, seconded by the member for Maple Creek (Mr. McTaggart):
That subsection 4 of section 87 be amended by striking out all the words after line twenty-six down to and including line thirty and substituting therefor the words, "any surplus is found such"
The subsection will then read:
If in any year any surplus is found, such surplus shall be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the proceeds thereof paid to the said board.
That does away with the terminal elevator docking one-quarter of one per cent off each ear of wheat. The wheat is weighed by the government weighman both in and out. One-quarter of one per cent is taken off the farmer at the initial elevator, and at the end
of each year this must amount to a tremendous surplus. For example, on a car of 1,500 bushels it means three and three-quarter bushels, which at the prevailing price would be worth six or seven dollars. This is a direct loss to the farmer.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, not having been present at the meetings of the committee on Agriculture, I should like to know if this matter was discussed there, because I think in fairness to the elevators, if you are going to take all the overages, then you must in some way recompense them in case of shortages. We must play fair both ways.


John Evans: I do not think there need
be a loss at the terminal elevator. The dockage is taken off at the initial elevator also and I claim that when a car is weighed at the terminal elevator it cannot take one-quarter of one per cent to balance the scales. It is too much, and is a very great loss to the farmer. I claim the grain can be weighed without any loss, and that therefore there need not be that loss at the terminal elevator.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend does not suggest that it is taken off the car by the weighmaster. He weighs the car and, as I understand, if there is an overage in the terminal beyond a certain amount the grain board take possession of it and sell it for the benefit of the board. My hon. friend now suggests that the board take it all. I have no brief for the elevators, but I think in fairness to the trade my hon. friend should be willing to recompense any loss that may occur. He is not providing for this, indeed he says it cannot happen. I assume the section came from the committee in this form, and must have been discussed there very thoroughly; therefore presumably they thought it was a fair proportion.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, I support the
minister in his contention that we must be fair in this matter. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) says that a shortage cannot occur, buit I would inform the House that last year a considerable shortage in wheat alone did occur in a very big terminal elevator. I agree with the minister that if we take all this overage, we must in fairness to the elevators assume responsibility for any shortage. Correct weighing in and out of elevators is almost an impossibility, and has been so proved. My hon. friend from Saskatoon was connected for many years with the same company as I was, we sat on the board together, and he knows that we offered our men a bonus
Canada Grain Act

for correct weighing, correct grading and correct docking, yet in spite of that encouragement to them we could not attain our object. As directors we asked ourselves this, and my hon. friend knows it just as well as I do: What does the farmer need for a fair deal?' Our conclusion was that he needs correct weighing, correct grading and correct docking. As I say, we offered a bonus for these three essentials, and never in our experience did our men manage to be correct in all three. It is an absolute impossibility.


John Livingstone Brown: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Saskatoon has given an indication that he does not understand the system of overages at all when he says the overage is taken off at the initial elevator. I find there is a tendency to confuse the overage in the initial elevator with the overage in the terminal elevator. They are two quite different things, and to assert that this one-quarter of one per cent is made provision for at the initial elevator is to state what is absolutely apart from the facts. The overage accumulated in the terminal elevators is accumulated in a way entirely different from the overages accumulated at the initial elevator. The amount that goes from the initial elevator is the gross amount that enters into the terminal elevator, and it is from that gross amount that the overage is calculated. You must cut the one transaction entirely apart from the other if you are to arrive at a just understanding of the situation.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time that the shrinkage is taken off the farmer, and I claim that once is sufficient.


John Livingstone Brown: No, it is not the second time.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is that one-quarter of one per cent is the legal amount the terminal elevator can take for itself. It appears to me that is not going to crush the agricultural industry if it is the only profit that the terminal elevators take. If it were one bushel, or twice as much, perhaps we might have some cause to protest. What we have protested in the past is that anything over the one-quarter of one per cent has been take by the government and applied to consolidated revenue, and as producers of grain in the west we have felt that we were being asked to pay a greater amount of taxation than other industries. I think that is really the gist of the representations made to the Royal Grain Commission. We recognize that the elevators must have some license, or we have got to be responsible for fMr. Sales.]
any shortages which may occur. I do not argue that shortages have occurred very often in the past. In fact the question of shortages is perhaps featured more by the trade than is necessary; never yet have I heard them feature averages. With this provision of one-quarter of one per cent I think we may as well agree with the special committee and say: "Here, you may have your one-quarter of one per cent," and hold the terminal elevators responsible for any shortages that may occur.


John Livingstone Brown: This method of setting the overages has received a good deal of consideration from the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is a method to which I have given my adhesion up to the present time; I am only sorry it has never had a chance, on account of the ruling of the courts, to show how it would work itself out. It may be found when the act comes into operation that the particular fraction mentioned, one-quarter of one per cent, is too much. But what is needed is a proper study of the matter so as to understand the source from which this overage in the terminal elevator is derived. I think if that was fully understood it would be seen that the proposed method is a fair one. Let us try to do away with some of this confusion. Take a carload of wheat that a farmer puts in a country elevator. A shrinkage of one-half of one per cent is allowed the elevator man. Apart from that, and apart from the dockage set by the inspector, he has to give the exact weight that is taken in, so that to try and give the impression that there are three and three-quarter bushels taken off, covered by this one-quarter of one per cent, is absolutely away from the mark. I will not say that the country elevator man may skimp the farmer in his weighing; that is a possibility, but it is something that is not touched in this act. As I said 'before, we have to cut that transaction off right there, and the gross amount that is loaded into the car or goes to the terminal elevator is the amount upon which the overage is based. Even that, perhaps, is hardly a correct statement, because the quarter of one per cent is really based upon the net amount to which the farmer is entitled. So that if the elevator owner has to render an account say on a four per cent dockage car of 960 bushels, the quarter of one per cent is based upon the little overage that may be over. For instance, in cleaning the car no elevator man can clean exactly to the amount of dockage set by the inspector. On a four per cent car the elevator operators are required by law to give the farmer 960

Canada Grain Act
bushels. But no man operating that big machinery, or even a farmer with a fanning mill, could clean through a car of wheat and get exactly 960 bushels out of it. So the elevator owner probably tries to make himself safe, and that is where the trouble has been in the past; he has made himself so safe that he has accumulated big overages. Almost in the necessity of things there is either an overage or a shortage, and naturally he tries to get a little overage. The law steps in and says that that overage shall not be too big; if you have an overage of more than one-quarter of one per cent we will take it away from you. I should think that such a system would tend to efficiency in the operation of elevators. If you took all the overage the operator would say, "Well, it does not make any difference; the government is going to step in and take the overages or make good the shortages, so it does _ not matter to me which way it goes." It seems to me that if this system is given a chance to work itself out, while 10 p.m. the fraction might have to be changed, the results will prove to be beneficial and tend to the proper working of the act.


John Millar: Certainly some small
amount should be allowed to the terminal elevators. How much is allowed to the American elevators? I do not say that we should necessarily follow the Americans, but I understand it is less.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that they have no arrangement for adjustment or protection, one way or the other.


John Millar: Is there no allowance to
the terminal elevators?


Charles A. Stewart: I am told
that nine-tenths of the elevators there are
private elevators.
Amendment (Mr. Evans) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 88-Taking over of screenings and disposal.
Edward Joseph Garland: I would like an explanation of this section, especially with regard to the last three lines, which read:
Provided that this section shall not come into force before the first day of August, 1927, and only then upon the recommendation of the board.
299	<


Charles A. Stewart: I was not in the committee and did not have the privilege of listening to the discussion. Frankly this does seem a rather peculiar section.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has at his right hand the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who, I think, knows all about, it. I would like to have an explanation from him.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not the author of this.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have the minister in charge of the bill admitting ignorance of the application of the section, and the Minister of Agriculture claims no knowledge of it.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh. I know about the section. I think it was an hon. member on my hon. friend's own side who suggested it.


Donald Sutherland: What particular
significance is attached to the first day of August, 1927?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I can learn, it is the date when the new crop year begins in western Canada, and the period at which the weighing up takes place, and so on. That is the only explanation I can give my hon. friend. Frankly I do not know why a section like this comes from the committee, unless it is to give time to consider the matter. I should be very glad if some member of the committee would explain it.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister's explanation imply that there will not be any screenings on weed seeds during the next two years?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no; there will be screenings, but the provisions of this section will not apply before that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why is the control over the screenings placed with the Governor in Council instead of being left with the board or otherwise kept- out of politics? Screenings and politics are bad things to mix.


John Livingstone Brown: Those on the committee
representing the producers really did not want this section put in at all. You will notice by referring to the first draft of the bill that there was a suggestion that the Governor in Council anight take over all the screenings, and sell them under their authority, making proper returns to the producers. Those representing the producers were not particularly enamoured of that proposition. We would have been quite willing to have had that

Canada Grain Act

clause eliminated altogether. There were those, however who had an interest in the use of these screenings who seemed to feel that there was a possibility of the government, in their interests, taking over these screenings and screening them up fine enough so that there would be no menace to the farms of the east. That is the situation. As far as the producers are concerned, we are quite willing this should be eliminated altogether, as we do not see much prospect of making it work out in our interests. However, we have no objection to this going into the act the way it stands, because with two years to consider the matter something might be worked out to meet the wishes of those who consume these screenings, and if they desire this provision, well and good. But so far as the producers are concerned, you can eliminate the whole thing.


Donald Sutherland: The explanation
given on behalf of the government by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is hardly in accordance with the facts. He states the producers are quite satisfied, but that some Other interested parties are anxious that some provision should be made to take care of these screenings because they want to secure them for feed purposes. Those who objected to the stand taken by the hon. member for Lisgar objected for a very different reason than that alleged, not that they wished to get them at any price, but that they wished to protect this country from the great scourge and menace of the distribution of noxious weeds under which it suffered, and it was in order to control and regulate in so far as is possible the spread of noxious weeds in this country that they objected. Por that, and for no other reason, did any controversy arise in the committee over this clause. This is a new section introduced into the first draft bill submitted and which has been emasculated in this way by the amendment which was moved in the committee. In order to prevent the provision coming into effect they put it off for two years from the first of next August. The hon. member for Lisgar states that they were quite satisfied with the act as it was, and to leave this whole section out, but in order to overcome the effect of the clause, they had the original section amended in committee.


John Livingstone Brown: I must absolutely deny the statement made by the hon. member.


Donald Sutherland: What statement?


John Livingstone Brown: The statement I made was strictly in accordance with the facts. I said that those representing the producers were willing to have this particular section eliminated, and that it was not at our request that it was continued there. It was at the request of those representing other interests that it is here at all.


Donald Sutherland: I must give the
hon. member for Lisgar to understand that he does not represent the only producers in this country. There are others who are engaged in production just as much as the hon. member for Lisgar, and it was for the very reason I have outlined that they objected to the provisions which are contained in this section which is now before the committee.


John Livingstone Brown: I am speaking of producers
of western grain.


Donald Sutherland: The Royal Grain
Inquiry Commission went into this matter very thoroughly indeed, as they were justified in doing, and their recommendation as contained in their report referred specifically to the need for doing something along this line. Their recommendation was designed to overcome this menace from which we are suffering to-day. Now we are asked to believe that this is quite acceptable to the producers. I do not know why the hon. member for Lisgar should claim a monopoly in that regard. If he had undertaken to speak for the Progressives, I could understand it, but when he undertakes to speak for all the producers, I must take exception.
As I pointed out, this is a new section, and in this connection I might refer to the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission when dealing with this matter. They put on record in their report the legislation passed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, regulating this menace to which Ontario, Quebec and the eastern, provinces are subjected. These western provinces have the most rigid regulations regarding control over the screenings at elevators and elsewhere, and they take every precaution to see that they are not distributed over the western provinces. Not only that, but owners of threshing outfits are compelled by statute to see that their machines are ,thoroughly swept on moving from one firm1 to another so that they do not Carry from farm to farm an accumulation of -the small noxious weed seeds which gather in the machines, The Grain Inquiry Commission make it quite plain that it is a very easy matter to take these seeds out on the farms where the threshing takes place, that that is the proper place-

Canada Grain Act
to- do this work, but for some reason or other the producers from the west, as -the hon. member for Lisgar states, are anxious that they shall ship their stuff out from the elevators and have it disposed of as dn the past. The railway rights of way :in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific are absolutely infested and polluted with noxious weeds to-day as a result of carrying grain with a large percentage of w'eed seeds in it which shake out of the oars on ,to the track. It is easy to estimate that hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost to the people of Canada by the lack of control over this nuisance which has spread over the farms of Canada. If my friends from the west are determined that this -clause shall be passed as it is, and I presume they have sufficient influence with the government to have their desires carried out in almost any respect, there is one thing I will -predict, although I do not profess to be a prophet, and that is -that at no far distant date the legislature of the province of Ontario will take the same -precautions that have been taken by the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in regard to control -over this nuisance, and when that day cames, my hon. friends will find that it will not be a case of disposing of their screenings at a good -price, as is the case at present, but it will foe a matter of having them destroyed absolutely. That is the way this nuisance will foe -controlled if a reasonable control is not provided in this bill.
I am inclined to think from- observations made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that he is not in favour of having this matter left as it is. Legislation was passed by this parliament two years ago giving the government control over the screenings in such mill feeds -as bran and shorts. The results of that -legislation have been so satisfactory that I -am glad to have this opportunity, of paying the Minister of Agriculture the compliment of having consented to the pa-ssing of legislation whd-ch has given such satisfaction as -this -control has given. This is just another step -along the same line, if control is exercised over it. We have a branch of the Department of Agriculture at the head of which are som-e experts wh-o have -taken a great interest in this matter, and by passing the legislation as it was drafted in the original bill, this matter will be brought under the Feedstuffs Act, so that these officers can exercise so-me control over it an.d -prevent more than a small proportion of noxious weed seeds being sent out over -the country in this way. Otherwise, if the -clause remains as it is, there is absolutely no -control, an-d -the situation will continue as at present. I therefore move: 299i
That all the words after the word "therefrom" in the first line on page 22 of the bill be struck out.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like an answer to my question. I am raising the point because it is important to Vancouver. Representations have been made to me regarding the screenings, and they want to know something about them. The section says:
The Governor in Council may make provision to take over from public terminal elevators the screenings cleaned from grain at such elevators and to dispose of such screenings-
And so on. I am not referring to the noxious weeds part of it, but to the sale of the screenings. The clause says that proper charges to be fixed by the board shall be allowed public terminals for cleaning and removing the dockage from the grain, and the Governor in Council may allow such compensation as may be deemed proper to the owners of the grain for the screenings removed therefrom.
I am not an expert in grain, and I may be speaking in an uninformed manner, but it seems to me not a sound thing that the Governor in Council should have the power of fixing the price, when the price should be dependent upon the market, and the owner should be entitled to the most he can get for his grain; otherwise it would be possible for the Governor in Council to slide these screenings into the hands of some party at a ridiculously low price, and I am told that on occasions such things have happened.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the hon. member is attaching too much importance to the expression "Governor in Council." After all the board would operate, as they do operate, as appointees of the government. No doubt somebody would be appointed under the board to sell the screenings, and the price of the screenings fluctuate the same as grain.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why do you distinguish between the Governor in Council and the board?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no provision apparently in- the act for the method of handling the screenings. My hon. friend will notice that the owners of the screenings are to be compensated. It is all right in theory, but it would be a rather complicated and difficult thing in practice to carry out. I favour the producer getting all he can out of his production, but all that the Governor in Council would do would be to have the board operate under the provisions of this section, and that can only be done in one way. The board would appoint
Canada Grain Act

some one at Vancouver to take charge of the screenings, and to turn the proceeds, after the costs of the operation, to the owners of the screenings.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This section distinctly and directly makes a distinction between the power and authority of the Governor in Council on the one hand and the board on the other hand. That is done for a purpose *and done with an intention-no doubt about it. It is my doubt and suspicion of that intention that causes me to discuss the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend considers the matter for a moment he will see that the very question raised by the hon. member for Oxford is provided for; that is, as to the prevention of the spread of noxious weeds. The board is not an interested party in the spread of the noxious weeds. The board would be interested in connection with the screenings and disposal of the same, but on the other hand the disposal of the noxious weeds would come under another department. Therefore you have the Governor in Council coming in.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister is confusing the matter, although perhaps not deliberately. It is not the noxious weeds I am talking about, nor am I referring to the portions of the section which make a distinction between the authority of the board and the authority of the Governor in Council with respect to noxious weeds. It is with respect to the sale of the screenings, that the proper charges to be fixed by the board shall be allowed public terminals for cleaning and removing the dockage from the grain. This is the one part. On the other hand the Governor in Council may allow such compensation as may be deemed proper to the owners of the grain for the screenings removed therefrom. My point is that the Governor in Council should not interpose at all, but, that the board should sell the screenings for the advantage of the producer in the best market. The Governor in Council should be out of it. Could the minister indicate any reason why the Governor in Council should be brought into it, so far as the sale of the screenings is concerned?


Charles A. Stewart: Not for a
moment, if you are not embodying in the same section the noxious weeds; but you have the two combined in the one section, and as a lawyer my hon. friend will recognize the difficulty. I will say to him that the board will handle the sale of the screenings.
[Mr. C. A, Stewart.3


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
value in the noxious weeds?


Charles A. Stewart: No, they
are a menace and must be taken care of. You cannot throw them overboard.
Mr. CRER.AR:	I think there is a little
confusion in the mind of my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) in respect to this clause. I suggest to my hon. friend that he had better settle his differences with the hon. member for South Oxford, because they stand on quite different ground altogether.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not talking politics.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We may infer from my
hon. friend's remarks that the hon. member for South Oxford was talking politics. The method by which these screenings have been handled in the past has been this: The inspection department set the scale of screenings, .the amount of dockage, and that was taken out when the grain reached the terminal elevator. In the case of cars that did not contain an excess of three per cent of dockage the elevator company retained the screenings for the services it rendered in cleaning the grain. Where the dockage was in excess of three per cent the terminal elevator made a charge for the cleaning of the grain, and made a separate return, a warehouse receipt in fact, for the amount of screenings which were held representing the dockage, the same as they do in the ordinary course of business.


Donald Sutherland: Did they return the screenings to the owner, or was he paid for them?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He was paid for them.
The objection raised by the hon. member for South Oxford-and I see the force of it- brings up the point of conflict between the users of these screenings, who are mainly in eastern Canada, and the producers of grain in western Canada who have them for sale. The clause as originally drafted-and I understand it was drafted by Mr. Justice Turgeon when he prepared the bill-sought to get over that difficulty by entrusting the Governor in Council in effect with the power to dispose of these screenings through some agency they might set up. That agency might be the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why should they not
specify that in the bill?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Or it might be some other body. I think one very good reason why it should not be the Board of Grain

Canada Grain Act
Commisteioners is this: The Board of Gram Commissioners is, in effect, a judicial body; it is not an administrative body buying and selling grain.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Who would do it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I dq not know.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Some political henchman,
perhaps.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Possibly. I objected to
the clause as it stood. You can set up no authority that will handle these screenings nearly as effectively in getting results from them as the method that is followed at the present time. On the other hand, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) urges that if these screenings are handled by such a body, they can be ground or treated in such a way that the menace from foul seeds can be removed from them and the food value retained. There is that conflict of opinion between the man who sells the screenings and the man who uses them.


Donald Sutherland: Where does the
conflict arise? Does the hon. member desire that farmers in the east should purchase the noxious weed seeds?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not desire that at
all, but I do not desire a condition of affairs to arise whereby the farmers of western Canada will get absolutely nothing for their screenings, as I believe would be the case if this were put into operation. May I refer to another point of the hon. member for South Oxford? If these screenings are a menace to the farmers of Ontario for feed purposes, the remedy lies in the hands of the Ontario legislature. They can pass the same legislation in regard to handling these screenings as the legislature of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already done. The amendment in the committee, to which amendment the hon. member for South Oxford objects, leaves it to the judgment of the Board of Grain Commissioners to determine whether or not an injustice is being done to the farmers of eastern Ontario who are feeding the screenings.


Donald Sutherland: After two years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. My hon. friend can
settle that point with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). I support the Minister of Agriculture. I think he was quite right in his suggestion. But in any case the general opinion of those who understand the situation, is that the menace from these screenings is going to grow steadily less each year because methods are being perfected more
and more whereby the screenings are cleaned out on the field at the time the threshing oif the grain is done. I would suggest that the clause pass as it is. If the hon. member for South Oxford or any other hon. member feels aggrieved, he can always make his representations to the Board of Grain Commissioners who, under the clause, after 1927, have power to cure the evil.


Donald Sutherland: What will happen
in the meantime?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What has been happening for the last three or four years? The people will continue to buy the screenings because they have a definite feeding value.


Oliver Robert Gould: Another point in the clause
has been entirely overlooked. The first two lines read:
The Governor in Council may make provision to take over from public terminal elevators-
The hon. member for South Oxford should be well aware of the fact that there are private terminal elevators at the head of the lakes also, and the public terminal elevators have handled in the past about 50 per cent of the grain.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Much more than that.


Oliver Robert Gould: Say 60 per cent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: More like 80 per cent.


Oliver Robert Gould: If the legislation recommended by the agricultural committee should go through, the order will be reversed and private elevators will handle 75 or 80 per cent of the grain, so that the evil that he is endeavouring to remedy will be magnified in the future, because he has not been arguing for a single bit of legislation to circumscribe the activities of private terminal elevators. If this legislation goes through in the manner which he suggested and supported in the agricultural committee, that evil will be magnified. I want the assistance of the hon. member to circumscribe that evil which we recognize as an evil. We do not wish to impose upon him. We want to bring about, legislation that is going to circumscribe all the elevators, not merely the few public terminal elevators that will be left.


Donald Sutherland: Probably the Minister of Agriculture could give some information along this line. I am under the impression that those private terminal elevators come under the Feedstuffs Act. I might state, while the minister is looking this matter up, that the hon. member for Marquette (M*. Crerar) has referred to the danger of the west
Canada Grain Act

not getting full value for their screenings (should this clause apply. I noticed when my hon. friend was a member of the government jin 1917, he took extra precautions to see that (the grain growTers of the west got more than full value for their screenings. In fact, all the screenings at the terminal elevators were purchased at $35 a ton by the Department of Agriculture of which he was Minister and pearly half a million dollars was paid out in connection with this transaction.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think, if my hon. friend looks up the record, he will find out that that arrangement was made before I became Minister of Agriculture.


Donald Sutherland: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. He was sworn in as a member of the government in 1917, and this *move was made early in October.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wrong again because I was not sworn in until the 12t'h October, 1917.


Donald Sutherland: That is what I said on the 12:h October, 1917, and this order went into effect in November of the same year, whereby all the re-cleaned screenings at the terminal elevators were purchased by the then Minister of Agriculture who wTas also at that time president of the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. When he went out of the government in 1919, there was a deficit in connection with the transaction of over $96,000 according to the report talbled in the House. I did not wish to bring this matter up. The hon. member for Marquette must know what took place in this connection. The understanding was that those screenings were to be ground so that the vitality of the noxious weeds contained therein would be destroyed. This was not done, but they were shipped out unground and as a result the country became simply infested with noxious weeds. As a result, provision is made in the Feedstuffs Act for standard re-cleaned screenings with a small percentage of weed seed, and the latter must be ground until the vitality of the small percentage of weed seeds contained in the screenings is destroyed. In that way they become practically harmless, and there is no gainsaying the fact that there is a good deal* of food value in the broken wheat, buckwheat, wild oats and things of that kind, :n those screenings. It would be a shame o destroy them if they can be utilized for feeding purposes. This can be done, but some control must be exercised over them in order to see that they are re-deaned and the vitality of the noxious weeds is destroyed. I believe some attempt has been made to do LMr. Sutherland.]
this in connection with the clause which is now before the committee. It should come under the superintendent of the Seed branch and the Feedistuffs Act to see that every precaution is taken and that the farmers will get full value for the feeding value of their screenings. They can take them back if they wish to use them for feed purposes. Ontario is not worrying about that. They can do whatever they see fit with them; but the producers would be money in pocket if they would separate th ? seed from the grain at the time of threshing, leave them on the farm, and destroy them instead of paying freight on them to the elevator companies and having valuable space in the elevators taken up with storing weed seeds and useless screenings of that kind. The process is very simple. I think the bon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) a couple of years ago pointed out how easy it was, but he stated that the farmers in the west would not pay for threshing weed seeds. Consequently, they allowed the seeds to come out with the grain and in that way they got paid for threshing the dirty grain. The section, I admit, does not go as far as I should like to see it go, but it is some protection at least, and if you accept the amendment recently moved in the committee you destroy the effect of the whole thing and leave matters exactly where they have been in the past. This is a matter that must be dealt with, and if it is taken up in the near future by the province of Ontario, as they will be compelled to do, you can rest assured that during the very next year you will have more drastic legislation m regard to the weed nuisance than is contained in this bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wrong
in his dates, and if he gave the committee any impression that when I was Minister of Agriculture in 1917 I used my influence to fix a high price for screenings in order that the Grain Growers Grain Company might benefit, he has left hon. gentlemen under a complete misapprehension.


Donald Sutherland: The general manager of the Grain Growers Gram Company in sworn evidence before a committee of the House stated that the highest price they received for screenings prior to that time was $8.40 a ton.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not fix it.


Thomas Sales: It takes little to provide
the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) with something to talk about. It is true that screenings at that time, during the war, fetched a high price, but so did everything else. The only fault I find with the

Canada Grain Act
member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who was then Minister of Agriculture, is that he- or whoever it w'as that was responsible for it made a deal whereby screenings were sold to the farmers , of Ontario too cheaply and the result has been a loss of $96,000. These last few lines in the section to which so much objection has been taken were inserted as the final finding of the committee. I may say that the clause created the most ridiculous situation I have seen in my life and we were all disposed to cut the thing out. We do not believe it is workable, but our friends from the east expressed the desire to have this feed and rather than oppose them we consented to give the proposal a trial. We do not think it is practicable, however, and these last few lines were put in in order that the board might have two years to see if they could find some method of dealing with the question. We had the seed commissioner before our committee and he spoke on the matter. Our idea is that the board shall have power in cooperation with the seed commissioner to devise some workable method of handling the screenings and preventing the noxious weeds from spreading all over the country, at the same time giving to the Ontario and Quebec farmers the valuable screenings that are left. That was the sole purpose of the committee in inserting these last lines. I hope that the hon. member will withdraw his amendment and give us a chance to see whether something workable cannot be decided upon.


Donald Sutherland: Why does my bon.
friend single out the Ontario and Quebec farmers? Do the farmers of the west not want some of what he claims to be valuable feed stuffs as well?


Thomas Sales: We cannot afford, under
present railway rates or any rates that we may have to ship grain to Fort William and have it cleaned and pay the freight bade on the screenings into western Canada. That is an impossibility. The hon. member talks as if the farmer in the west is the only man who ever grew any weeds. I want to know where we got them from. We got the seed from the east years ago and we got the weed seeds along with it. And now we are held up as an example of poor farming; we are told that we are poor business men who will ruin the country, and all that sort of thing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But never poor talkers.'


Thomas Sales: Talking is not confined to this side of the House at all.
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 17; Nays, 77.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) suggested a little while ago an amendment which I think might be introduced at this stage. _	_
Evidently the government is determined to see that nothing shall be done in this matter, and the action of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in particular is worthy of note. If there is one hon. member in this House who should have taken a decided stand on the matter it is the Minister of Agriculture; but we have not heard from him. Several representations have been made to him regarding this matter but apparently the committee is not to have the benefit of his experience.


William Richard Motherwell: I voted for the bill to remain the way it is.


Donald Sutherland: An inquiry was
made into this matter by the department a few years ago and a report was submitted as to the impossibility of destroying the vitality of weed seeds except by means of attrition grinders such as might be installed at the elevators. The importance of that improvement has been pointed out but evidently we are not going to take any action in that regard.


Mr. CANNON:: If the hon. member for
South Oxford is to be allowed to repeat the same argument all evening, when is parliament going to prorogue?


Mr SUTHERLAND:: The hon. gentleman has not heard this argument from me before.


Lucien Cannon: Evidently my hon. friend
does not-understand his own argument.


Mr SUTHERLAND:: I want to quote to
the committee the legislation which is in force in Saskatchewan in relation to this subject.
Every person in possession or charge of any threshing machines shall, before removing such machine o.the wagon racks or any part thereof to another farm, thoroughly clean the machine both inside and out by the removal of all seeds and other crop refuse, and cause the wagon racks used in collection with such machine to be thoroughly cleaned and swept immediately after threshing.	M
No person shall for a period of more than five days leave exposed or unprotected at or near any place where grain has been threshed any :screenings the seeds of noxious weeds, nor shall any person place or leave exposed or unprotected, except in a securely constructed building or other closed matter containing such seeds, without having first destroyed the germinating qualities thereof.
The province of Alberta also haa similar
legislation:	[DOT]
No person shall purchase or sell, barter or otherwise dispose of, or remove from any premises any bran, shcrLs, chopped or crushed grain, or cleanings containing seed of noxious weeds, unless the germinating
Canada Grain Act

qualities of such seeds have been destroyed; and no person shall at the time of marketing or warehousing his grain remove from any elevator or mill the screenings screened from such grain so marketed or warehoused, and such screenings shall be burned by the proprietor of the elevator or mill.
Provided that matter containing seeds of noxious weeds may be removed in closely woven and securely tied sacks from any grain elevator or warehouse to be burned or fed to sheep if such sheep are fed and kept within enclosures which are the property of the feeders; and which shall be subject to inspection by weed inspectors.
Lists of the parties to whom screenings are sold shall be furnished monthly to the Minister of Agriculture by the managers of the elevators or warehouses.
Manitoba has also somewhat similar stringent legislation. So far the province of Ontario has not moved in the matter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) through this parliament has now an opportunity to provide a safeguard against the spread of noxious wTeeds contained in the screenings which are being distributed all over the country. Instead, we are to have another year with freedom to scatter broadcast throughout the eastern' provinces these noxious weeds; the menace is to continue because the government does not see fit to put into effect the legislation necessary to control it. If the advice which the Minister of Agriculture has received from his officials in the course of their work throughout the Donum on was acted upon, legislation such as has been embodied in this bill would be put into effect this session, but evidently pressure has been brought to bear by interested parties to defer action.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is simply talking nonsense. All the precautions that he has referred to in Saskatchewan are followed up right in this section, and the proviso to which he objects is inserted because it would take two years for any government to get facilities in the respective elevators to take care of these screenings. i ou cannot get the necessary screening, cleaning and sacking machinery installed in a few months, and therefore two years is given to work it out. The hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) has described the situation exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 89 to 92, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 93-Disputes as to grading. Fresh sample may be required. Board of grain appeal. Etc.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move the following amendment:
That section 93 be amended by inserting after the worn "commissioners" in the forty-second line, the fodowing words, "provided that the wheat-producers shall be adequately represented on such appeal board." 
This section provides for an appeal board, tvhich is to consist of an appeal inspector and eight other competent persons who shall also be appointed by the Board of Grain Commissioners. My amendment is for the purpose of insuring that the wheat-producers shall be adequately represented on this appeal board.


Mr. HEALY:: What does the hon. gentleman mean by "adequate representation"?


George Gibson Coote: I would think four out of
the eight members would be adequate representation.


Ernest Lapointe: No one would know what adequate representation means. It is as indefinite as adequate protection.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would suggest
adequate representation wmuld mean that if the wheat-producers control 50 per cent of the crop they should receive 50 per cent of the representation on the board.
Amendment (Mr. Coote) negatived: Yeas, 33; Nays, 56.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the minister say whether the three inspecting officers are separate and distinct?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Charles A. Stewart: It is almost impossible for me to hear the hon. gentleman.
the CHAIRMAN: Order. If those hon. gentlemen who are speaking would kindly stand while doing so it would be easier for the Chairman to recognize them.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Subsection one of this section says that if there is dissatisfaction with the finding of the inspecting officer in the grading of such grain there may be an. appeal therefrom to the chief inspector, or, at Calgary, to the inspecting officer at that point. Is the inspecting officer at that point a different official from the officer who makes the initial inspection of the grain?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I attended a great many
farmers' meetings last fall where much dissatisfaction was expressed with regard to the grading we were receiving for our grain. At practically every one of those meetings the feeling was very strongly expressed by the farmers that on what was then called the survey board there should be representatives of the farmers themselves. Possibly I used an unfortunate word in my amendment when I said "producers," but if they are not wheat producers I do not know what they are.

Canada Grain Act
Whose wheat is it that is being graded, anyway? It is wheat that belongs to those wheat producers, and under the present act they have not a word to say as to the grading of the grain they produce. I think we had a better chance under the old act than we have under this; at least it could not have been any worse. Under the old act those who were on this survey board, as it was then called, were for the most part nominated by the boards of trade of the different cities. Last fall we appealed to the Board of Grain Commissioners and they were good enough to appoint on the board at Calgary a representative of the farmers or producers. All I asked in the amendment which was voted down a few moments ago was that the wheat growers or producers should be adequately represented on this appeal board. The head of the board is to be a man who has held the position of deputy inspector and he is going to have the departmental or official viewpoint of the grading of the grain ; he is not going to take the view, if I may so put it, of the producers or the growers. The final say in the matter of the grading lies in this appeal board, because if the appeal board reverse the inspector's decision often enough they will practically force the inspector to grade the grain according to their understanding or their judgment of what the grading should be. It is one of the most important things for the farmers or the producers that they should have a proper appeal board, and they should have some representative on this board to see that they get a fair deal. Now, if we cannot get that, what can we get out of this committee? I am going to present another amendment which I hope the committee will at least consider charitably. I move that section 93, subsection one, paragraph (e) be amended by adding thereto the following words: "one of which members shall be a representative of the producers."


Charles A. Stewart: The wheat
pools are now bound to be a very important factor in the handling of grain. The chairman of the board informs me that they will be very glad to appoint representatives of the producers or tire farmers as 11 p.m. members of the board, that is, that a fair proportion of the eight members who constitute the board should be representative of the producers. These men would need to live close to Calgary or Winnipeg if they are to be called in for the purposes of appeal.


George Gibson Coote: All my amendment asks for is that one member of the board which will hear appeals shall be a representative of the producers.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we all
know what my hon. friend is trying to attain. This was a moot question many years ago. When I was a member of the survey board at Winnipeg I used to get my notice of the meeting about a week after the survey was held, and the arrangement was found to be entirely impracticable. These surveys are held on five or ten minutes' notice, and you have to be immediately accessible in order to function on the survey board, so that whoever is appointed must be located within convenient access of the various points where the surveys are held. I think it would be unfortunate to make selections of the personnel of the board on any vocational basis. The men who are wanted for this work are men who are capable of surveying and passing on questions of appeal that come up from the inspection department, regardless of what their vocation may be. My hon. friend's object is quite all right, but efforts to attain it [DOT] have been made for a quarter of a century, without success. It may come sometime, but it is not in sight yet.


George Gibson Coote: A farmer was appointed at
Calgary and sat on quite a number of appeals this fall.


Charles A. Stewart: Is he close
to the city?


George Gibson Coote: He lives in the city. 1
rather think the commissioner will bear me out when I say that the system is working satisfactorily there now. All I am asking is that the provision be inserted in the act. The amendment which I have presented is certainly workable by the board.


William Richard Motherwell: I think myself it
is a good thing to have in practice, but I question very much the advisability of putting it into legislation. Take the standards board, for instance. My hon. friend knows very w'ell that the producers of grain to-day have absolute control of the standards board as regards numerical strength. I believe the producers will be given full representation, without saying in the act in so many words that such and such a class must be given representation.


Robert Forke: The minister speaks about
classes, but there is no other class in the same position as the people who own the grain.
Canada Grain Act

They are far more interested than the buyers. There is nothing to prevent the commissioner appointing a man who will be satisfactory to the farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: We cannot be
undertaking to reinspect our own grain.


Charles A. Stewart: I can see no objection to the hon. member's amendment except this: If the man is going to be of any value he must of necessity be a resident of the city. What the hon. gentleman wants to do is to have the producers, as he designates them, name one of the members of the board who shall act in this capacity.


George Gibson Coote: All the amendment says is
that of the three men sitting as an appeal board, one shall be a representative of the producers, and it will be one of those appointed by the board. That is covered in the preceding part of the section. There is no question but that he must be a member of the board.


Charles A. Stewart: If it should develop that the representative is not a resident of the city, you will hold up the appeal; do not forget that. He must be available at almost instant call.


George Perry Graham: Does not this fix it? If there was not a proper farmer in the city, they could name some other man to represent him?


George Gibson Coote: AH my amendment asks for is that the farmers shall be represented. It does not say that their representative shall be a farmer, but the farmer might suggest certain members, for instance, of the wheat pool, and they are in the cities of Calgary and Winnipeg and other places.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Neil Haman McTaggart: Will the members of the appeal board serve during the pleasure of the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: During good behaviour.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 94 and 95 agreed to.
On section 96-Grades in western inspection division.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to impress upon the minister that the grades should be more clearly defined, particularly the grades for spring wheat. We have been caused no end of trouble through not having the grades
I'Mr. Forke.]
clearly defined. If anyone will take the trouble to read the report of the Royal Grain Commission he will find that they mention the desirability of having the grades more specifically defined. I know the matter was discussed at some length in the committee, and I shall not take up time now, but I understand that the commission are willing to have the chief inspector declare each year, if necessary, what we might call an interpretation of the grades as they are set out here in section 96. In fact, such an interpretation is now prepared by different houses in Winnipeg and issued, I think, to the trade for the guidance of their grain buyers. If we could have the assurance of the minister that the commission will undertake to include in their regulations, which are covered by section 147, such an interpretation, and this interpretation will be sent to country elevators where the farmers who are selling this grain can see it and get an idea of what is really meant by No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and so forth, I am content to allow the section to pass as it is in the act, but if the grades are not more clearly defined than they are here, I think it is very necessary that the inspector should prepare this interpretation of grades and have it posted in each country elevator for the guidance of those who are selling their wheat.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean a description of the grades for the information of the producer at the country elevator.


George Gibson Coote: I will try and answer the
minister by referring him specifically to one of these grades, No. 2 Manitoba northern, which this section provides " shall consist of hard red spring wheat, equal in value to marquis wheat, and which shall be sound and reasonably clean." I would ask the minister what the word " sound " means. I would ask any man in the House to define "sound." I do not think any two of them will agree on a definition. Then we get variations, " sound," and " reasonably sound." The inspector can very easily give us a definition of the word "sound." I have one in my desk which I could give the committee if they would care to have it inserted in the act, but I think the committee were of the opinion that that should not be done, that it would be better for the chief inspector to send to each country elevator an interpretation of these grades. He could interpret the word "sound" and the terms "reasonably sound," " reasonably clean," and so forth and state what percentages of kernels might be allowed in No. 3 wheat which showed some sign of

Canada Grain Act
damage from bleaching or hail or slight frost. The present manner of grading wheat is causing all kinds of trouble and disputes between the farmers who are selling their wheat and the elevator operator, particularly in regard to spring wheat. I certainly think it is due to the farmers of western Canada who are paying for all this inspection that there should be posted up in each country elevator an interpretation of these grades, as closely as the inspector can define them. I have talked this over with the chief inspector, and he told me he thought it could be done satisfactorily enough, but I would like to have the promise of the minister that that will be done, because I understand the inspector is only an official of the department, and of course, he will not issue this interpretation of the grades unless he is instructed to do so.


Charles A. Stewart: I can say,
and I am backed by the chairman of the board, that anything that the inspector promised my hon. friend in the way of an explanation of the grades that can be done will have the sanction of the board, and it will be sent out as he suggests. But I would point out to my hon. friend that he is asking for something that will be pretty difficult of accomplishment. The inspection of grain is hedged around with a good many safeguards. If I go to a country elevator with a load of grain, and am doubtful of the grade I am getting. I have recourse to the inspector, and can send samples and have the grain inspected by an expert in this line. I do not necessarily need to take the inspection of the country elevator, unless I am determined to sell it at the moment and get my money. All these things are provided for, but my hon. friend wants an elaborate description of what soundness, for example, means. He has been in western Canada long enough to understand the situation. I had occasion to go back last year, after being five or six years away from selling grain altogether, and I found everybody up in arms regarding the grading they were getting, and they had frozen wheat. You may find kernels of wheat touched with frost around a brush patch, and no frost apparently on the rest of the ground .at all, and yet there is sufficient evidence of it to knock a grade off. That is the cause of a great many rows between the vendor and the purchaser of the grain. If we can give them a definition that will be posted up in the country elevator of the description of the grain, certainly the board will be glad to acquiesce and will have that definition posted up at such place.


George Gibson Coote: I have a definition of the
word "sound" which I think the dhief inspector agreed to. It is the first time I ever heard a grain man give a satisfactory explanation of that word. The definition is: "Sound'' means well matured and not showing material damage from frost, rust, bleaching, hail or green kernels, but sound shall be deemed to include what is commonly known as "piebald" wheat.
If there is one thing that has caused endless discussion between wheat growers and elevator men and even deputy inspectors, it is what is commonly known as piebald wheat. But the inspector assured myself and other members that in his opinion sound wheat included piebald wheat.


Charles A. Stewart: If you took your grain to the elevator and the elevator graded it No. 2, and you objected and said it was a higher grade, no matter if you had your wall plastered over with descriptions, I do not think you could make the elevator increase the grade. Your only remedy would be to take a sample and send it to the chief inspector, who is the authority for fixing the grades. I am not arguing for the elevator, but I fail to see where it is going to be any help in fixing grades. If you can show me that it is, I am willing to be advised.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister agree
to put in the act the definition which I have just read to the House. I think it would be a considerable guide to the man selling wheat and the country buyer, because the country buyer does not know at the present time whether an inspector who is going to grade his car will consider that a sample of wheat has, say, 20 per cent of piebald kernels in it is going to be judged sound or not. I had the word of the chief inspector that piebald *wheat was in his judgment sound, and I think that is the reason why he says that No. 1 northern shall contain 60 per cent of hard vitreous kernels; but we cannot get some inspectors to agree that the piebald kernels are sound, and they say, "If you have piebald kernels in your wheat you cannot get No. 1." I do want to get something which will possibly make it easier, not only for the grower, but for the country elevator operator as well. I will' agree to what the minister says that it is impossible absolutely to define these grades, but I think we are entitled to have them defined as nearly as possible. That is all I am asking, and the chief inspector assured some of the members that such an interpretation clause could be drafted which would state the percentage of rye in wheat which would cause No. 1 to grade No. 2. If a man had a few

Canada Grain Act
kernels of rye in his wheat, the elevator man would say, "I cannot give you No. 1 for that," and yet he would declare that he could not tell you just what percentage of rye in your wheat would cause it to grade No. 2. Surely the chief inspector can tell that; he can tell what percentage of barley in wheat would cause it to grade No. 2 or No. 3, or what percentage would cause it to be classed as "rejected." I think the farmers who are paying for the inspection are entitled to this. Those who oppose stating the grade in definite language say that if you state a certain percentage of damaged wheat may be in No. 3 you are going to hurt your sale to the Old Country buyer. I do not think there is anything in that, because the Old Country buyer, takes into consideration the quality he has been accustomed to receive under these grades and not the definitions of the Grain Act. That difficulty can be overcome if the minister will send out an interpretation clause to the country.


Charles A. Stewart: I can understand my hon. friend's difficulty in regard to foreign matter in those grades, but frankly I do not follow my hon. friend in any other direction. But the chairman of the board says that whatever promises were made to members of the committee by the chief inspector in the way of description will be carried out and posted in the local elevators for the benefit of the operators.


George Gibson Coote: If we do not get along any better this year, I presume we can come down and ask to have the act amended next year.


Charles A. Stewart: The act is always open for amendment.


Mr. JELLIFF:: My recollection is that
this matter was pretty well discussed in the committee, and it was left with the understanding that the chief inspector and Board of Grain Commissioners would put in the elevators such description of these grades and such definitions of these terms as has 'been asked for by the hon. member for Macleod. I think we can rely on that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 97 to 102, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 103-"No grade" grain; "condemned."
George Gibson Coote: Section (1) of section 103
says:
All good grain that has an excessive moisture, being tough, damp or wet or otherwise unfit for warehousing, shall be entered on the inspecting officer's books as 
"no grade", with his notations as to quality and condition.
Could we not have these notations as to quality and condition, which I presume would include the percentage of moisture in the grain, on the inspector's certificate for the benefit of the man who had his grain graded "tough" or "damp" or "wet?" At the present time he is told simply that his grain is tough or wet. He does not know, how much moisture is in it, therefore, does not know whether he has been paid the proper amount for his grain.


Charles A. Stewart: I think you can get- that upon request, but it is rather a difficult thing to plaster your certificate with the moisture content. I am informed that it has been furnished on request in every case.


George Gibson Coote: It should be furnished without request. The man who has his wheat graded " damp " or " tough " is very often taken by surprise. He diid not know but what he had dry grain. It is surely no trouble to the department to write on this inspection certificate " tough; test 16 per cent or 17 per cent moisture." The United States certificate will, in some cases, give you ten different items, whereas our certificate states only two things,, first, the grade and then the dockage. In the case of tough grain the moisture conter,1. should be stated on the certificate. The department has to make that test and determine the moisture content.


Charles A. Stewart: Wherein
would my hon. friend be benefited even if he-had the exact moisture content?


George Gibson Coote: 
Edward Joseph Garland: I most -heartily support my hon. friend (Mr. Coote) in the position he has taken. I will give the minister one illustration of what might happen and how a benefit will accrue to the farmer. Supposing we take the illustration given by my hon. friend where the excess percentage of moisture as only .2 or .3 or .5 above the actual test line. The grade is dropped 'o tough from a straight grade, meaning a loss to the farmer on occasions as high as ten or eleven cents a bushel on tough grades. Frankly, I would willingly turn my grain over from one bin to another in the hope ol removing some of the moisture, letting it dry out of the grain, or spread it, if by doing so I could save four cents a bushel, and I would feel I was well recompensed for my trouble in doing that. If I have shipped out a car that is graded tough and I know that the rest of the grain would grade tough to the same extent, I would readily turn over the rest of my grain in the hope of drying it out to some degree. In that way, it is of some advantage to have the percentage of moisture stamped on the certificate.


William John Ward: If the committee will permit a personal reference, I can give an example of a car I had myself. I was threshing on my farm; we had threshed 1,000 bushels of barley that had never been moistened with rain from the time it was cut. There came rain, and the thresher in his hurry to get on induced me to start half a day earlier than I should have done. We put 400 bushels more into this car which I thought at the time might grade tough. It went, however, to the elevator and these 400 bushels of barley were put on top of the 1,000 bushels. The car went to Winnipeg where it was inspected and graded tough. I demanded a reinspection and the reinspection showed that the barley had just gone 14.5 per cent of moisture, but I was losing ten cents a bushel. I at once protested to the company and refused settlement. The company reconsidered the whole matter, and I was paid the full price of standard grade barley. That is evidence that what the hon. member for Macleod has said is true, that is, in many cases where grain is graded "tough,"' just going one or two or three points beyond the standard as set by the grain standards board, the elevator companies would be forced to recompense the farmer instead of taking away that ten cents a bushel. This is one of the best points made in the whole debate. The clause that we are considering now is the most important clause in the Grain Act. It is the basis, the criterion of the whole production of wheat, if you like. After the farmer has produced his grain, if he cannot get proper grades for it and proper consideration, as he is usually running within three or four per cent of the profit and loss line at the very best, if he loses ten cents a bushel on a car of grain simply because it goes a few point's above the moisture standard, it is a pretty serious matter for the poor fellow.


Charles A. Stewart: I was not in the committee, but no doubt a very important matter like this was thoroughly discussed. I am told it was discussed in the committee and that the (chief grain inspector gave evidence there. I do not know the nature of that evidence, ibut as regards nearly all the grain nowadays, we do mo.t suffer to the same extent as we did formerly when drying facilities were not provided. Practically all the terminal elevators have drying facilities, and if the grain is not damaged too much by moisture, it can be dried and put into its proper grade. I have suffered on more than lone occasion, because I happened to live in the northern part of the province where we would have damp grain, by having grain graded "damp," and I know something about that. But, on the other hand, when we send forward grain of that character, we shall have to put up somewhat with the consequences. I did not hear the inspector give his evidence, but it is a fairly delicate thing to get within one or two points of the moisture content. Now that we have drying facilities I thought that difficulty was pretty largely overcome.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: One reason why the inspection staff does not think it good business to put the percentage of moisture on the certificate is this. High class wheat will stand more moisture than flow grade wheat. Therefore, you would have to have a classification in that respect. For instance, No. 1 wheat can have the full percentage of moisture, in fact, a little more, and it will keep. But if you have frozen wheat or lower grade wheat wiith the same percentage of moisture, you know it will not keep. If you began to prescribe the percentage of moisture on your certificate, you would get all involved, because it would depend on the quality of the wheat how much moisture it would really stand. A number of hon. members have asked: well, if it was just two points over fourteen, why should there be discrimination and why should we drop into the next grade? That is one of tlhe difficulties of any grading system. There must be an arbitrary point fixed. If the moisture goes over that point, 'the wheat becomes tough
Canada Grain Act

wheat and ithat arbitrary point is fixed at 14 points. If you put it at anything else, you have just the same difficulty.
iMr. GARLAND (Bow RiveO : We are not disputing that. All we are ashing is to let us know what our tough grade is.


William Richard Motherwell: You have that
difficulty. I have no doubt that many a car of No. 1 northern will be let through with a slightly higher percentage of moisture than No. 2.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then let it go through as a straight grade then.


William Richard Motherwell: But you could
not let a No. 1 feed do that, or No. 4 or 5, which was damaged, because it would not stand it.


George Gibson Coote: The minister has misunderstood me. All I ask is that when wheat is graded tough it should be stated on the certificate what the percentage of moisture is. I am not asking that it be stated in every case but only where the grain is graded tough or damp. Possibly the committee has spent sufficient time on this question and as hon. members are impatient to move along we may leave it with the Board of Grain Commissioners or with the chief inspector.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have a good deal of
sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. C'oote), but possibly this matter might be left to the board and the chief inspector. I would point out however that a great deal of the grain graded tough and damp by the inspectors is not subjected to any moisture test at all. It is so evident, in the examination of the grain that it is tough that no test is made. My impression is only a comparatively small amount goes through the moisture test, and if you lay down a regulation requiring the percentage of toughness in all cases to be stated on the certificate you will increase the staff that will be necessary to handle that class) of grain, and consequently add to the expense. But where the grain is actually tested there is no reason why the percentage of moisture should not be shown on the certificate.


George Gibson Coote: I should regret very much
if the inspection department countenanced any such loose practice as grading any wheat tough without giving it a moisture test. I am satisfied that such is not the case at Calgary; any wheat graded there is put through the test.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 104 to 115 inclusive agreed to.

On section 116-No discrimination.
Arthur Meighen: What is the change here?


Charles A. Stewart: The main
conditions are in the two provisos and' were fully discussed in the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 117 to 139 inclusive agreed to.
On section 140-Private elevators and powers of board.
John Millar: I move that subsection (a) be amended by striking out all the words between the word "elevator" in line 1 and the word "ishall" in line 4 and by striking out the works "except as aforesaid" in line 18.
It would then read:
A private elevator shall receive only such grain as is the property of the person or corporation operating such elevator, and no such elevator shall conduct a public storage business or receive any grain upon terms requiring another person to pay storage charges thereon or in respect thereof; Provided, however, that it shall be lawful for the organizations of grain producers known as grain pools and incorporated in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, by acts of the respective legislatures of such provinces, and for any other person or corporation which in the opinion of the board, is empowered to act and is in fact acting on behalf of or in co-operation with them or any of them, to operate private elevators and to receive into such elevators grain shipped by such producers as are members of any one of the said Grain Pools.
This I believe is the most important clause in the Grain Act. Two years ago when I moved a resolution in this House that a Grain Inquiry Commission be appointed, I had in mind particularly this practice of mixing in private elevators. Let me trace the course of grain from the farmer's wagon through to the Old Country. Our grain is sent to Winnipeg and inspected, but there the mills and the mixing elevators have the opportunity of going into the inspection department and picking out the good grain. This takes off what we call the cream-the best of the grain. Of course, those who are picking the cars are going to pick the best. The grain now goes to the public terminal elevators, but it is of the poorest, that is, it is the lowest of each grade; the best of the grain has gone to the mills and to the private elevators. The producers contend that by this practice the grain is being deteriorated. The grain that goes into the private elevators in some cases is moved into boats, in other cases it goes over to the public elevators. If the grade of the grain out of the public elevators is lowered by this, then when the grain reaches the Liverpool market it brings a lower price, because the British buyer is very keen and knows exactly the value of what he is re-

Canada Grain Act
ceiving, and it has been found that at any time a change takes place in the grade there is an immediate change in the price. Now, if by any practice the grain, after it leaves the farmer's wagon, is lowered in value before it reaches the Liverpool market, the price the farmer will receive at his initial shipping point will be less. Let me give some reasons why I believe this is so. Three years ago when we had the matter of the wheat board up for discussion, I took occasion to ask each of the millers who gave evidence on oath before the committee this question:	Do" you
as readily take grain from the mixing elevators as from the public elevators? In each case they answered:	No, they would not
take the grain from the mixing elevators if they could get it anywhere else. That was about the substance of their statement.


Robert James Manion: Might not that possibly
be because sometimes when there is no mixing a miller might get a No. 2 northern of very high grade as a sort of present to himself, and on another occasion he would get a low grade? Very often he knows at least the minimum of the grade, but not the maximum, and he might occasionally get the maximum very much better than he expected; is not that very often the case? Whereas in the mixing elevator the grade would be more even? I am asking for information.


John Millar: It seems to me that the
average all goes into the public bins, and therefore I cannot see that what my hon. friend mentions would occur. The plain statement of those millers was that they would not take grain from the mixing elevators if they could get it as readily from the others. Objection was taken in the committee on Agriculture to the statement that one of those gentlemen was in the practice of buying from the mixing elevators. I remember quite well the same gentleman gave evidence before the Grain Inquiry Commission, and there he stated what I have credited to him. that he did not usually take grain from the mixing elevators, but that he had a special arrangement with some mixing elevators, and under it he was taking grain.
For some time I have looked for any occurrence which would enable us fairly accurately to measure the amount of damage that was done by this practice, and I think the opportunity came at the Vancouver meeting. I was present there a year ago when the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made the statement before the Board of Grain Commissioners that, shipping from Vancouver, they were receiving in some cases five cents
a bushel more when the grain was sold on sample than they could get when it was sold on grade. That is, Vancouver being a new port there were no mixing elevators there. The British buyer in bidding for that grain on grade bid the price of the grain he had been receiving, and of course in the past he had been receiving it through the eastern elevators.


Charles A. Stewart: That was unmixed grain.


John Millar: That is what I say. This
unmixed grain going out in its pure state brought in some cases five cents a bushel more than the mixed grain going through the eastern ports.


Charles A. Stewart: We shall
have a very prolonged discussion if we take up the question whether it is advisable to mix or to send our grain through straight grade. But the purport of my hon. friend's amendment is to permit only pools to mix?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very much mistaken if that is not what it means. As I get his amendment and the provision in the act, it would confine mixing to the wheat pools.


John Livingstone Brown: The purport o>f the amendment is to make it legal for the private terminals to mix only the grain that they have actually bought outright.


Charles A. Stewart: Will that
not have the effect of drifting back to a very serious difficulty that we have always encountered in dealing with the man who has to sell his grain on the street? If he does not join the pool he will be in the same position that he has always been in; you cannot by any process of law under this act do anything to help him. He has to sell his grain to private interests at such prices as they are willing to pay him. If that is not the effect of it, I would like to be put right.


John Millar: This has nothing to do
with mixing in country elevators. It has to do with the terminal elevator and the private elevator.


Charles A. Stewart: But it works back to that point.


John Millar: I think the minister is
mistaken there. It was pointed out in the committee that as Alberta was a new province it was producing cleaner and better wheat than the older provinces which had more weeds. When you analyze this argument you find there is not much in it. It is not a question whether the whole crop of Alberta is
Canada Grain Act

better than the whole crop of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The question is this: is the No. 1 northern or No. 2 northern or No. 3 northern that goes out by the port of Vancouver five cents a bushel better than the No. 1 northern or the No. 2 northern going out of eastern ports? The wording of the definition has stood the same for many years. Can any one believe that a change has .taken place whereby the grain delivered through the eastern ports is worth five cents a bushel less than it was 15 or 20 years ago? I think not. It may be that a smaller percentage of the grain is getting into the higher grades, but the grain that does reach No. 1 northern or No. 2 northern should be practically as good to-day as it was ten years ago. Now, the comparison I was making was between No. 1 northern out of the eastern port 12 m. and No. 1 northern going out of the western port, and the statement was made that in some cases the grain going out of the western port was receiving when sold on sample five cents a bushel more.


Robert James Manion: Was the grain going
through the eastern port sold on sample too?


John Millar: No.


Robert James Manion: That might account for
the difference.


John Millar: Let me make this plain.
The grain going through the eastern port was being sold on grade; those who were buying it knew for months past just what they were going to receive, and on that they bid a certain price. When they were asked to bid for grain going out of Vancouver they naturally bid the same price, expecting the same grade; as it was a new port they were not accustomed to buying grain going out by that route. But when the grain was actually received and they looked at it they paid five cents a bushel more. That, it seems to me, fairly indicates the amount of damage- perhaps it is an extreme case-done by mixing. In corroboration of that I could quote from the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend attribute that to the practice of mixing?


John Millar: I do. I quote from page
159 of the report of the commission:
On this market the miller discriminates between Manitoba's via Vancouver and the same grades via Atlantic ports, Vancouver ones being 6d. and sometimes a shilling per quarter (8 bushels) more than Atlantic ones, and Vancouver fours being just about as much as Atlantic threes. This disparity in price and values had prevailed for some time.

There is an argument that is very difficult to get over. In the western port there are no mixing facilities, so that the grain goes out in its pure state; and according to the statement of the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) a year ago, it was bringing in some extreme cases five cents a bushel more. According to the report I have just read it is bringing from sixpence to a shilling more on the British market.
It is not always possible to get honest inspectors. I do not say they are all dishonest, but there is very much greater temptation in grading grain out of a private elevator than out of a public elevator. The difference in cash to the terminal elevator company as between one grade and another ' means an enormous sum of money. It may be 300,009 or 400,000 bushels and the difference in grade amounts to a great deal, so that there is a strong temptation for the grader to be influenced, perhaps by a bribe, or it may be by some other influences. You may say this never occurred, but it has occurred. There, was one case to which I have referred on a previous occasion:	a
cargo going out to the United States went out as straight No. 2, and it was found on being held up at Buffalo that it graded three tough. You can understand that when a cargo goes out of the public elevator the grading makes little or no difference to the public elevator company; there is not the same inclination or temptation to bribe an inspector as there is in the case of a private elevator. I am inclined to think that the private elevators give the inspection department a great deal more trouble than the public elevators. We had a very thorough investigation into the grain business. I believe the government appointed as good men as could be found and they travelled over the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. I have no doubt that they took into very careful consideration the evidence that was given on this matter of mixing. I am told on very good authority that on the occasion of a meeting at Winnipeg, when they were discussing this matter with the solicitors representing the private elevators, somebody suggested a compromise. I am told-I have not positive proof, but it came so Straight that I can hardly believe it is not correct; and I understand it is in the evidence-that they said to the solicitor, "Would this compromise be satisfactory to you?"-that is, the compromise found in the original act drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon. I am told the solicitor for the private companies said yes. I think possibly some members of this House

Canada Grain Act
may know if that is wrong. If it is wrong,
I will be glad if they will correct me, because I do not wish to do anybody any harm, but I am told on good authority that that is correct. If that is the case, it would seem to me that the private elevator companies were rather double-crossing the Grain Inquiry Commission. They had agreed with the commission that that was a fair compromise, and they were satisfied with it, and that was put in the act on the strength of that agreement. Then they came down here and put up a fight in the committee and got that clause changed, struck out what was :n the act, and got something new giving broader powers to the mixing elevators than they ever had before. It seems to me they did not act well.
The point that this amendment covers is this: In the past the act has called uipon the inspectors inspecting grain out of the private elevators ito grade it up to the average of the grain going out of the public elevators. Now in practice I think I am safe in saying it has been found that that was impossible; they have not been able to do it. Argue os they may that the grain is just as good, if it was why would not the millers of Ontario as readily buy it? I am convinced it is not as good, and that is our reason for objecting to the mixing elevators.
A change was made in the new act drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon providing for this: Grain inspection out of the private elevators shall hereafter grade up to the average of the grain passing Winnipeg. Now that, you will see, is a change. It requires a higher grade. It is argued by some that that is impossible, that you cannot keep the average from the private elevator up to the average passing Winnipeg, for the reason that the mills are picking out the best all the time, and by the time the grain reaches the public elevator it is lower in grade, and therefore to set that standard for a private elevator is an impossible standard. Theoretically I believe that is true, but we know that it has been impossible for the inspection department to live fully up to the act in the past, that although the act provided for grain going out of private elevators to be up to the average of grain, going out of the public elevators it has not been the case, at least, that is our contention. Then it would seem to me that in practice, if this clause is left in the act, wha.t will take place is this: The standard of the grain coming out of the private elevators will be higher than in the past, but it will still be less than the average passing the inspection point at Winnipeg. Now if that 'is accomplished by the amendment that I sug-300



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
gest, I think the producers will be fairly well satisfied, but they have now great cause for dissatisfaction feeling that the grain they are producing is inspected at Winnipeg at a very much higher standard that. the same grain carriers when it reaches Liverpool, the place where the price is fixed.
I would Like to take one more objection to the mixing elevators. I have found it impossible to deal with this amendment without touching on- a great many arguments that bear on the question of mixing and no mixing. We are not asking -that mixing be done away with entirely, but I have found it absolutely necessary to touch on these different aspects of the question.
Here is -a point il wish to draw to -the committee's attention: It is argued by some that mixing, if done at all, dhould be done as close as possible to the producer, as idlose as possible to the place where the grain iis grown. From that view I dissent -vary strongly. Here is what fakes place: Grain that never should be milled together is mixed without any thought of whether the mixing improves or destroys the mailing value. There are certain kinds of wheat such as Kota that require when it is tempered-some millers will know this, but this Millar does not know it-much more moisture in temperature; when you piut -that with grain that requires very little moisture, and try to mill the two together, the wheat is damaged very seriously. There are several types of wheat like that in Canada, and in the United States there is Montana wheat, which has been found to be high in gluten in quantity but low in quality. Millers have found if they .mix a little sprouted grain with that it improves it for milling purposes. Now the mixing is done ait Port Arthur, not with any thought of increasing the milling value, but of getting past the iir-spector, and my 'contention is that frequently the value of the wheat for millling purposes is seriously damaged'. Where the mixing should be done is after the price is fixed at Liverpool. The grain, should be sold in its pure state. Let the price first be fixed, that is, -the basis of the farmer's price, and then lelt expert millers take the grain, picking out the varieties that should be milled together to improve its milling quality. That lean be done by expert millers, and the value will then be increased by mixing. They will mix blends that will give the best results. In that way by the time it reaches the mill they will have what they want. At the present time it would seem reasonable to conclude that frequently the grain is .mixed in such a way as to seriously damage the grain for milling purposes, rendering it of less value. That is all I am going

[Stage Direction]
Canada Crain Act
[Stage Direction]
to say at the 'present time on this matter. I have three other amendments, ail bearing on this one, and if the first carries the others should carry in consequence, but if the first fails, there is not much use in presenting the others. I say again, I 'have taken considerable time because this As tlhe most important question 'in the whole Grain Act, and every farmer in the west is deeply interested in it.
Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend's amendment carries, he is doing two things; he is preventing the private companies from taking any grain on a commission basis. No commission grain, if his amendment carries, can go into a private terminal elevator. It must all be purchased by the owner of the institution. That is one point. Therefore, the terminal elevators owned by the private companies cannot be made use of by an individual who does not desire to sell his grain, but rather to send it on for the purpose of holding it for a rising market. He must send it to some elevator that is not a private concern. The private elevator operated by a company owning a line of elevators and who have terminals in their business will be forced at their private elevators to buy the grain of the farmer, or the farmer if he ships through them must send his grain to some public terminal, or join the grain pool That is the effect of the amendment my hon. friend is proposing, is it not? I am asking just for information. If I am right in that surmise, I just want to say that you will force the purchase of grain in every locality by the local elevator. You force the elevator to buy the grain, and you force the farmer to take the price the elevator is willing to give him for it. I do not like that very well.


John Millar: Let me go back just a little. For years private elevators were not permitted to take in any grain except their own. Then for a term of years they did so, contrary to the Grain Act, I believe. Then an order in council was passed-I think it was done by order in council-making legal what they had been illegally doing previously. All that I am suggesting is that these clauses be left exactly as Chief Justice Turgeon left them. I point out to the minister that all these private elevators require to do to keep within the law is to buy such grain as they wish to. It is not. the wish, I believe, of the producers, that those private elevators shall become public storage elevators, so that they may be able to handle grain for the public as well as for their own use. It should be confined to the grain they own. That was the argument 
often heard in connection with private elevators, that anybody who purchased the grain had a perfect right to do with his own what he pleased, and I think it should be confined to that.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that not just what my hon. friend is doing? He is forcing the man who has not the privilege of going into the pool to sell his grain- and he is the man he wants to protect-to the individual who happens to own a private elevator in his vicinity.	'


John Millar: There are plenty of public terminals.


Charles A. Stewart: If he does not want to sell outright, he can use a privately owned terminal.


George Gibson Coote: He can send it to a public terminal elevator.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the most important section of the bill. The explanation states that this is a new clause carrying out the recommendation of the Grain Inquiry Commission at page 75, which it does not carry out at- all. With one sweep of the pen you are going to make every private elevator a work for the general advantage of Canada. The Board of Grain Commissioners will have jurisdiction over every elevator. What does the province of Ontario think about important legislation of this kind? You are creating the grain growing industry into a vast monopoly. It is the worst form of the safeguarding of industries that I have heard of. It is safeguarding one industry. What are you doing? By subsection (1) you are making every private elevator in Canada, notwithstanding section 92 of the British North America Act, a work for the general advantage of Canada, and bringing it under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Then that commission can pass rules and regulations, licensing every private elevator, and providing what they can do in the way of mixing and all that. With all due respect to the minister, I say that the note on the righbhand side of the page is all wrong. It says:	,
Tliis section is new. It deals with private elevators and is one of the most important provisions of the bill. It carries out the recommendation of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, see report page 75, title-"Mixing in private terminal elevators",
It does not carry out these recommendations at all. It is going to drive all the private elevators from Ontario over to Buffalo; they are to be driven to the wall. The small man will get the worst of it. It is going to create-

Canada Grain Act
a monopoly. The government appointed a grain commission and they made a report. I am not going to discuss what the grain commission reported at page 75 or page 106. But the government spent $200,000 on that grain commission and now they are ignoring the most important regulations they proposed as to the mixing in modern elevators. At page 75 they recommend an embargo on hard wheat going to the United States. It will mean moving many of the private elevators in Canada over to the United States, so that the grain will be mixed there and exported overseas. What have you to-day in that Buffalo d.strict? You have twenty-eight privately owned elevators which should have been built in Canada. The policy of this section of the act will be to locate these elevators over in Buffalo. The most important recommendation the grain commission made has been ignored by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Interior. The rest of the report is practically worthless to the people of Canada.
Just imagine a small elevator at Agincourt near Toronto. The railways there have no facilities for taking care of the small man's crop, with the result that the small men go to the privately owned elevators to store their grain. What is going to be the result? These privately owned elevators will be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada and brought under the grain commission. What does the provincial government think of it? You are going to create a restraint of trade in Canada and I doubt if this parliament has the power to do it. I think it is deplorable that this bill should be brought down at this late date. This grain commission was appointed in 1923, and two years after it was appointed it brought down recommendations, and some of them are impracticable. These recommendations were made by two college professors, the third commissioner being a judge. The most sensible recommendation in the report was to stop the export of grain to the United States, and not to do anything which might send our elevators across the line. If the Minister of Agriculture wanted to do something for the people of Canada, instead of enacting clause 140, he would have framed a clause to take care of the various points I have raised, and which have not been referred to in the discussion to-day.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is not discussing section 140, but is discussing the report of a commission. I think we have heard enough about it.
300i


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have every respect for
the honesty and sincerity of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, but I must say that in all the time I have been in this House I have never heard a more illogical argument than the one my hon. friend presented to-night. The amendment that my hon. friend has moved strikes out from section (a) these words:
Except, where grain is shipped to a private terminal elevator with the written consent of the owner (the form of such consent to be approved by the board).
And further down it will be necessary to strike out a few words if the words I have read are stricken out. I draw attention to the fact that he is not doing away with mixing. He takes the position-and I can quite understand his position-that mixing is an evil. He says it deteriorates the quality of our grain when it reaches the markets of the world abroad, and in view of that the price offered by purchasers in Europe is lower than it otherwise would be, it is reflected back, and therefore the farmer in western Canada takes a lower price for his grain. That is the argument of my hon. friend. But if his argument is sound, he should move to strike out the whole clause, and that he has not done. He leaves in the clause the right to the pools to mix. and the pools to-day control 50 per cent of the grain. The representative of the pools stated before the agricultural committee expressly that they favoured that. Furthermore, he leaves to the private elevators the right to mix the grain that they purchase themselves. The only thing that he does by striking out these words that his amendment proposes to strike out is to deny to the farmer who is not in the pool the right to send his grain to a private elevator and secure any premium on it he may be offered. It does not stop mixing. Mixing will still go on in connection with possibly 50 or 60 per cent of the grain even if the amendment proposed by my bon. friend is adopted. That is not fair. If a farmer outside of the pool wishes to make an arrangement with a private elevator to send his grain there, and if thereby he can secure a premium, as he has in the past, of anywhere from a quarter of a cent to one and one-half cents per bushel, why deprive him of the right to do that? That is unfair.


Arthur Meighen: It is a special privilege.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is a special privilege
to those who have the right to mix. If the hon. member had taken the position of moving to strike out the whole clause, I would have discussed the matter with the com-
Canada Grain Act

mittee on the basis of the value of mixing to the western producer of grain. I am not going to enter into those arguments now, because they are really not concerned with the amendment moved by the hon. member. But I may be permitted to make this observation, that, in my judgment, mixing is desirable in the interest of the producer of western Canada for this reason, that under our grading system we have established by statute the definitions for certain grades of grain. That does not represent all the grades of grain that come forward to the terminal points either at.Vancouver or Fort William. It represents only an insignificant fraction of them. With tough, rejected and all the other variations in quality, the number of grades at times exceeds a hundred. I believe, in one season when the crop was of a particularly damaged character, the total number of varieties of grades of grain were in excess of two hundred. The value of permitting the mixing, handling, merchandising and treating of that grain undoubtedly results to the producer in higher prices for those grades of grain. I do not wish to debate that point. I simply state again that the position that the hon. gentleman for Qu'Appelle has taken is wholly illogical. If his arguments are sound that mixing is a bad thing, he should move to strike out the whole clause If he permits mixing-and his amendment proposes to do that-then it should be open to the farmer who wishes to send his grain to a private elevator to have the freedom and liberty to do so.


Arthur Meighen: If the farmer sells to a private elevator and the private elevator is allowed to mix when it buys that farmer's grain, how is that farmer injured?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A farmer may send his grain forward. He may not want to sell because the price at that time may not be satisfactory to him, but he says to the mixing elevator; I will give you the privilege of taking my grain into your elevator and you give me the price on the date when I wish to sell. The mixing elevator gives him a premium of anywhere from a quarter of a cent to a cent and a half a bushel in order to secure the grain. I will quote from the commission's report which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle quoted from. This is the finding of the commission on the question of mixing. They heard all the pros and cons of the matter in evidence before the commission when they were sitting at the various points during the conduct of their inquiry.

The report sums the whole thing up in these words:
We cannot say from the evidence we have of conditions overseas that the quality or reputation of Canada's grain, and therefore the price, has suffered in Britain as a result of mixing in private elevators being allowed.
That evidence is wholly conclusive, according to the words of the Royal Grain Commission itself, that the arguments advanced by my hon. friend are not sound.


John Millar: I think the hon. member for Marquette will remember that I stated that I had four amendments; that they were all tied up together; that they all together involved the question of mixing, and that I had no thought of asking that mixing be prevented entirely. What I was asking was that the clauses as drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon and taken out of the bill by the committee, be replaced. If the clauses I have referred to are so illogical, so ridiculous, then the clauses drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon must be equally ridiculous because they are the same words exactly. That is just what I propose.


Robert James Manion: I intend to vote favourably to the mixing, and I should like to say why. I am not interested in any shape or form in the question directly, but I have been somewhat familiar with the question for a long time. In my opinion, after a great deal of study of the grain question, I believe the western grain grower gains by permitting mixing to take place in the elevators at the head of the lakes or at the terminals. The reason for that is this. I tried to make it clear to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when I was speaking, but I did not seem to succeed, although I think many hon. gentlemen understood what I meant. Supposing a man has, let us say, a carload of No. 2 northern of a very good quality and another man has a carload of No. 2 northern of a very poor quality, although they are both the same grade of grain, No. 2 northern, as things stand to-day, without mixing and without what would really go with mixing, that is, selling on a sample market, the man who sells the good No. 2 northern gets exactly the same price as the man who sells the poor No. 2 northern. In other words, the man who is a careful farmer and has fewer weed seeds in his grain does not get any more than the man who has a poor quality of grain and is, perhaps a little more careless. Of course, it may not be carelessness. I am just assuming that. The man who sells on a

Canada Grain Act
sample market, who sells his grain according to the quality rather than the grade, stands to make a premium if he is a good farmer and has good clean grain.


Milton Neil Campbell: What does the hon member mean by a poor No. 2 northern and a good No. 2 northern There is a No. 2 grade and the specifications for that grade are set forth in the bill.


Robert James Manion: I think I am absolutely correct and I will refer to any gentleman who has been in the grain business. No. 2 northern may extend up or down. There is an average No. 2 northern. There is a very good No. 2 northern and a very poor one. There is a difference in quality according to the quantity of dirt in the grain and the quality of the grain seed. It is not an absolutely perfect grade like a scale. [DOT]


Milton Neil Campbell: The quantity of dirt in the grain would not affect the grain itself.


Robert James Manion: I am not a grain inspector; but I know this-or if I do not, I am very badly informed-that all No. 2 northerns are not exactly alike. There may be a No. 2 northern which is a very high class and another which is just above a No. 3 northern. In other words, a good No. 2 northern is nearly a No. 1 northern and a poor No. 2 northern is nearly a No. 3 northern.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member is quite correct.


Robert James Manion: That being the case, the man who happens to have a good No. 2 northern will get a premium on it because of its quality.


Oliver Robert Gould: What authority has the hon. gentleman for making this statement that the good No. 2 northern would receive a premium?


Robert James Manion: Generally speaking it does not now receive a premium but it would if you were selling on a sample market. On a sample market a good No. 2 northern would get more than a poor No. 2. I think that you are really profiting by mixing. Now, I am merely giving these views for what they are worth; I do not claim to be an authority on this subject although I have given it some study. But mixing goes on anyhow, for the farmer can mix on his own farm now if he wants to. And it is also done in the country elevators; it is done in all the terminal elevators. One man may sell a good No. 2 northern and another man a poor No. 2 northern and both lots are dumped into the same bin and mixed.


John Millar: That is not mixing.


Robert James Manion: It is not the sort of mixing we are speaking of, but my contention is that mixing takes place anyway.


George Gibson Coote: Is that a mixing of grades?


Neil Haman McTaggart: The hon. gentleman says he is in favour of mixing. If the private elevators are encouraged to mix grain, does he not think that there is a danger of our standard grades going on the European market at the minimum of the grade?


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) gave a quotation that proved that this is not so. I read the evidence in regard to this subject as given before the royal commission by Mr. Symes, the chief inspector at Fort William.
1	know him and Mr. O'Hagan his assistant, as well as many others of these gentlemen; in fact, I grew up with some of them. They gave evidence to the effect that the grades coming from the private elevators which have been mixing have been on the average as good as the grades coming out of the public terminal elevators. Somebody had made the claim that the average was lowered as a result of the grain going through the private elevators; but the evidence of these gentlemen, as cited in the report of the royal commission that enquired into this matter, is that they never had any trouble in that regard. They declare that the grades from the private elevators were as good as those coming from the public institutions.


John Millar: If that is the case, why did not the Ontario millers accept it as readily?


Robert James Manion: On that point I think I made myself clear, but my hon. friend did not seem to agree with me. Naturally when mixing they would try to get an average grade because they would not get too low a grade, this being against the law. Let us suppose I am a miller. I buy a carload of No.
2	northern, getting an average grade. I even allow for the fact that occasionally I get a low No. 2. But as I sometimes have the good fortune to secure a prize package by receiving a high No. 2, nearly a No. 1, I should prefer to keep it as it is in the hope of getting that prize package now and then.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. gentleman seems to suggest that mixing is done only in regard to one grade.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no; I merely mentioned one grade to explain my point.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But the question is the mixing of two or three grades.
Canada Grain Act


Arthur Meighen: Are hon. gentlemen ready to move that mixing be prerented? If so, what is the necessity for this debate?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am in favour of mixing.


Arthur Meighen: Well, then, if there is no one moving to prevent it there is no use in debating the question.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a good deal of argument as to whether the private elevators should mix or not, but that is not being struck out.


Arthur Meighen: That is my point.


Robert James Manion: I understood the member for Qu'Appelle to suggest that that is what he was aiming at.


Arthur Meighen: If there is to be a permission to mix, undoubtedly that would be of advantage to the persons who mix. But how can anyone argue that such an advantage should be confined to one ciass and denied the rest?


George Gibson Coote: The amendment proposed is to limit the privilege of mixing to the wheat that is purchased by the man who wants to mix. At the present time the private terminal elevators take in grain for public storage along with their own grain, and they mix grain for public storage with what they buy themselves. But all they are required to put out is the number of bushels which the man puts in; he does not necessarily get his own grain back or even the same grade as he would get if he put his grain in a public terminal. The commission heard a voluminous quantity of evidence at a cost of nearly $200,000, and after hearing that evidence from every quarter, some of it very contradictory and conflicting, some of it almost impossible of belief, they embody their conclusion, in regard to mixing, in section 141 of the original bill which was brought into the House and given a first reading on May 11. When the bill went to he committee that body practically re-draftc,: this section covering terminal elevators; and the provision as brought down now proposes to allow these private institutions to continue to mix grain taken for public storage with grain which they have bought for themselves.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not taken for public storage at all. It is taken into the elevator with the consent of the owner of the grain and oniy with his consent.


George Gibson Coote: Surely it is taken in for storage. Under what terms do the elevators obtain the grain? fMr. Beaubien.1


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They really buy the grain from the farmer. They say,, "We will pay you whenever you want to sell the grain, and we shall give you what premium is coming to you." The only thing not determined is the actual price the farmer will receive.


George Gibson Coote: It is -something new that a man can purchase wheat and not know what he is paying for it, nor the man who sells it know what he is getting. The man who places his wheat, in the public terminal elevator may sell it any day he likes at the market price.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He can do the same in
the private elevator.


George Gibson Coote: For my part I am opposed to mixing and I would strike out the whole clause. As I have pointed out, we appointed a commission of enquiry which cost the country nearly $200,000; and after the evidence had been heard of those both in favour of and those opposed to the practice of mixing, that commission submitted its recommendation, in regard to private elevators, as contained in section 141 of the old measure. The amendment which the hon. member (Mr. Millar) has now moved would simply give us the draft of that original section 141. There is so -much difference of opinion as to the wisdom of mixing that it would seem impossible to secure a prohibition of the practice in this legislation, and so far as I am concerned I would be willing to accept by w-ay of compromise what Mr. Justice Turgeon proposed in section 141 of the original bill. He proposed exactly what would be achieved by the amendment now submitted by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, with one or two other amendments that would be necessitated subsequently to bring later provisions of this bill into conformity with this change.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, the fact that this millionaire commission recommends a thing may be something to be said in its favour, but it is not such a convincing argument that one should accept it finally. It appears the Turgeon report says: A great many people are in favour of mixing, and a great many are not; so we will compromise the thmg by letting some people mix and not o;hers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: Is not that really the
result?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: It looks to me that way.

Canada Grain Act


John Livingstone Brown: No. The Turgeoa Commission said that people could mix their own grain.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. Then how about the grain pool that sends theirs to a private terminal elevator? That elevator can take the grain and mix it with their own.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: They cannot? They must own it?


An hon. MEMBER:: The pool owns
the grain.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, I understand it; the pools own the grain all right. The member for Qu'Appelle (Mi. Millar) says that the act should read in this way:
A private elevator shall receive only such grain as is the property of the person or corporation operating such elevator, and no such elevator shall conduct a public storage business or receive any grain upon terms requiring another person to pay storage charges thereon or in respect thereof: Provided, however, that it shall be lawful for the organizations of grain producers known as grain pools and incorporated in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta by acts of the respective legislatures of such provinces, and for any other person or corporation which in the opinion of the board, is empowered to act and is in fact acting on behalf of or in co-operation with them or any of them, to operate private elevators and to receive into such elevators grain shipped by such producers as are members of any one of the said grain pools;
Now then, if that goes through no man who is not in the grain pool can have the advantage of selling his grain through the owner of a private elevator and obtaining the premium that the private elevator will pay because of its mixing privilege.


John Millar: He can sell and receive Lis price.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, provided he
sells it and takes his price the very day he sells it; but he cannot sell it to a regular grain purchasing firm. If I deliver to a grain purchasing firm, and they take my grain, I can choose the day of sale, I can choose the price. Why should not I, celling that way, get the advantage of the mixing privilege just the same as if I sell to a grain pool? Why should not I be allowed to name the day for the price?


Daniel Webster Warner: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken; they do not sell tc the grain pool; their wheat is all pooled together.


Arthur Meighen: That is only a matter of name. Why should I be compelled to be in the grain pool in order to have the privilege of naming the day on which I will take my price from a private elevator?


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not have to.


Arthur Meighen: How could I do it otherwise?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: You could not.


Arthur Meighen: So apparently the report of the Turgeon commission is just exactly as I said: because some were in favour of mixing and some were not, they have adopted the course-it is not unlike what this government does-of saying, "We will let some mix and we will not let the rest mix, and that will be a compromise." The fact of the matter is,
I cannot see in this Grain Act very much of a cargo for the extravagant ship that we sent after it. Read this Grain Act that we are putting through now-in 99 cases out of 100 there is no change, and very often where there was a change it is put back where it was before by the committee on Agriculture. In fact, the hon. member says it cost $200,000. Add to that what the provinces had to pay for lawyers unnumbered, for what the grain exchange had to pay, for what the cities had to pay-add the whole thing together and it will be found that it cost over half a million dollars. I do not see that any mouse came out of the mountain except an increase of salaries for the grain commission.


George Gibson Coote: If this commission has cost so much, and if there is any word of wisdom in this section 141 as originally drafted, should we not take advantage of that and so get something out of the expenditure?


Arthur Meighen: I would rather get nothing out of it than get a penalty.


Robert James Manion: I have heard the statement made that the Royal Grain Commission did not recommend old clause 141 exactly as it is in the original draft.


John Millar: I think it is just exactly as it was in the original draft. In reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) as well as by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), I may say that there seems to be a little confusion in regard to the treatment of the wheat pools. I am inclined to think that the logic of Chief Justice Turgeon was superior to that which we have heard to-night from those two hon. gentlemen. I think he reasoned something like this : The wheat pool grain belongs to the pool; when they own a private elevator, and they mix grain in that elevator they are only mixing what is their own. Now the private companies are allowed to do exactly the same; there is absolutely no difference; each
Canada Grain Act

is allowed to mix 'his own grain and no other according to the first draft of the act. That is what I am asking for. There is no advantage to the pool whatever.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But there is a distinct disadvantage, Mr. Chairman, to the farmer who may wish to sell his grain to a private elevator and not fix the price at the date he ships the grain. I still maintain, with the best of good feeling to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, that he is not right.


George Gibson Coote: How is the man who ships his grain into a private terminal going to get any premium? Am I to understand that the owner of the private terminal will say to him,
Whenever you are ready to sell we will give you a premium over the market price.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact, absolutely and positively it is done.


George Gibson Coote: I have never heard of any farmer getting it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The company with which I am associated two years ago paid over $30,000 in premiums on grain that went into our mixing elevators, and in most of those cases the farmers chose their own day for selling their grain. If they thought the price of grain was going to be higher two months hence, they had the privilege of choosing their day for selling. That is all we are doing here. I submit that if mixing is such a bad thing as the member for Qu'AppelJe and many other hon. members think it is, it should be cut out altogether. I can understand the logic of that position. But on the other hand, the Turgeon commission do not recommend that at all; in fact, they find that mixing has done no harm. Let me read again their finding at page 98 of the report:
We cannot say from the evidence we have of conditions overseas that the quality or reputation of Canada's grain and therefore the price has suffered in Britain as a result of mixing in private elevators being allowed.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, I wish also to read a recommendation taken from the Turgeon report at page 106. It deals directly with the amendment asked for by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and is as follows:
The conclusions that we come to after studying very carefully all the evidence presented on this vexing but important problem is that the position of the private terminal elevators should be legalized, but that they should be restricted to taking in only their own grain.
That is what the amendment is asking for, and that is What we spent $200,000 to obtain. We started with three private terminal elevators at the head of the lakes in 1910; to-day

there are twenty-five, and that does not represent the proportion of increased storage. It is a very profitable business, and who provides the revenue these interests are making? The poor fellows who are growing the grain. I do hope this committee will take one word of advice from those who grow the grain. Not one hon. member who does grow grain has said a word to-night against this proposal. The members who .grow grain are all supporting the amendment.


Lucien Cannon: Does the hon. member
for Marquette know something about grain?


Oliver Robert Gould: He does not grow any.


John Livingstone Brown: The question of mixing is
in itself a very important one and one that has concerned the farmers for a great many years, but the question around which this amendment centres is a case of much ado about nothing. The Turgeon report as just quoted by the hon. member recommends that private elevators be allowed to mix their own grain. That may or may not be wise, but nobody here has moved against it. The clause that was inserted by the committee simply allows a man to say to a private elevator: "You may take in my grain and when the proper time comes and when the price has reached a certain point I will agree that you shall have it and you shall pay me for it." The grain may be taken in at a premium or at no premium, but it simply allows the man who wants to sell his grain to a private house to determine the time he shall sell-when the price suits him. You can say that from the time the agreement is made the elevator owns the grain, and I believe that even if we struck out that provision such an agreement could be made and the courts would not hold that the law had been violated. Once we grant the principle of mixing it seems to me that this particular provision is a matter of no consequence at all so far as the farmers are concerned.


John Millar: In the case of a farmer
who has eighteen or twenty opportunities of selling his car of grain, would it be of any advantage to add another?


John Livingstone Brown: He could not possibly make a bargain like this. He could not possibly get a premium if it was put in the public elevator, but this clause as it stands would permit such a deal to be made.


John Millar: Has the hon. member ever sold grain at a premium I never did.
t

Canada Grain Act


John Livingstone Brown: That does not touch the
matter at all. The question is, shall we put a provision on the statute book under which such a deal can be made. I do not see how any harm can be done by allowing the act to go through in that form.


Alan Webster Neill: There have been a lot of
questions asked to-night; I would like to ask one more. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, it
is reasonable to keep the Hansard men and women here from eleven o'clock in the morning until one o'clock the following morning?


Robert Forke: I have sold hundreds of
thousands of bushels of wheat and I never sold it at a premium such as has been referred to. I have got a premium, but not the kind the 'non. member for Marquette speaks about. Premiums are paid quite frequently, but generally at a time when boats 1 a.m. are held up before the close of the season, and the premium is to induce the sale of the wheat, not because it is of superior quality but in order to provide a load for the boat. I have received premiums of that kind, but never a premium because the wheat was a little bit better than the straight grade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite mistaken in that. These premiums were paid entirely on the grain that went into our mixing elevator, and the farmers received that much additional over the price they would have received had they sold on the market in Fort William.


Thomas Sales: On what quantity of grain?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, I could not say. It would average one-half to three quarter cents per bushel. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) to read the Turgeon report with respect to profits made by private elevators. I also assure the hon. member that I have grown probably as much grain as he has grown.


Oliver Robert Gould: Not more.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Turgeon commission put their accountants into the offices of the private elevators in Winnipeg, some twelve or fourteen companies. They went through their books thoroughly over a period of two years, and what was their finding as to the profits earned by these elevators? The profit was found to be one and three-one hundredths of a cent per bushel, and out of that they had to pay the interest on their investment.


Donald Sutherland: This clause is entirely different from the provision made in the original bill submitted to the committee, which
was based on the finding of the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission. The large millers are in a much better position to deal with this matter than the small millers. The small millers are a unit in protesting against the change which it is proposed to make in this bill; they are willing to accept the bill as originally placed before the committee. In view of the fact that it is one o'clock in the morning, and considering the importance of this bill, I think it might well stand over and receive a little further consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand that this clause was argued for eight hours in the committee. It has been discussed here for at least two hours, and if we sat here for six weeks you would not have much more information with regard to it. I would like at least that this clause be dealt with before the committee rise.


William Irvine: We have got so mixed up here that we do not know which way to vote. Will the minister say whether the hon.' member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) or the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mir. Millar) is right in the contentions that have been made?


Charles A. Stewart: I always
thought that a man trained for the ministry would make a good juryman. He has heard both arguments.


Donald Sutherland: I was just on the point of observing that in view of the lateness of the hour and the importance of this clause, this matter might well stand over for further consideration. In fact, it would be better that the bill should not pass at all than that this clause should carry as drafted. I do not think it is fair at this stage of the session to crowd through important legislation of this kind with about half the members present, at one o'clock in the morning.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.


George Gibson Coote: Before the question on the
amendment is put, I just want to read what the Turgeon report says about public terminal elevators being turned into private elevators.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are not going to have this Turgeon report brought before the Chair as we consider each and every clause. It is simply obstruction.


George Newcombe Gordon: Has not the particular section the hon. member refers to been submitted to the committee already?
Canada Grain Act


George Gibson Coote: No, and if the hon. member for Dorchester had left me alone I would have been through before this. The Turgeon report, in speaking of turning public elevators into private elevators at the head of the lakes, makes this statement: "If this trend continues privately owned public terminal elevators may disappear at Port Arthur and Fort William." If the profits of private terminals are so small, it is strange indeed that all public terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William should in a few years be turned into private terminals.
Amendment negatived; Yeas, 35; Nays, 45.


Mr. GARDINER:: I desire to move
another amendment to this clause. I move that the section be struck out. Personally as far as I am concerned I am not in favour of mixing of any description at all. I believe mixing is against the best interests of Canada, and I am satisfied it is against the best interests of the producer. The question I would like to ask the committee to-night is this: Is this act going to be passed in the interests of the producer and in the interest of Canada as a whole, or is it going to be passed in the interests of a few people who desire to mix grain? That is the problem we have to consider here to-night. If this committee desires that the grain grown in different parts of the country shall be depleted in value, and the price is going to be reduced because of that lowering of value, then the onus must be on this parliament. So far as the producer is concerned, he is absolutely helpless in the face of this legislation. If this legislation is passed, the only thing for the producer to do is to get out of selling his wheat individually, and get into a co-operative corporation that will sell the wheat of the producers as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: Is it true or not that
the grain pools are in favour of mixing being permitted?


Robert Gardiner: I care not whether the grain pools are in favour of it or not.


Arthur Meighen: They are half of the
west.


Robert Gardiner: The fact of the matter is, I am personally opposed to mixing, and I have good reason for being opposed to it. I sat on the special committee on agricultural conditions in 1923, and we got evidence from the Board of Grain Commissioners which if members of this House care to look into it at any time, will I am sure convince them
[The Chairman.]
that mixing is detrimental to the producer and detrimental to Canada as a whole.


Charles Gavan Power: It is bad for the consumer
too.


Robert Gardiner: It is just as bad for
the consumer if you eat enough of that kind of stuff. I have before me volume No. 23 of the proceedings of the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions in 1923. This is the evidence that was given under oath to the Board of Grain Commissioners as to the different grades coming into these private mixing elevators and the grades going out, and I propose, if the committee will bear with me a few minutes, to put before them this evidence, which I believe is the most concrete kind of evidence that can be brought before the House. If the committee then are satisfied that mixing is the proper thing to do, they must take the onus and responsibility for their action.
I have before me a return given by the Davidson & Smith Elevator Company, of Fort William. This is a private terminal elevator company where they do mixing. This report was sworn to by the people who own this elevator and handed in to the Board of Grain Commissioners. I want to show what happens when we start to mix our grain. On this side of the page are given some 48 different grades of wheat that were taken into this private mixing elevator. I am going to read a list of the different grades that went into that elevator in order that the committee may be seized of the importance of this mixing question:
Wheat-
1	Hard.
2	Nor.
3	Nor.
Dried 3 Nor.
Dried No. Four.
No. 4 Special.
No. 5.
No. 5 Special.
No. 6.
No. 6 Special.
Feed.
Rej. 1 Nor.
Rej. 2 Nor.
Rej. No. 4
Rej. Feed.
Smutty No. 4.
Smutty No. 5.
Smutty No. 6.
Smutty Rej. 3 Nor. Mix Htd.
N.G. Tf. 1 Nor.
N.G. Tf. 2 Nor.
N.G. Tf. 3 Nor.



N.G. Tf. No. 4.

[Stage Direction]
N.G. Tf. No. 4 Special.

[Stage Direction]
N.G. Tf. No. 5 Special.

[Stage Direction]
N.G. Tf. Feed.

Canada Grain Act
N.G. Tf. Smutty 2 Nor.
N.G. Tf. Smutty No. 4.
N.G. Tf. Smutty No. 5.
N.G. Tf. Rej. 3 Nor. Mix. Htd.
N.G. Tf. Rej. No. four Mix. Rtd.
N.G. Tf. Smutty Rej. 3 Nor.
Rej. 2 Nor. Mix. Htd.
Rej. 3 Nor. Mix. Htd.
Rej. No. 4 Mix. Htd.
Rej. No. 4 Special! Mix. Htd.
Rej.	No.	5	Mix.	Htd.Rej.	No.	6	Mix.	Htd.
Rej. Feed Mix. Htd.
Rej.	2 Nor.	Mix.	Firebunt.Rej.	No.	5	Mix.	Fireburnt.
Rej. Smutty No. 5 Rej. Mix. Htd.
2	A.R.W.
3	A.RW
Smutty 3 A.R.W.
These comprised forty-eight different grades [DOT]of wheat that went into this particular elevator.
An hon. MEMBER:: Repeat that.


Robert Gardiner: I will not impose that upon the hon. member, but if he is foolish enough to again make the request I will. If the committee will follow me for a moment they will see the tremendous number of grades down this side-forty-eight different grades. The problem we have before us tonight is to decide whether it is in the best interests of Canada that that should be allowed to continue. Then on this side, the extreme other side, we find the number of grades that go out.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that we should have a photograph taken of this, because it cannot be very well recorded on Hansard when the hon. member refers to "this side" or "the other side."


Robert Forke: This is an important matter and I do not think members of the House are seized with the importance of it.


Robert Gardiner: On this side I show the number of grades that went out. Instead of having forty-eight grades going out, or anything like that number, we have merely five different grades going out of the elevator. What are the grades that went out of this elevator? We have No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern, No. 3 northern, No. 4 northern dry, and we have No. 4 mixed and heated. Those are the only five grades that come out of the elevator.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the hon. member tell us how many bushels went into this elevator and the total number that went out?


Robert Gardiner: I will give my hon. friend that information a little later, when I come to that point. I have given the different
grades that went into this elevator from No. 1 hard right down to the lowest grade. All those different ^grades rejected have disappeared with the exception of a small item here in the No. 4 dry.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was this institution
called an elevator?


Robert Gardiner: This is a private elevator; I think no member of this House can follow the information I have given to the committee and come to the conclusion that mixing is in the best interests of Canada. When we ship out these four or five grades composed of these different other grades, that is going to bring a poorer price on the world's market, and going to degrade the value of our wheat, so that those who have put in No. 1 or No. 2 or No. 3 are certainly going to get a lower price than if the mixing did not occur.
The hon. member for West Calgary asked me how many bushels went into this particular elevator and how many came out. Now this is another important consideration that we have to recognize. In this column to which I point- these are the total bushels of wheat of the different grades.


Mr. PARENT:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Robert Gardiner: I told the hon. member before. The pamphlet from which I am quoting is a return made by the Board of Grain Commissioners to the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions in 1923. It is known as No. 23. In answ^j to the hon. member for West Calgary, this column I point to shows the different number of bushels from the different, grades that went in. At the bottom we have the .total number of bushels the elevator took in, amounting to 704.283 bushels and 50 pounds. On the other side adding up the five different grades that went out, we find the total number cf bushels of wheat shipped out of the elevator, and we find they shipped out 831,000 bushels. In other words they shipped out 128,000 bushels more than they put in. That is also elevating the weight as well as the grain. I am bringing this matter before the committee, in order that they may realize just exactly the position they are placing Canada in as a whole when they stand for mixing. When the farmers' grain reaches Winnipeg it is graded. In fact we are grading all the farmers' products to-day, and they are about the only products that are being graded. Why is that? Why is there a discrimination? Are there not other products as
Canada Grain Act

well that could be graded in order to protect the public? Why apply the grading principle to agriculture and agriculture alone to all intents and purposes? If you are going to recognize the opinions of people who are not growing wheat, instead of the producers themselves, what is the use of a Grain Act at all?
I move that this section be struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: A motion to strike
out a whole section is hardly in order, because each section is a motion in itself. If you desire to vote against the section the desire can be indicated by five members standing.


Harry Leader: I am opposed to the mixing of our grain. It is true, I believe, that the pool have stated that they are in favour of mixing. I believe the reason for that is that they want to enjoy privileges the other grain dealers enjoy. I see no reason why they should have made a statement to that effect, because they could certainly enjoy the privilege without making that statement. Notwithstanding the statement of the wheat pool, I am personally opposed to the mixing of our grain. I know this is the general opinion of the farmers who produce wheat in the western country. It has been stated by the hon. member for Medicine Hat that we are grading all our farm products at the present time, trying to produce a superior article that will command the highest price in the world's market, something better than our competitors, and we are doing it better in many cases. In no product can we show this better than we can in the hard wheat. We can convince the world that we can beat any country in raising No. 1 northern wheat. If that is recognized by the buyers, there is no doubt in the world that they will be willing to pay a substantial premium for the superior product we can put on the market. But owing to the effect of mixing, we are depreciating a first-class superior product until it is recognized now as only on a par with some of the foreign products. The argument submitted by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, when he made the statement and proved that the millers of the Old Country were willing to pay five cents a bushel more for the wheat shipped through Vancouver, should be positive proof that in the Old Country our wheat is accepted as better than the products of other countries. It was said in committee-and I might say I opposed mixing in committee-that if we prohibited mixing of wheat by the Canadian elevators and the grain trade here, it would drive the mixing process and the whole thing over to the United States. I maintained that that would not be a bad thing in the interest of Can-
a da, because any Canadian wheat passing through American channels is labelled that it is passing through such channels, and they must accept that certificate as Canadian wheat passing through American channels. Therefore, if the Old Country buyer knew we were doing no mixing in Canada and the Americans were, he would pay a substantial premium and deal with Canadian firms. This would have the result of driving the trade into Canadian channels where it belongs. When the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, then the Hon. Mr. Borden, was touring the west, there were Liberals on the platform and I had the honour of sitting on the platform with some of them when the statement was made: We will stop this mixing of our wheat. By the way, the Hudson Bay route was mooted at that time and they were going to send the grain out north where the Americans would not have an opportunity of adulterating it. They said they were going to stop this skimming and mixing of our wheat.


Charles A. Stewart: As regards t.he amendment moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner), perhaps this would not affect the wheat growers in the southern portions of the provinces nearly as much as those in the northern portions. I am very much of opinion that Chairman Tungeon, when he reported that mixing was not doing us very much material damage, was perfectly correct. I did not hold that position two .or three years ago. I was very much opposed to mixing and fought it upon every occasion,. I have come ito the conclusion that throughout the northern portion of both Saskatchewan and Alberta, if you eliminate mixing, the growers of low grade wheat will suffer very considerably. I have come to the point where I do not believe mixing is of any material injury to the man who is growing the first grade quality. I intend to vote against the amendment and in favour of mixing.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister is aware that for the past ten years the amount of commercial grain has varied from 70 to 95 per cent. I think 70 per cent is the lowest it has ever reached and 92 to 95 per cent is a very common percentage.


Charles A. Stewart: But the hon. member must realize that we have gone through a period of very dry yeans in the last seven years and we may now be approaching a very different cycle altogether when w*e shall have any quantity of wet grain as we had prior to 1915.


Oliver Robert Gould: We will meet that situation when we oo.me to it. We have in support of

Canada Grain Act
this idea representations made before the committee by the people who grow grain and we have the statement as regards the former belief of the minister himself. He says that when he was engaged in the practice of farming he was opposed to the principle of mixing. We have also in support of this idea the eastern millers throughout Ontario who state that they are opposed to the principle of mixing. I can show a letter that I have from a reeve of a municipality stating that the millers in the east have imported wheat directly from the prairies for milling purposes simply 'because they refuse to accept the mixed anti-die from the terminals. If such is the case and we have the Dominion Millers' Association in eastern Canada and the producers in the west, surely we are justified in asking the committee to grant what is right and fair. The citation by the hon. member for Medicine Hat was only onie case. That was one of the smallest institutions, if not the smallest -institution, at the head of the lakes, and there are twenty-five of them there at the present time, some of them with a capacity of three, four, five or six million bushels. When you find large institutions like that handling the grain in exactly the same way as the hon. member illustrates, you -can see the magnitude of the evil, at least what we think is an evil that is perpetrated upon the producer of grain. Surely this is our 'bread and butter. Why should there be a deteriorated article on- the Liverpool market? The buyers there with good business heads pay exactly for the article they receive. They -buy a deteriorated article and they place a value on it. The value which they place upon that deteriorated article is quoted back t.o me, back in the -hinterland for the article which we -produce which, as all hon. members know, is the 100 per cent article. Nowhere else in the world is as good a quality of grain produced. I feel the committee want to dio justice to the people who produce grain. This hias been a burning question with us for thirty yeans, and we desire the earnest consideration of the committee looking at -this in a generous manner from the producer's point of view.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not pleasant to find
myself at variance with my -colleages from western Canada, but in my judgment they do not represent the opinion of the agricultural portion of western Canada in the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


An hon. MEMBER:: State your authority.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will give some authority for it. The grain pools to-day represent onehalf of the grain produced in western Canada. They mixed grain during the present year at Fort William and are mixing it today. They came before the agricultural committee, and they stated that they favoured mixing and wished it retained in the act. In the second case, the United Grain Growers, Ltd. have 36.000 shareholders and this question has been considered with them. The board of directors of the United Grain Growers put in a memorandum to the Royal Grain Commission, of which Chief Justice Turgeon was chairman, favouring the principle of mixing. Third, the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, with almost 30,000 farmer shareholders, considered the matter with their shareholders and board of directors, and they put in a recommendation to the Royal Grain Commission in favour of mixing.


Robert Gardiner: Will the hon. member
tell the committee what steps were taken to ascertain the views of the 36,000 shareholders of the United Grain Growers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The question has been
discussed at various times, and as I recall it, at annual meetings of the company. That is the considered judgment of these two commercial companies and the grain pools which were organized within the past year.


John Evans: The hon. gentleman is putting a wrong impression before the committee with regard to the Saskatchewan Elevator Company. The president of that company said that he was forced into it by the practice of the others, and that is why they adopted it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know what the
president of that company stated, but I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Evans) that I have read the memorandum that was submitted to the Turgeon inquiry by the board or directors of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company after they had considered it. I have that memorandum in my office upstairs and I shall be glad to show it to my hon. friend if he has not seen it.


Thomas Sales: We are quite well aware of it, 'but it was not signed unanimously. I did not sign it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know as to that, but I know the board of directors submitted that memorandum to the Turgeon inquiry as the judgment of the board. The statement has been made that the millers in eastern Canada are opposed to mixing. I have heard that statement before, but I refuse to accept the judgment of a miller on a question of that kind. A miller is naturally interested in buying his grain as cheaply as he can. And
Canada Grain Act

if he can buy a great variety of grades at the lowest possible price it is certainly to his advantage to do so. You cannot have the vast quantity of grades we have to-day in Canada and market them independently. I submit in all fairness and sincerity to my hon. friends behind me that the grain is going to be mixed somewhere and if it is not permitted in Canada it will be mixed in Europe or in the United States; and the people who mix it will get the advantage, while the producers of the west will get nothing. If you are going to have any merchandising of grain it is a sound principle to have it done as close to the producer as possible, because only by that means will he get anything out of it. I am as confident as I have ever been of anything in my life that mixing under proper supervision is bound in the end to work out to the advantage of the producers of the west. The farmers in western Canada, as my hon. friends around me know, have been asking for the last forty years for sample markets on which to sell their grain. It has been the subject of agitation for years.


Thomas Sales: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is mistaken. The farmers of the west have been asking for it for years; they are on record convention after convention as being in favour of it. And why? Because they wish to secure through the operation of the sample market the advantages which, for example, the United States farmer secures in that way.


Thomas Sales: The greatest convention of
farmers, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, has never passed such a resolution as my hon. friend speaks of.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend goes
back ten or twelve years he will find that they have done so.


Thomas Sales: I will go back twenty years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend on that point.


Thomas Sales: You cannot prove it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I submit that if this
amendment carries and this practice is stopped it will work an injury to the farmers of the west. I was never more confident of anything in my life. There will be certain grades of grain at certain seasons which will be practically unmarketable, because you cannot, with the vast territory over which we produce grain, avoid the multiplicity of grades which we have every year. It will work injury to the producers and for that reason I must vote against it.


Mr. HOEY:: Would it be possible at all to ship certain tough grades of grain until they were treated in the private elevator? Would they not become heated on their way over?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Across the lakes?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Across the ocean.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That has happened in the past.


Robert Forke: But it was a mistake to have that grain shipped.


John Evans: I can hardly forbear saying
a word on this important matter, which means millions to the people of the west. I am opposed to anything that will lower the standard of No. 1 and No. 2 northern which set the price on the world's market, and mixing does that. It certainly is in the interests of the grain dealer to establish as wide a margin as possible between the grain as it leaves the farmer's wagon and as it goes into the boat at Fort William; and mixing does that. The hon. member (Mr. Crerar) says that the wheat is going to be mixed anyway and that the nearer to the farmer it is done, the better. What does it matter to the farmer how near it is done once it is out of his own hands? There are clauses in the act determining the different kinds of grain that shall compose No. 1 and No. 2 northern. How can we keep No. 1 and No. 2 northern up to their standard when we allow private elevators to put into these two particular grades any grain that will not pass muster at the inspection point at Winnipeg? There are some thirty different grades, and how can we expect to establish an export price if we are to allow any mixing with these two particular grades? If you allow these houses to lower the grades for export by means of mixing, the price will accordingly be lowered, and no person nor class nor interests should be allowed to do anything detrimental to the growers in any line of commodity when it is to be handled in a collective or co-operative way as wheat is handled. I wonder if a large volume of sugar were to be exported from the Dominion whether the producers would allow it to be graded by the government and pass into other hands and mixed, then allowing that mixture to set the price on the world's markets?


Lucien Cannon: After the sugar producer
has sold his product he has nothing more to do with it.


John Evans: The whole act is supposed
to be in the interests of the grower, and from the report of the grain commission I de-

Canada Grain Act
sire to read a short extract to show how the product is lowered on the world's markets. At page 17S one of the members of the commission quotes the following information which he obtained from a miller:
"Anything in a sample of wheat that deteriorates its strength or lessens its yield of flour lowers its valuo to the miller and consequently lowers the price he can offer for it. Frosted kernels spoil the flour. Most of our bakers use machines for mixing the dough and get bad results from such, flour." "What effect would a sprinkling of tough kernels have?" "The tough kernels do not condition the same as dry kernels. They are soft into the endosperm and flatten out under the rolls and do not release the flour. There is a loss in yield and they make a bad job of our milling." "Can you detect tough berries in a sample by physical examination?" "No, the moisture content of the sample would show a little higher than it would if they were not there, but we should not and could not detect the presence of a few tough kernels."
He goes on to say that uniformity is one of the things needed in the export of wheat, and when this damp grain is mixed with dry grain in the private elevators, that grain is detected when it is between the rollers. It will not break up and give the flour, and the miller sets his price accordingly. The committee will understand that any mixing that constitutes a deviation from the uniformity of the grades is bound to work out to the detriment of the producer. So much is this the case, that we practically give away the value of the wheat to the extent that such deviation has taken place. We must always bear in mind that the British miller knows what each consignment or shipment contains, and he sets his price for the next shipment accordingly. In the Old Country where the price is fixed the damp kernels practically count for naught; no benefit is derived from mixing them, for they stick to the rollers and do not deliver the flour as they should. And as I say, any consignment following a shipment of that kind must suffer as a result. It is obvious that grain mixed must be of less value than the unmixed commodity. This legislation is supposed to be in the interests of the producer. I think that a fair and uniform method of marketing should be established, and this bill should provide such a method of marketing in the interests of the farmer. And surely when the whole expense is borne by the farmer the act should be somewhat in his favour. If it is not, then it is a failure.


George Gibson Coote: I want to submit to hon.
gentlemen opposite the opinion of a gentleman whose word I am sure they will have a great respect for in regard to this question of mixing grain. The following quotation I take from a statement made by the late W. C. Van
Horne of the Canadian Pacific Railway on May 23, 1892:
The manipulation of grain at the terminal or transfer elevators is held to be wrong in principle. The practice in many of the private elevators in the United States has been a source of scandal.
Of course, he belonged to the old school among whom principle was a matter of great moment, and it is possible that to-day we have not so high a regard for principle in our business dealings.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What right has the hon. member to say that?


George Gibson Coote: It would appear so from what we hear. May I quote again very briefly from the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission as to the basis on which the Old Country miller buys his wheat? At page 104 it is stated:
The English importer bases his offers on the quality of Canadian grain that he is receiving at Liverpool.
At page 185 we are informed something about the quality he is receiving to-day as compared with previous years:
Among the millers interviewed in the Old Country on this question, the preponderence of opinion was to ha effect that during the last ten or twelve years there has been a slight gradual lowering of the milling value of Canada's One and Two northern wheat shipments to the Old Country through Atlantic ports, the evidence in the main being that in appearance the colour is lighter, the number of starchy kernels increased, the bran a little coarser; that frosted and damaged diseased berries are more common; that there is more foreign material-screenings-present; that the moisture content is higher.
This report also goes on to show that the practice of mixing has developed within the last ten or twelve years, and concurrently the quality of our grain-so the Old Country miller says-has gradually deteriorated while the private terminals have been allowed to operate. The commissioners further say that this practice of operating terminal elevators at Fort William as private terminals has really grown up without the authorization of the act. I am a little surprised to-night that we have not had the support of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in our opposition to mixing. I am sure he would not allow small potatoes to be mixed with large after they had once been graded; or that fancy eggs should be mixed with No. 1, or selects with specials. I remember not very long ago the minister introduced a bill to prevent butter-makers from renovating bad butter,-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point .'f order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is not sticking to the subject under discussion. I take this opportunity of suggesting that if
Canada Grain Act

the dignity of parliament is to be maintained, members should not be kept at work for more than thirteen hours at a stretch, and I think the business of the House would go on just as fast if we adjourn now. It is almost two o'clock.


George Perry Graham: That is the object of ill this talk.


Edward Joseph Garland: Make a
motion that the committee rise.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I make the suggestion to the House, and I hope it will meet the approval of hon. members. I think every man who has been working here for the last thirteen hours must be tired mentally as well as physically, and I think we would be wise if we adjourned and resumed our discussion to-morrow, with the endeavour then not to accentuate our differences, but to see how near we can get together in common.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. I think the committee have all tho information they possibly can have on the question for or against mixing. I do not believe if members continue to speak from now to doomsday that very much more information would be gained on the subject. I think the committee are ready to vote any time, and if this clause was disposed of we could go home and be ready for work tomorrow.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, if I could feel that this question had been settled in the agricultural committee on its merits I would accept the minister's statement; but I cannot feel that it was. I wonder how many gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who had this Turgeon report placed in their hands have read or studied it?


An hon. MEMBER:: We all had it.


Thomas Sales: Oh, yes, you all had it. I ask how many of you have read it


Lucien Cannon: Is the hon. gentleman insulting the intelligence of hon. members on this side of the House by insinuating for one moment that we would debate any question without being familiar with it? We know just as much as he does about the report- and more.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, judging from the amount of discussion from that side of the House, I would assume they had not read the report.


Lucien Cannon: Your assumption is wrong.


Thomas Sales: I have not yet heard any discussion from that side of the House.


Mr. YIEN:: Will my right hon. friend (Mr. Sales) allow me to point out that even on this side of the House there has been quite a discussion, and that many of his own friends are not agreeing with his views?


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friends around me to-night seem to be agreeing pretty well with my views.


Thomas Vien: There are quite a number disagreeing with my hon. friend's views.


Thomas Sales: If I were satisfied that the question had been decided on its merits I would not say another word; I am not. I want to ask those members on the other side of the House: put yourselves in the place of the producer, and let your grain go to Winnipeg, where it is graded by a government inspector who says that it is not good enough to go into this grade. Five and a half million bushels of no grade rough wheat went through to the private elevators in one year. The inspector said it was not good enough to go into the straight grade, but when it got down to Fort William it was put into the straight grade by the private elevators. Now, how would you like that, gentlemen? That is what I want to know. Can five and a half million bushels of grain which the inspector says is not good enough to go into the best grade be put into it without deteriorating those grades? And if you lower those grades you must lower the price to the producer. We are talking for the producer, the man who grows the grain, not a man like my hon. friend from Marquette, who is the president of a great big elevator company. If I were in his place I should do as he is doing-I should want a profitable practice continued. I do not blame him one bit.


Thomas Vien: Is not my hon. friend a director of another elevator company?


Thomas Sales: No sir, you are mistaken.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that when my hon. friend was sitting on the board of which he was a member a few years ago, he held an altogether different opinion from the one he is expressing now?


Thomas Sales: Absolutely no. Wrong again. I have always maintained the stand I take now, and I shall continue to do so until evidence is produced to me which will change my opinion.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good1 mixer.

Canada Grain Act


Thomas Sales: Yes, a mighty good mixer I would inform my hon. friend-but not of wheat. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the position. Let me say this, I am a shareholder in the company of my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar), and have been for a good many years-I was one of its earliest shareholders. We formed those farmers' companies, not to make a lot of money; we formed them to remove the abuses that existed in this trade. The great danger in these big farmers' movements is that they may lose sight of what they were formed to do. I say I do not blame my hon. friends; perhaps I would do the same thing. But this thing is wrong, and I do not think the House should take the responsibility of pitting its judgment against that of Mr. Justice Turgeon who for eighteen months travelled this country and who heard everything that was to be said both by the trade and by the producer, then summed it up in a report and drafted a bill at the request of the government. The bill as drafted by Mr. Justice Turgeon, section 141, would be perfectly satisfactory to me and my friends around me. I warn the House against pitting its judgment against the judgment of that commission, headed by one of the ablest jurists we have in the west.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to say just a word in respect to an observation made by the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales). I have not reached my decision as to the course I should pursue upon this section from the point of view of any financial interest that might accrue to the company with which I am associated or to myself personally. Indeed, I shall not benefit to the extent of one copper whether this section passes or is struck out. That is not the ground upon which I raise my objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I rest it on the ground that it is in the interests of the producers of western Canada that the clause stay there, and I think I know as much of what is in the interests of the producers of western Canada as the hon. member for Saltcoats does, and am just as disinterested in that position as he is.


Leland Payson Bancroft: The statement has been made that the nearer to the farmer this mixing takes place the better it is for the producer. Suppose instead of mixing at the terminal elevators we instituted a system of mixing at the local elevators at the country points and that each farmer as he hauled his grain to the elevator was shown the other grade that was to be mixed with it. We will assume that two farmers bring to the elevator 301
their No. 1 wheat and a third brings in a load of feed wheat. The elevator man shows the farmers the load of feed that he proposes to mix in with their good wheat and still call it No. 1. I maintain that the system would not last twenty-four hours. In my opinion it is because the system is carried on at the head of the lakes-


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend's explanation is a ridiculous one. He knows perfectly well that feed wheat would not be thrown in with No. 1.


Leland Payson Bancroft: It might be a little
extreme, but I understand that a percentage of feed wheat is allowed in No. 1 wheat.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


Leland Payson Bancroft: The minister will agree that a percentage of feed may be put in No. 3?


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite different. Mixing does not affect grades one and two very seriously. It is the lower grades that are boosted up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Leland Payson Bancroft: That has nothing to
do with the point that I am discussing. I say that if the farmers could actually see the mixing take place, could see their grain mixed with these lower grades, the system would not last twenty-four hours.


Thomas Sales: I cannot allow the statement
of the minister to pass that mixing does not affect No. 1 and No. 2 grades. We have it right from Mr. Justice Turgeon's report that sixty-eight million odd bushels of No. 1 were taken in, and 73,000,000 bushels of No. 1 were shipped out-private elevators only.


Charles A. Stewart: In the
majority of cases No. 1 is not affected, but No. 2 is boosted up, and you may have a greater percentage of No. 2 shipped out.


Thomas Sales: I will give the figures. No.
1, bushels received, 68,701,359; bushels shipped out, 73,487,759.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What elevator is that?


Thomas Sales: Private elevators, mixing
houses.


Andrew Ross McMaster: All the private elevators?


Thomas Sales: Yes. Of No. 2 we find that
17.844,833 bushels were received and 24,235,973 busheh were shipped out. When we get to

Canada Grain Act

No. 3 we find that they shipped out less than received, and of No. 4 they received 1,550,000 bushels and shipped only 921,000 out, and so on. It is not confined to the lower grades, as the minister suggests.


Charles A. Stewart: What
happens to the lower grades?


Thomas Sales: They disappear into the higher ones. You cannot put lower grade stuff into the higher grade stuff without somebody making a lot of money. I do not know about this profit of 1.25; personally I do not believe it. You cannot put the low stuff into the high stuff without lowering the quality of the high grade.


George Gibson Coote: There seems to be an impression that the feed wheat is not put into the higher grade. If you look at page 89 of the report of the Grain Inquiry Commission with regard to the Paterson elevator you will find that something over 212,000 bushels below No. 4 were taken into that elevator, and that includes rejected, tough, smutty, and everything else, and only 179 bushels of that 212,000 were put out below No. 4. Where is that stuff going to? The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) raised a point of order when I mentioned renovated butter, but I contend that bad butter and smutty wheat are in the same class, and when we prohibit the renovating of bad butter and calling it good butter or selling it as butter of any kind, why let this tough, rejected and smutty wheat, feed wheat, be mixed with No. 1, 2 or 3? It is beyond my comprehension. To use the words of the hon. member (Mr. Sales) in respect to the judgment of hon. members of this House, I do not think they are using judgment; they are probably voting as they are requested.
Mr. MEIGHEN. The hon. member has stated, and the hon. member for Saltcoats also has stated it several times, that Mr. Justice Turgeon ought to know it all after these eighteen months of inquiry.


Thomas Sales: No, not know it all.


Arthur Meighen: Not know it all. Well, what he does not know the hon. member for Saltcoats could supply.


Thomas Sales: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard any quotation from that report recommending that mixing be forbidden. If it is there, would some hon. member read it?


Thomas Sales: It is not there.


Arthur Meighen: Is that what he did not
know?


Thomas Sales: I recognize myself that no law in Canada can prevent a man from buying a thing and doing as he likes with it, and no doubt Mr. Justice Turgeon recognized the same thing. But let them be confined to what they buy; that was the first amendment that hon. members voted down. You cannot stop a man from doing what he likes with his own, but you can regulate the thing. Of course I do not think it is any use talking. When I listened to the Amen chorus on that side of the House, I was ashamed. What are my people going to say when I go home and tell them what happened in the committee and of the Amen chorus on the government side of this House? I do not believe if the Master himself came down and spoke in this House he would have any effect on the vote.


Milton Neil Campbell: Before the question is put I should like to quote from a speech which was delivered before the Montreal Reform Club some time ago which has a direct bearing on the issue at stake tonight. It is as follows:
We consider as brothers all who live in Canada, and I will be the last one, and my colleagues in the House of Commons, to encourage a policy which for petty, material reasons will set the east of Canada against the west. This national union can consist only if all classes are treated with justice.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. That has nothing to do with the question before the Chair.


Milton Neil Campbell: It is from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), and I would appeal to these hon. gentlemen to show a little of that Liberalism to-night.


George Newcombe Gordon: , The question is on the main motion, that the section do now carry. Those in favour will please say aye.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Do we understand that this is the whole section 140 that is being voted on, or just subsection 1?


George Newcombe Gordon: The whole of section 140.


Robert Gardiner: If you carry the whole of it is it not possible to delete the whole of it?


George Newcombe Gordon: You cannot move to strike out a whole section any more than you can strike out a whole vote in the estimates. The section was called in its entirety, the whole four clauses, and no objection was raised. So a vote wil be taken on the whole section.

Canada Grain Act


George Gibson Coote: I rise to a point of order. I think there are some members who desire, if subsection 1 cannot be deleted, to move an amendment to add certain words. Now if you persist, Mr. Chairman, in taking the vote as you suggest, you preclude hon. members from moving an amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is there any member who desires to move an amendment?


Charles A. Stewart: I have an additional subsection 5 to move to the section, as follows:
Provided that at any time it is deemed advisable and in the public interest by the Board of Grain Commissioners, it may with the approval of the Governor in Council demand of any private elevator where mixing is practised or any public elevator which receives grain from a private elevator that all such grain when shipped out be covered by certificates that have marked across the face thereof in red or other distinguishing letters the words "From a private elevator."


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Wallace Stewart: I move that clause (b) of section 140 be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefor:
All grain inspected out of a private elevator shall be required in order to receive a grade to be equal to the general average quality of the grain of a similar grade passing inspection at the initial official inspection point, and shall be properly cleaned.
The amendment I am moving is the clause found in the bill as originally drafted, and is in accordance with the recommendation of the Turgeon commission. It is not necessary for me to delay the committee longer than to point out that there are objections to mixing amongst the producers in western Canada, but I submit that if the product that comes out of the mixing elevator is inspected up to a grade equal to that the farmer receives for his product, there can be no complp.int, nor do I think our grain would suffer in European markets if we were compelled to raise to that grade. I therefore submit the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: May I ask where this
amendment is to be placed?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Strike out
paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 140, and replace it with the words I have placed in your hands.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean the grade pertaining to mixed grain shall be of the same standard as the grade placed upon the grain by the government inspector, say at Winnipeg?


Charles Wallace Stewart: That is it
exactly.
301i


Charles A. Stewart: I frankly see no reason why we should not accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Gardiner: I move that subsection 1 of section 140 be struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: That includes the
amendment that has just been passed.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Did you declare that amendment carried, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, but I did not
declare the subsection as amended carried.


Thomas Sales: What is the effect of this
new amendment?


George Newcombe Gordon: It strikes out subsection 1 (a) and (b).


Charles A. Stewart: We have
just accepted an amendment that the hon. member is now moving to strike out. I think his amendment is out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is 1 (b), but the whole subsection has not carried yet.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. LUCAS:: I move to amend paragraph
(a) of section 140 by adding after the word "owner" in the 14th line the words "which shall be on a separate form." I understood that when we were in committee discussing this section that was agreed to, but whether its omission was an oversight or not I am not prepared to say. This will mean that when the owner, agrees to have his grain go to a private elevator, and he gives a written consent it will be on a separate form, so that he will know exactly what he is signing. This section says:
Except where grain is shipped to a private terminal elevator with the written consent of the owner.
Very often the consent appears in small print along with something else, and the owner does not know what he is signing, but if this is on a separate form his attention will be called to it and he will know what he is signing.


Charles A. Stewart: The form of
the consent is to be approved by the board. Would not, that cover the objection?


William Thomas Lucas: That form might include several other regulations, and if it is in separate form he will know what he is signing.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is a grammatical
error in the amendment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That can be amended. My understanding of the discussion in the agricultural committee coincides with what my hon. friend has just stated.
Marine Insurance


Charles A. Stewart: We will accept that amendment.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I think such an amendment was really carried in the agricultural committee along the lines the hon. member proposes. In some way it got twisted out of the bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: I will make this amendment read in this way:
The form of such consent which shall be on a separate form to be approved by the board.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Millar: I wish to move another amendment-


Edward Joseph Garland: I move that the committee rise and report progress. We have sat here too long.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member who is moving the amendment has the floor.


John Millar: This is a clause that appeared also in the original bill as drawn by the representative of the commission. I am not sure which section it will be, we travel so fast. It will read as follows:
No grain shipped from a private elevator shall be accepted for storage in the general bins of the public terminal elevator, but such grain may be stored in a special bin in any public terminal elevator, under regulations to be made by the board for the purpose.


George Newcombe Gordon: This will be subsection
(c) of section 1 of section 140.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand f,he committee, in their wisdom or otherwise, deleted this from the bill, and evidently after very careful consideration. I am inclined to favour the decision of the committee in this matter. I think we have covered this question fairly thoroughly now, almost to the satisfaction of everyone.
Amendment negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN MARINE INSURANCE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
House adjourns I may inform the House that 1 have received a cable from the high commissioner. enclosing the report of the Imperial Shipping committee, as follows:
Summary nf Imperial Shipping Committee's Report on Camul:an Mariiu* Insurance
The Iu'pt rial Shipping committee has completed a unanimous report on Canadian marine insurance. The question w :t - referred to the committee by the Canadian government rather more than a year ago. As a preliminary step it was announced last summer that the comm.:tee had persuaded the underwriters to remove Halifax from the warranty which created a differential charge for the insurance of shipping entering British North American ports. Since then a mass of evidence has been obtained which is marshalled in the forthcoming report. The improvements to navigation and
[Mr. Crmrnr.1
the record of casualties submitted by the Canadian
government and the underwriters have been scrutinized. In view of the complexity of the problem involved it is impossible to summarize briefly the evidence but the conclusions at which the committee has arrived are that there is a presumption in favour of the present differential on the St. Lawrence, but that the evidence is in one respect incomplete, and moreover that directional wireless maj' alter the statistical position. The committee suggest that having regard to all the circumstances the joint hull committee should reconsider the position of St. John, N.B., and Prince Rupert, B.C. Under the warranty they also propose that steps should be taken for a systematic record of casualties in the St. Lawrence and that so long as the warranty is maintained there, all reference to British North America should be omitted from its title. The report will be published simultaneously in Canada and Great Britain early next month.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King: the House adjourned at 2.20 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, June 23, 1925