[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 228, from the Senate, for the relief of Lucy Eileen Johnston.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 229, from the Senate, for the relief of Susan Ellen Tauton Love.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 230, from the Senate, for the relief of Caroline Watters.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 231, from the Senate, for the relief of Grace Wilhelmina Harrison.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 232, from the Senate, for the relief of Ethel Foster.-Mr. Sheard.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to call the attention of the government, and the Minister of the Interior in particular, to a telegram-indeed more than one telegram- which I have received from Winnipeg protesting against certain concessions, or rather the promise of a concession, said to have been made in respect of certain pulpwood areas in northern Manitoba, especially to those features providing only for pulpwood manufacture on a small scale rather than paper manufacture-to both the smallness of the scale and the fact that only partial manufacture is to be made of the raw material- as inadequate compensation for the very large concessions given. I would ask the Minister if he would make any statement that he can on the subject, and also if he would lay on the table of the House the agreements or order in council, or both, whichever may exist.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I notice 'by press despatches that there has been considerable agitation about a concession granted to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company in Winnipeg, due largely, I think, to the fact that there is not a definite provision for the location of the mill in the city of Winnipeg. However, in reply to the question of my right hon. friend I would say

Pulpwood Concessions
that there is definite provision in the contract for the manufacture of both pulp and paper.


Arthur Meighen: How much?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) Fifty per cent of the product of the mill is to be manufactured into paper, and none of the pulp can be exported from Canada without the consent of the minister, so that there is definite provision for the manufacture of paper and the construction of a paper plant in connection with the pulp plant.


Arthur Meighen: What is the extent of the plant?


Charles A. Stewart: At present one hundred tons per day, but it can be extended to a two hundred ton plant which I am given to understand' is the economic unit. That is the definite provision. My information is that the city of Winnipeg are very anxious to secure this plant. But the difficulty in Winnipeg is the water supply, They require a very large supply of pure water which would have to be filtered, if taken from the river proper, or obtained from the greater Winnipeg water supply, whereas if the company located on lake Winnipeg or on the English river they would have these advantages besides being somewhat closer to their source of power. The project is to be undertaken with power developed by the Manitoba Power Company at its inception, and from a development of power later on. I submitted the agreement and order in council on the matter to the provincial government. The mayor and council-I would not sty the council but the mayor at all events-of the city of 'Winnipeg consulted with the members representing the district, and the features of the contract, I think, protect ev.-.ry one thoroughly. We have a deposit of $250,000 as a guarantee that the mill will be started, but no cutting will be permitted until $1,000,000 has been expended upon the mill itself. In addition, there is a perpetual bond of $175,000 for the faithful performance of the contract. The citizens of Winnipeg, and of Manitoba generally, have been extremely anxious for a long time to have this industry established, and it is in compliance with that request that the agreement was entered into with the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company for_ the carrying out of the project. The territory available in Manitoba will warrant the construction of two mills, so far as we know at the present time, of two hundred ton capacity each. That is according to the information that we have from our Forestry department. The whole agreement and contract have been
fully scrutinized and will be found, I think, eminently satisfactory. I shall be very glai to lay the order in council and the contract upon the table of the House on Monday.


Arthur Meighen: That is, the orders-incouncil-there will be more than one, I anticipate-reciting the area of the concessions in respect of which the contract was made?


Charles A. Stewart: I would be very glad to lay the information on the table.


Arthur Meighen: On Monday?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.



GERMAN SECURITY PACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I should like also to refer to a question asked some two days ago, or three, relating to the reported or pending agreement as to defence as between France, Germany and Great Britain, and to ask the government if they would lay on the Table this session-on Monday if possible-the correspondence relating thereto. I hope that a too jealous care will not be taken to extend the confidentiality of the correspondence in order to prevent its 'being kid on the table because if so we shall know practically nothing about it for many months to come.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I do not know if there is any correspondence, although there may be. There is no objection to laying it on the table if it be not considered confidential. From what my right hon. friend says he knows what that, means.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Will the government give us information as to the situation in Cape Breton? I trust -that parliament will not be asked to prorogue without this matter being settled, as there are now large bodies of troops in that pant of Canada.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That question had better be asked again when the Prime Minister is in his seat.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-RURAL CREDITS

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: May I ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he will be good enough to inform -the House whether -he intends ito carry out the legislation -which is
Elections Act

now proposed in regard to the soldier settlement revaluation? Also the resolution which he has on the order paper regarding rural credits?


Hon. J. A. ROBB:: (Acting Minister of
Finance): I brought to the attention of the House Some days ago the .bill in regard to soldier settlement revaluation. For one reason or another it was delayed a whole evening; we sat considering that measure until after midnight. My hon. friend will recall that it was then moved that the committee rise. But I am not discouraged; I propose to bring that measure forward as it is now on the order paper. There is also a measure on the order paper relating to agricultural credits which I prqpose to present to the House.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from July 19 consideration in committee of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act (as amended).- Hon. Mr. Cppp.-Mt. Gordon in the Chair.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Delivery to candidates.
Mr. COOTE; I think there is some change in this section, and I would like an explanation of it. The committee is passing sections so fast that it is difficult to understand what is done.
Mr. COPP:: This section provides for the delivery of the list of voters to candidates who have been nominated earlier than nomination day, if the lists are ready.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: There is no provision that the lists must be ready a certain number of days before nomination?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No change in regard to that.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The returning officer
must have the lists in the hands of candidates nomination day.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the law at present.
Certified lists must 'be ready, but under the present section the candidates cannot obtain them till nomination day. This provides that if a candidate is nominated earlier he can get the lists earlier.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is that intended to
make provision for ridings where nomination takes place two weeks before the election?


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will refer
to the explanatory note on the opposite page he will find the following:
Rule (6) of Schedule A to section 32 requires urban registrars to deliver or send copies of the preliminary 
lists prepared by them "to each of the candidates upon nomination day".
That is the present act. The explanation continues:
Such preliminary lists are generally ready for delivery seme ten or twelve days earlier, but the rule was no doubt drafted in its present form on the assumption that before nomination day there was no definite information as to what candidates would be in the field. Provision, is, however made for early nomination and there is no reason why candidates actually nominated should not immediately receive their preliminary copies of the list.
The provision referred to is made under section 40 of the present act.


Mr. CALDWELL:: While I approve of
sending lists to candidates as early as possible, I am afraid the minister or the Chief Electoral Officer will run up against difficulty if the section is adopted. It says:
Deliver or send by registered mail to each of the candidates upon nomination day one other certified copy of every such list.
The candidate might be nominated two months before the election, and the lists are not prepared at that time.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, there are candidates nominated to-day for the next general election.


Ernest Lapointe: Not by law.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does that mean they
shall not have the lists until after official nomination day? I understand the minister to say, " as soon as they were put in the field If the section means that the lists shall not be sent to the candidate until after official nomination day, I cannot see any force in the provision.


Ernest Lapointe: Suppose, instead of waiting for nomination day, a candidate files his papers and makes his deposit, what is the harm in having the officer send him a list immediately instead of waiting?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not objecting to
the provision, but I am pointing out that it might get the electoral officer into difficulty. If it means after the candidate has deposited his nomination papers and so on, I have no objection; in fact I think it is a good thing.


George Gibson Coote: It is almost impossible to hear, what is being said. How is the returning officer to find out when a candidate is nominated? Will the list be sent to anybody who states to the returning officer that be is a candidate?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not until be files bis nomination paper regularly signed by a sufficient number of people and deposits those papers

Elections Act
with the returning officer together with his deposit, as a candidate. Then when the lists are ready he is entitled to get them in advance of nomination day.


Mr. McTAGGART:: Does this provision
apply to all constituencies, rural and urban?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Papers to be sent by registrar to revising officer.
George Gibson Coote: I think the minister should
make some explanation of the clauses as we go along, and we might get through a little faster.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The explanation of the chief
electoral officer is on the opposite page.


George Gibson Coote: If we attempt to read small
print opposite a section, before we get through the chairman will have declared the section carried.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The explanation reads:
The proposed rule adopts two amendments suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer who, in his 1922 report, says as follows in explanation of one of them:-
"The index books prepared by urban registrars and transmitted by them under this Rule to the revising officer for revision are necessary in order to ensure against the omission of names from the final list of vcters by reason of the possible loss or destruction of individual -loose sheets, if the list was prepared on separate sheets. The index book, is, however, an exceedingly unsatisfactory form in which to have copy go to the printer, and it is suggested that urban registrars should be required to prepare and transmit to the revising officer with the index book an extra copy for use by the printer, the index book being always retained by the revising officer and used for the correction of the proof."
That is just simply to provide an extra copy to go to the printer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
On section 14

Disposition of certain appeals to revising officer.
Arthur Bliss Copp: This is to carry out a
suggestion quoted in the note to section 9 of the bill. Hon. gentlemen will find the explanation opposite section 9, as follows:
This is an amendment suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer with a view of overcoming one of the difficulties referred to in the quotation from his 1922 report in the note to section 5 of the billl. In that report lie says with regard to this amendment:-
''The only way in which it appears possible consistently with the proper protection of the voter to render easier the removail of the names of dead and disqualified voters from the preliminary lists for urban polling divisions is to create a new class of applications to the revising officer in which the onus of establishing qualification is placed upon the voter
concerned instead of upon the applicant. When the onus rests upon the applicant it is exceedingly difficult to discharge, and experience indicates that, except when, as has happened, the machinery is used with the apparently deliberate purpose of blocking the revision, it is almost never resorted to. At the same time, it is impossible to allow the onus to be generally placed upon the voter without any responsibility upon the applicant, since the inevitable effect of so doing would be to put into the power of unscrupulous partisans not only to make the revision of the lists in the time available an impossibility, but to impose upon all their political opponents and unjustifiable burden. Since, however, it is principally names upon the provincial lists that are in question, it seems possible to permit the registrar, on affidavit made during his sittings by a qualified voter in his registration district, to give to the voter objected to a notice requiring him to attend or be represented before the revising officer in order to support his right to vote. An amendment along these lines would involve the insertion in Schedule A to section 32 of a new rule as Rule (5a); the addition of appropriate words at the end of Rule (8); the insertion of a new clause in Rule (14) as clause (bb), and a slight change in clause (c) of that rule."


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The word "shall" in clause 14 of the bill, the third line from the last, is the only word that might be open to objection. The clause reads:
His name shall be struck therefrom, whether or not the voter by whom the objection was made has appeared before the revising officer.
It makes it imperative upon the revising officer to remove the name. I would suggest that the word "may" might well be substituted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The only evidence before the registrar is an affidavit that the man is disqualified or dead. I do not think it makes very much difference whether we have it "shall' or "may." If the man is dead, "shall" is the proper word, and if he is disqualified, "shall" is the proper word.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does it apply
only to dead or absentees?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Or disqualified.
Mr. STEWART -(Leeds):	The difficulty
is that these people may not appear. They are always reluctant to go up and appear, and the fact that they do not appear seems to entail the consequence of having their names struck from the lists.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think the change
in the word would make any difference, but I have no objection if anybody thinks that is a better word.


Mr. BOYS:: Prior to what time have these appeals to be taken? To ascertain that, you have to go back to a clause that has been passed, but I think the matter is quite proper to be considered under clause 14. Under clause 9, rule (5a) is added to section 32, and it provides for an appeal. In my hurry, I

458S
Elections Act

cannot find anything which shows prior to what time that appeal may be taken.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That appeal is made to the
urban registrar before the completion of his list, whatever time that may be.


William Alves Boys: Where do we find that in the bill?


Mr. OOPP:: These appeals are limited to
applications made by affidavit before the urban registrar and they must be done before he completes his list.


William Alves Boys: This is a new provision entirely for having names removed at the instance of anyone 'who appears upon the list. What I cannot find is anything that states prior to what time a voter on the list has a right to make that appeal for the removal of somebody else's name.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Chief Electoral Officer
fixes the time. As I understand my hon. friend's question, it is: Prior to what time can the appeal be made? The Chief Electoral Officer informs me that he fixes the time and it is usually between the 36th and the 30th day before the election.


William Alves Boys: There is another provision
which states that when the appeal is taken, notice is to be sent, but it does not say within what time. There might be a delay of two weeks in signing that notice. I do not say that a returning officer having a proper sense of bis duty would do that, but I should have thought provision would be made for a limited time within which notice must be sent- to the voter whose name is to be struck off.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is done immediately. Of course, there is no express provision for it. You would have to go back to clause 9 to change that.	[DOT]


William Alves Boys: I should have thought there
would be something to direct him to do it within a certain time or immediately. The sending of the notice might stand indefinitely, and the returning officer could not be found guilty of any specific offence.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can see another
danger under clause 14. While it apparently gives the voter who is challenged a further right to appear, I think the minister knows conditions, especially in New Brunswick. Let us take an election being held in December. Many voters are in the lumber woods and they plan to come out on election day in order to vote. I notice-not in the bill, but in the explanation-this statement; if it was
IMr. Boys.]
in the act it would be better, but even then it is not sufficient:
No complaint or appeal shall be heard by the revising officer to strike names off the list of voters unless two day's notice in writing has been given by mailing it registered and prepaid to the person affected, addressed as on the list of voters, or to his last known residence.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is the bon. member
discussing clause 15 now?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think this relates to
clause 14 as well. These men are in the lumber woods. It might be a week before they would get the letter, and it might be a much longer time than that; it might not be until the following year. Therefore, a hardship might be worked in cases of that kind. All that a person who was desirous of getting people's names off the list would have to do would be to find out who were in the lumber woods and request that their names should be struck off. These men should not be called to come out and appear, losing their time when it is very inconvenient for them in any case.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There are difficulties in all
these matters that are brought to the attention of the committee. It is, I (hink, an impossibility for the Chief Electoral Officer or anybody else to frame an act that would cover every individual case that a member might think about in his particular riding, and to provide for the lumber men in New Brunswick, the few miners in Ontario and the fishermen in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and elsewhere. There are always bound to be some little difficulties that it is impossible to meet. The Chief Electoral officer, who has given, not his whole time but Ihe main portion of his time, to this matter for the past five or six years, has worked this out in order to cover the situation to the best of his ability. From the information and experience he has gaine.' in the conduct of the last election, he has suggested these amendments. We have gone over them as carefully as we could in the committee on Privileges and Elections and have heard his explanations. If anybody can suggest anything that will improve the bill, I am sure the Chief Electoral Officer and myself will be very glad to consider any suggestions: but it seems to me that to- undertake to change these various clauses here and there as we go along, will, perhaps, result in our getting into greater difficulties than if we accepted the judgment of the drafting done by the Chief Electoral Officer. I quite understand the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell). Some man, a political partisan perhaps,

Elections Act
might make a wrong affidavit, and a notice would be sent to somebody who would be in the lumber woods or on a log drive. Such a man might not get that notice and he might suffer an injury by having his name removed from the voters' list when it should not have been. The man, however, who made the affidavit would be liable to be charged with perjury. This is a thing that would not happen often although, perhaps, it might happen occasionally. It would be impossible to find a panacea to cover every case we could think of in this Dominion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think all these objections would perhaps be met by a very simple change in' this clause. I move that the word "shall" in clause 14 in the fourth line on the top of page 8 be changed to "may". That leaves it in the discretion of the revising officer in cases of this kind to leave the name on the list.


Albert James Smith Copp: That is quite satisfactory.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart, Leeds) agreed to.


William Alves Boys: I regret to say that I do not
feel myself satisfied with regard to the point I have just mentioned. I do not seek in any way to raise any extraordinary or unique situation, but this is a situation which seems to me to apply to every instance whether it be in a city or town or anywhere else. In dealing with it, one has to refer to clause 9 which adds as a subsection the rule (5A). I am quite aware that the revising officer holds his courts and everybody knows where those courts will be. But this is an extraordinary remedy which you are giving to every voter whose name appears upon the list. As I read the clause, there is nothing to limit it. As the clause reads, he may apply to the revising officer by making affidavit at any time whatever. Supposing he makes his application a day or two before election day, what opportunity would there be to send a notice to the voter whose name is to be struck off and to give him an opportunity of appearing and opposing such action? Unless I am overlooking some provision in the bill, it seems to me you must get this result. If there is anything in the bill stating that this must all be done not later than the last day on which there is a revision of the list, my objection would fall to the ground, but I do not find any such provision. This is an extraordinary proposition and one that, it seems to me, can be set in motion when the revising officer has entirely completed his revision of the list. Some limitation must be provided or we are going to get into very serious trouble.
293i


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is suggested by the Chief
Electoral Officer that it might be remedied by inserting in line 37-clause 9-after the word "registrar" the words "during his sitting".


William Alves Boys: In the first place, I should like to find out from the minister if I am right in my contention, because if I am right, we ought to deal with it. If I am wrong, we need not bother our heads any more about it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Chief Electoral Officer
feels it is very satisfactory in the way it is, but those three words might make it a little clearer as to when it is to be done.


William Alves Boys: Let us assume that the revising officer has completed his work, that the lists are revised; but, for instance, I make up my mind that there is on the list a certain name which should not be there. I look at the act and I find that by virtue of the provisions of clause 9, rule (5A) is added to section 32, and rule (5A) gives a voter who is on the list the right to object to some other name which, he thinks, is improperly upon that list.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He makes his objection before the registrar.


William Alves Boys: Certainly; but I am stating the case w'here the work of revising the list has been completed.
Mr. 'COPP: The revision has not been begun when this takes place.


William Alves Boys: Of course it has. I will ask the minister to assume that the list has been completed, and to apply rule (5A):
Any voter qualified to vote in any polling division in the district allotted to any registrar, and duly entered in the list of voters for such polling division, may make oath before such registrar alleging the death, disqualification, or real residence and appearance in another list, of any person on the list for any of such polling divisions, and the registrar, upon such oath being made before him, shall transmit by registered mail addressed to the person objected to, at the address mentioned in the list of voters, if any, and also at such other address, if any, as may be mentioned in the oath aforesaid, a notice requiring the person objected to to appear in person or by representative-
And so on. Now, when may the voter take that proceeding? Is there anything in this act that says he must do so before the completion of the list?


Albert James Smith Copp: The objection must be made before the registrar and not before the returning officer.
Mr. B'OYS: I am by no means satisfied.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend is not satisfied, I am prepared to let this section stand until he has had an opportunity of consider-
Elections Act

ing it further. The Chief Electoral Officer tells me that it is all right.


William Alves Boys: I can see nothing which says that that extraordinary remedy cannot be applied two days before the election. Can the minister refer me to anything in the act to the contrary?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The registrar's work is done long before that.


William Alves Boys: I do not care whether it is done or not, this section says the voter may apply to the registrar. The registrar remains, does he not, until the election is over?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Would not this make it absolutely clear-"before such registrar during his regular sittings."


William Alves Boys: "At or before"-he cannot do it during his regular sittings. Suppose he is on his last day, what time is there going to be to send this notice out, have the voter appear, and so on?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Ten days.


Mr. LEADER:: Why is our Elections Act so cumbersome and intricate, so complex and hard to be understood by the general public? I am very sorry that the Chief Electoral Officer did not bring in an act more simple in form. It could be contained in a dozen pages and the common people could readily understand it. The old act contains 245 pages. We 'have seen in this House eminent lawyers disagreeing on certain clauses of that act and if these legal gentlemen are at a loss to understand it how are we to expect the common people who are the ones most concerned, the voters, to have any clear knowledge of it?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Applications to revising officer.
George Gibson Coote: The minister might explain
this.
Mr. 'COPP:	This is a continuation of
section 9 of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Duties of revising officer before polling day.
Arthur Bliss Copp: The note opposite explains
the section. Rule 15 of schedule (a) to section 32 directs the revising officer to certify and commence the printing of his lists and to send statements of changes and additions to candidates on the twelfth day before polling day. The sittings of the 
revising officer conclude on the fifteenth day before polling day, and as time presses at this stage and it is important that the printing of the lists should be completed as early as possible, there seems to be no reason why the statute should require an unnecessary waste of three days.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister not
think that this section should stand until we have disposed of section 21? There must be fourteen days between nomination day and polling day, and if the list is to be presented to the candidate on nomination day the revising officer would have to complete his work more than twelve days before polling day.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is not the list my hon.
friend refers to; this is the preliminary list. Under the present statute there is a waste of three days and this amendment is intended to obviate that.


George Gibson Coote: The amendment itself does
not read that way. It says:
As soon as possible after the conclusion of his sittings and at latest on the twelfth day before polling day, the revising officer shall-
Is there anything to hinder him from sending it within fifteen days?


Arthur Bliss Copp: He is to do it as soon as
possible after the work is finished, but not later than the twelfth day.


George Gibson Coote: How many days must elapse between the sending of the lists and the election?	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: I am very much afraid
of section 15, as of most of them. It puts the onus on the person appeal-
12 noon ing against the name to show that the particular voter has no right to vote. It has unfortunately been the practice in large cities to put on the lists all sorts and conditions of people, hundreds of whom do not live at all and never did live. How are you going to show that some fictitious name is fictitious? You cannot do it. You can put the burden on the man appealing but he cannot discharge that burden; there is no way of doing it. What would be the result? You would have thousands of names of people who were merely imaginary, all voting by telegraph, and no one could appeal and establish his claim against a single one of these fictitious people.


George Gibson Coote: I am interested in section
16. It seems to provide that instead of fifteen days between the time the list is mailed and polling day there shall be only twelve.

Elections Act


Arthur Bliss Copp: The new rule provides that
it may be done "as early as possible" but must not be done later than the twelfth day.


George Gibson Coote: That is the only point I
want to clear up.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are any changes permissible in the list after the official list is delivered to candidates on nomination day?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is the preliminary list that
goes to the candidate on nomination day. All changes are made, in urban lists, after nomination day.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And what about rural
lists?


Arthur Bliss Copp: They may be changed after
nomination day, too.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that in the
rural districts fifteen days is too rfiort a time, because these lists should be sent by the candidate to his agents in the outlying districts so that they may see that they are correct. For some of the rural districts at any rate the time is too short.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This applies only to urban districts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Record of rural registrars appointed.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In the last general election the final lists in some cases were not received until three days after the election.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is the same in the
rural districts.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is awfully hard to
have your agent work in your best interests if you have not the revised list in your hands beforehand.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mistakes may occur in any
election. The same thing occurred in parts of my riding. But section 18 is intended to assist in that respect by having the list given to the representatives in the rural districts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Rural lists to be sent to candidates.
George Gibson Coote: This section will be all right, I think, if you do not insist on the change requiring only one week to elapse between nomination and polling day, but if that provision should carry later on, I think these lists should certainly be in the hands of the candidates before nomination day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Interval between nomination and poll altered.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I would move that this section stand for the present.


Arthur Meighen: In the meantime I would suggest to the minister that he get the Minister of Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) to frame an amendment to section 21 to submit to hon. gentlemen to my left showing how that sixty days can be arrived at by an amendment to section 21. I would like him to exercise his ingenuity on that.


George Gibson Coote: I would ask the minister
to inform the committee why he wishes this section to stand, and whether he is going to consider the advisability of lengthening the time between nomination and polling day.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I asked the
minister in charge of the bill to hold this section for the moment. I have sent to get information covering the last twenty years as to the length of time that has elapsed between the day of officially announcing the election and polling day, because I think that information would be of interest and helpful to the committee in deciding this mater. Last night in the discussion which took place a great deal was said about the interest of individual candidates in different ridings, but nothing or very little was said with respect to the public interest and the desirability of not keeping business in this country in an unsettled condition over a long period of time. That, I believe, is the reason why in Great Britain and other countries the time fixed is as short as it can be. Everyone knows that during the period of an election, business becomes greatly unsettled. Large business concerns will not place orders, banks more or less suspend a part of their loaning operations, and generally the whole business of the country is unsettled through the period in which the politi-[DOT] cal campaign takes place. The government in seeking to shorten the period of time had this in mind and more particularly the confusion of the last election when over a quarter of the year was taken up in an election campaign, in so acting we believe we are furthering the best interest of the country primarily and doing what will prove to be in the interest of candidates themselves. It must be remembered that a political campaign does not necessarily start the moment the announcement of an election is made. The people of the country are judging a government from the moment it takes office, and all through the year constituencies are being addressed by members and candidates. When my hon
Elections Act

friends return to the west the first thing they will do, I imagine, will be to visit different parts of their constituencies and express their views on the political questions of the day. So the limiting of time does not mean that political discussion is being confined within these limits. It is simply that the country may know that for a certain period, and only for that period, will the necessary turmoil of a political contest be kept up.
However, as I have said, the reason for holding this section for the moment is to get the further information I have sent for; and I think if we discover by it that it has been possible to hold elections in this country for a number of years in a shorter period of time, that ought to be some guide to the committee in settling this matter. Again I would say 'that the period of forty-five days is from the point of view of the Chief Electoral Officer only, what in his opinion could happen under the most favourable circumstances assuming that there is no hitch in any particular. That is the minimum, but it does not mean that the election may not take a very much longer time.


George Gibson Coote: My reason for rising to
speak a moment ago was that this section is going to shorten the time between nomination and polling day to one week in most of the constituencies, and I am sure that that will be too short. It is simply inviting trouble, because in many of the constituencies it will be found almost impossible to print the ballots and distribute them to outlying polls within one week, and it may result in many elections having to be fought all over again. I repeat, it is simply inviting trouble. I cannot see why we should shorten that time at any rate, regardless of what we do as ito fixing the time between the issuing of the writ and polling day.


Mr. BROWN:: There is one point in regard to this change that perhaps has been overlooked. We must remember that when this act was prepared that we are now revising, an entirely new system of preparing the lists was adopted. Printed lists were discarded, lists that had formerly been prepared for a considerable length of time before the election. The new provisions as to the preparation and distribution of the lists on the basis of two weeks elapsing between nomination and polling day were inserted, and if the act is changed it seems to me it will lead to a great deal of confusion in the minds of every person in regard to the situation that prevails between the issuing of the lists to the candidates who are not officially nominated 
until the seventh day before election day. It seems to me it. is opening the way to confusion.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would
like to make a few remarks on this question.


George Newcombe Gordon: This clause stands.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I shall
take only a few moments. The fact that elections have been held-


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The adoption of this section is not moved. I do not see how we can debate it. Surely the 'minister in charge of the bill has the right to take section 22 instead of section 21. When he moves for the adoption of section 21 that will be the time to debate it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I just wish to suggest, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is taking certain things into consideration, that he take this point into consideration also. In some of the large constituencies in days gone by it has been found that the period of two weeks between nomination day and polling day was insufficient and some polling districts were not able to get their ballot boxes.
Section stands.
Section 22 agreed to.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would ask that section 23 be allowed to stand also. It relates to section 21.
Section 23 stands.
On Section 24-Information given before poll is closed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to have some information as to why this subsection is being repealed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Chief Electoral Officer in his 1922 report says:
Section 60, subsection (la) makes it an illegal practice for any "candidate, officer, clerk or other person" to communicate to any one before the close of the poll information as to whether any person has voted or applied for a ballot paper at any polling station. This provision seems to be quite unnecessary an l unless it is disregarded, as it probably often is, merely involves extra and unnecessary expense to candidates. No public interest would seem likely to suffer by reason of its repeal and it is recommended that the clause be repealed."
The paragraph repealed reads as follows:-
(a) before the poll is closed, communicate to any person any information as to whether any person on the list of voters has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted at that polling station; or,
You can get that information at all times by having an agent outside the polling station who checks every person who goes in. If you

Elections Act
can get that information at the present time I see no reason why a candidate should not obtain it from his agent inside the poll.


Mr. LOYIE:: If this section is adopted it will simply mean that there will be no order at all inside the polling booth; it will result in a mob gathering inside.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They cannot get in; nobody is allowed in except those persons authorized under the act.


William James Lovie: But under this provision they will be going into the polling station to get the names of persons who have or have not voted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not at all.


William James Lovie: All right.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It would be interesting to know why any obligation is imposed upon the officers to give the information.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the effect of the amendment is very plain. It will mean that governmental candidates, with their supporters, will be able to get full information from the deputy returning officer or the poll clerk as to who has voted and who has not voted. That will relieve the governmental candidates from the trouble of having outside scrutineers.


Ernest Lapointe: Why does my hon. friend
specify "governmental candidates"?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I point out in the first instance that as a result of the answer given to me by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copip) there is no duty thrown on the *election officers to give this information; they can simply give it if they please. The result will be they will only give it to their political friends; they will give it in the direction of the gentleman who has had to do with their appointment. As a matter of practical working out it simply means, therefore, that the governmental candidates will not be put to the trouble and expense of having to maintain [DOT]outside scrutineers for the purpose of knowing who have or have not voted, whereas the other candidates will.


George Perry Graham: Would not every candidate have his agent inside the polling booth to give the information?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He might or he might not. It is perfectly clear, at least as I see it, that the opposition candidate will encounter greater difficulties than the governmental candidate unless there is a requirement to give information. That is how the matter will work out.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend
knows that the returning officer has no power to go and give information; he is there to attend to his duties. Certain information is given by the agent of each candidate. Surely the two candidates, or the three candidates as the case may be, will be on an absolute parity at 'the poll in that respect. Then why does my hon. friend speak as he does? It carries a sort of suggestion that this is being done to help the governmental candidate. This is a suggestion made by the Chief Electoral Officer immediately after the last general election when he presented his report. Surely, therefore, there is no evil intention in the present amendment.


William James Lovie: To whom is the information
to be given? The law at present says that, except the authorized officials, only the person voting is allowed to enter the polling booth.


Ernest Lapointe: The candidate or his
representative at the polling booth. It is always done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the
present law all the candidates are represented at the polling booths by scrutineers, but it is illegal for the inside scrutineer, or any candidate, to pass out information to the outside scrutineer or to any other person as to who has voted. However, that is done; elections cannot very well be carried on without knowing whether certain people have voted or not. The object of this is to authorize the inside scrutineer to inform the outside scrutineer, or any other person as to whether John Smith, Henry Brown, or some other person has voted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 25-Expense voucher.
Mr. SPENCE:: Would the minister kindly give the committee further particulars about this?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a simple amendment
with regard to the transmitting of the polling station accounts. The act provides that they shall be enclosed in a special envelope and placed in the ballot box. This might result in delay, the accounts might be put in the wrong box and get mixed up. No provision is made with reference to the ballot box key which, under the instruction necessarily issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, is delivered to the returning officer or sent to him by regis-
Elections Act

tered mail. There is no reason why the ballot box key and accounts might not be sent to the returning officer in the same package instead of being placed in the ballot bcx. It is much more convenient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
On section 27-Declaration of election.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was some discussion in the committee as to the effect of the failure of the returning officer to make a wri ten declaration, and it was suggested that he should declare the candidate elected and also make a written declaration of it.


George Gibson Coote: What is the present practice? Does it require to be sent by registered letter in every case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The present
practice is that he does not make any declaration in writing. He simply declares a man elected, but this section requires him to make a declaration in writing. I think he should declare a candidate elected and also give a written certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-Custody of ballot boxes.
George Gibson Coote: Why should we carry that
section without some consideration? The question as to who should have the custody of the ballot boxes is a very important one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is to take care of the
empty ballot boxes after the election.


George Gibson Coote: I thank the minister for
the explanation, and I think the section might be agreed to. If the minister would make an explanation with every section we would ge' on faster. I think the minister should loosen up a little.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was giving the information
as readily as I could. Sometimes I have to get the information from the official and give it to the committee.


Mr. MICHAUD:: It is only one member
on the other side of the House who requires all the information.


Mr. LEWIS:: He is the general spokesman for this side.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.

On section 30-Inspection of election documents.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think this
section should have serious consideration. I made some objection to it in the committee. The purpose of the section is to enable the candidate or someone on his behalf to go to the electoral office and inspect the poll book for the purpose of ascertaining who has voted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not the poll book.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That was proposed in committee but not carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think this is wide enough to cover the poll book.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
change in section 30.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is a change in that section.


Arthur Bliss Copp: None of the books can be
examined by anybody without an order from the judge.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the Secretary of State tell us what documents may be inspected and what may not be inspected.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The explanation given by the electoral officer is this:
Section 75, subsection 2, provides that "no person shail be allowed to inspect on any election papers in the custody of the Chief Electoral Officer" except under the order of a judge, and "election papers" are-defined by section 2 (f) as induding "all. . . . documents sent by any returning officer to the Chief Electoral Officer. ... or any instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer or his Assistants." It seems entirely proper that polll books, ballots and other like papers should be available for inspection only under an order of a court or judge, but the same considerations do not, it is submitted, apply to any instructions sent by or on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer to any election officer or other person, to reports or communications made by any election officer to the Chief Electoral Officer, or to any correspondence by or with the Chief Electoral Officer. Such papers are in the nature of the proceedings of a court and should be subject to search and examination to the same extent and in the same way as the documents on file in any court of record.
That would be without an order of the court or judge, but the poll book or other like papers, which would be in the hands of the chief electorial officer, cannot be examined without an order of the judge.
Mr. STE)\ ART (Leeds): I was under the impression that poll books might be examined.
I now find that is not the case, but a lot of other documents may be inspected, and it is just a question whether this is wise or not.

Elections Act


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: By this section we are allowing any
person to inspect these documents, to make extracts therefrom and to be entitled to receive certified copies thereof. While a candidate or his representative might be allowed to do that, I do not think it should be open to every person to do the same.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Any voter may be interested in the matter. It must be remembered that this refers only to making extracts from certain papers, and it is left in the judgment of the Chief Electoral Officer whether he should give him what he wants without the sanction of the court. If he has to have an order from the court, he has to make an affidavit and a petition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Disqualification for corrupt and illegal practices.
Mr. SHAW:: What is the purpose of making this retroactive?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was brought to the attention of parliament with regard to the case of a gentleman elected to this House who wa3 unseated for some corrupt practices or what were presumed to be so. In any case he was unseated and there was a question whether he was disqualified or not. This clause and clause 20, which refers to corrupt practices, provide that a man is not disqualified under the conditions that applied at that time.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understand this subclause
(2) of clause 31 is for Mr. Johnson's benefit.


Ernest Lapointe: It will apply to any
similar case.


William Alves Boys: It makes provision for giving him a hearing.


Ernest Lapointe: And the court will have
to say, not only that he is guilty of something that under the act is an illegal practice, but *that he is disqualified as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
On section 33-Correction of French version.
Pius Michaud: I should like to draw
this matter to the attention of the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer. Proclamations are printed in the official languages of the country, which are French and English. The French proclamations are posted up in Quebec on account of the people there speaking and reading French. In the Maritime provinces we have many constituencies where the
electors are practically all French-speaking therefore, I would ask that when these proclamations are sent to French districts in the Maritime provinces, the French proclamation should be posted up with the English one, so that our people will understand what the proclamation means. During the last campaign I was compelled on several occasions to explain to our French-speaking electors what these proclamations printed in English meant.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will remember the suggestion before the bill is finally put through and see what can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is section 32 carried?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was
declared carried.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What was the force of
it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it the pleasure of the committee to revert to section 32?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
On section 32-Number of voters required for advance poll.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How does the minister explain this section?


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will be good enough to read the note on tihe opposite page he will find the section fully explained. I do not think there is any difficulty about it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Looking at the explanation, the section seems all right. But we should not rush these things through in this way.	*


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 35-Disqualification of persons
supported by charity.
Arthur Bliss Copp: Inmates of institutions supported by public charity are disqualified.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: That would not refer to persons in- receipt of unemployment relief?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Mr. IRVINE:: Suppose a labour man sustained an accident and became incapacitated, and failing to get compensation he found himself in a public institution, would he be debarred from voting?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It would depend upon whether he was in the pauper class-in a charitable institution. A iman might be injured and be
Elections Act

taken to hospital, and while he might not be able to pay his expenses, he would not be disqualified.


William Irvine: But what about the man in
the ipoorhouse?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Under the present act the disqualification applies ito prisoners, patients in lunatic asyluims, persons maintained in whole or in part by public support, persons in houses of industry, or persons receiving charitable support in institutions maintained by the public. This amendment, by adding the words, "other than for war purposes", makes an exception of returned soldiers who may be in public institutions.


William Irvine: I agree with that provision. But why should a man fo.e disqualified because he happens to have been injured in the service of his country in peaceful pursuits'?


Arthur John Lewis: I do not like the suggestion as to charitable support. There might be many people who would be anxious to vote but who, because they received charitable support to any extent although they were not being supported entirely by the public, would be unable to vote.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That has always been the law.


Mr. FORKE:: This would not apply to any one in a sanatorium?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


William Irvine: Suppose a bachelor farmer hurt his spine hauling hay; suppose his land were mortgaged to the hilt; suppose he were incapable of earning his own living. If a few weeks after his accident he found himself compelled to go to the poorhouse, would he be debarred?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why is this section necessary?


George Perry Graham: In a large institution,
with a particular government in power, the officials in charge of the inmates might favour that government in an election, and they might take the inmates out in a body to vote for the party in power. It was the custom before this law was passed, years ago, for officials in institutions of this kind to do that sort of thing, and such an action might turn any election.


Arthur John Lewis: Why not use the words,
"contained within any charitable institution?"


Arthur Bliss Copp: The only change we are proposing is to make special provision for returned soldiers who may happen to be in public institutions.


William Irvine: The proposed amendment
improves the act; but why not make it better
still?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We do not want to make
progress too rapidly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-Form 3 amended.
Arthur Bliss Copp: This is purely a formal
amendment, necessary to carry out the amendments to sections 22, 23 and 24, which we have already passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 37-New forms 17a and 17b.
Arthur Meighen: This is to give effect
to sections 6 and 15, and as I consider section 15 the most vicious in the measure I object to this section going through. Section 15 seemed to carry suddenly, and I think it is very dangerous.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Schedule four.
Arthur Bliss Copp: This section stands.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) considered the situation as regards the relation of the Magdalen islands to the mainland so far as the constituency of Gaspe is concerned? As regards the mainland I am quite satisfied with the section as it reads and with the changes that are being made. But conditions are different on the Magdalen islands. During the winter there is no communication with the mainland, and if an election should take place at that time a serious difficulty might arise in the matter of the proclamation, the ballots, and so forth. I understand that under the Quebec election law the proclamation may be telegraphed and the ballots prepared by the returning officer. I remember once, when I was a candidate upon being made Solicitor 'General, the election occurred in winter. Fortunately I had no opponent, and as everything had been prepared to meet the contingency there was no trouble. The proclamation had been telegraphed, and so far as the ballots were concerned, I believe the deputy returning officer was authorized to have them prepared. I should like to impress upon the Minister of Justice the importance of seeing that provision is made in the act to meet any contingency in this connection, especially so far as the Magdalen islands are concerned. These islands are practically isolated for a period of four and a half months.

Canada Grain Act


Ernest Lapointe: Cannot the ballots be
prepared there?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a population
in that part of the constituency of some seven thousand. I would ask the Minister of Justice to consider this matter.
Progress reported.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 113, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 2, paragraph (a)-"Minister".
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister explain why the word "Minister" should not mean the Minister of Agriculture? I have always found it difficult to imagine any reason why every other article produced by the farmers should be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, and grain under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is the Department of Trade and Commerce particularly fitted for the supervision of this trade" The question has often been asked by the farmers themselves, and possibly the minister might give us some reason why grain comes under his department.


Mr. LOW:: When the Grain Act was passed it was placed under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and has continued there since that time. It might be that the Minister of Agriculture would be better able to handle this than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but this matter was within the Department of Trade and Commerce when I took it over, and I see no reason why a change should be made. The matter of the inspection of grain can be handled just as well under the Department of Trade and Commerce as under the Department of Agriculture I do not see that anything would be gained by making a transfer.


George Gibson Coote: I do not want to delay the committee, but I think there would ibe this advantage to be gained, that as a rule we have a farmer as Minister of Agriculture, and very
often a farmer from the west, where the grain is produced. I do not suppose it is possible to make a change at this late date, but I wanted to bring that point to the committee's attention.


Arthur Meighen: It is just possible though, that under present conditions it really makes no difference.


George Gibson Coote: I think we are soon to have a new Minister of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (cc)-"Private elevator".
Mr. MILLAR:: I think "section 141" should be changed to read "section 140", as that is the number of the section in the act now.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is correct. I move that the
paragraph be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1-Board of Grain Commissioners.
Arthur Meighen: I am trying tc follow this, Mr. Chairman, but I am only at wheat pools yet, and what I am doubtful about is the limited nature of that definition. I can understand the rest of it defining wheat pool, but why should it include "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 such wheat pools or any of them"? That seems to be pretty dangerous.


John Livingstone Brown: The explanation given to the committee by those representing the wheat pool was that it was meant to indicate the selling organization which they had established.


Arthur Meighen: That would be all right if it meant the selling organization established by the pool.


John Livingstone Brown: By the pool, yes.


Arthur Meighen: Here they could give anybody all the advantages given for the wheat pool.


Mr. CRERAR:: I think it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 3-Commissioner to retire at seventy. Proviso.
Arthur Meighen: Will anyone tell us
*whether there is a change? I do not want to
Canada Grain Act

delay the committee while I read each provision, but I should like to know when there is a change.


George Newcombe Gordon: I will indicate, as we come to each section or subsection whether there is a change or not.
Subsections 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Section 4, on subsection 7-Salaries of commissioners.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the committee's attention to the fact that apparently there have been amendments, the amounts being $10,000 and $8,000.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently I am the only one on the side of keeping salaries within the limits of the capacity of the public to pay. Really, I do not know where we are drifting. It is a poor day when this government does not raise some scale of salaries. It will soon be a case of the Canadian people working for a few officials.


Mr LOW:: This recommendation was made by the committee on Agriculture. It is for parliament to accept or reject it.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is just as justified, a little more so, than a great many increases. But this is all in the wrong direction. At a time rvhen there should be general retrenchment, the government insists on pushing salaries all over the area upwards, and ever upwards; they are never content.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 8-Secretary.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it is necessary to suggest an amendment to this subsection. It deals with the appointment of the secretary to the board, and reads:
There shall be a secretary of the board who shall be appointed by the board.
But the committee in drafting that subsection apparently did not give the board power to fix the remuneration of the secretary. It will be necessary for him to get some remuneration, and I would suggest, therefore that subsection 8 be replaced by the following:
There shall be a secretary to the board, appointed by the board, who shall be paid such salary or remuneration as may be determined by the board.


Arthur Meighen: Why should the secretary be appointed by the board? Why should he be appointed differently from all other appointments?-at least from those remaining of all other appointments where this gov-

ernment has not completely destroyed the Civil Service Act.


Milton Neil Campbell: I feel rather inclined to support the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I may say that as a member of the committee on Agriculture, I raised no objection to this provision in committee, but it has been pointed out since that it will impose a hardship upon this particular secretary in that it leaves him separate and apart from the control of the Civil Service Commission and would give him none of the privileges that go with the Civil Service Act. Possibly the point is worthy of consideration.


Arthur Meighen: I move an amendment that the words after the word "board" in the first line be struck out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The committee discussed
this matter at some length, and I think the very general judgment of the members was that the Board of Grain Commissioners were the best judges of the official who should act as their secretary. While the provision infringes upon the Civil Service Act method of appointments it does not introduce in the slightest measure the objection that was generally held-that is the possibility of a patronage appointment. At anv rate, it was felt by the committee that the Board of Grain Commissioners were the best judges of the person who should be their secretary, and for that reason this subsection was put in the bill as it is.


Arthur Meighen: There is always somebody under whom a person works in a branch or department, and the argument would apply that that official ought to know best whom he wants in his branch, but the fact is when that is done you revert to patronage. As a matter of practice that always happens. It never would in the past if it would not do so now. The Civil Service Commission in a case of this kind always take into account the views and expressions of the grain commission, and I do not know of any single complaint as to any appointment made by the commission for the board. I do not understand why gentlemen to my left should be jn favour of an infringement of the Civil Service Act here. We have had nothing but one infringement after the other ever since the present administration came in. It is getting worse; the supplementary estimates provide for a whole lot more. The whole structure is being impaired; it is crashing piece by piece and patronage coming back week after week.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my right hon.
friend if he thinks there is any possibility of

Canada Grain Act
patronage getting into a particular appointment by the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Why?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Marquette has been in charge of appointments, and if there is a commission operating under him the secretary of that commission is going to be appointed subject to his dictation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no power over the
commission who hold office for ten years.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. That is all right. Sometimes the grain commission want a thing as well as other people. For example they have got something right here. My hon. friend knows that as a matter of actual practice in running a department that is where the real authority is, and that is where the temptation comes from, no matter how the theory may be set forth.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Marquette. He may not call himself-I do not suppose he does-an advocate of a return to the patronage system-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should hope not.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: -but this seems to me unquestionably a step in that direction. I should like to put this question to the hon. member:	The present secretary of the Board
of Grain Commissioners has been appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act; has not that method of appointment been found satisfactory? If so, then certainly there should be no occasion for the change suggested. I am opposed to any return to the patronage system, and I think this is simply a step in that direction.


Charles A. Stewart: It seems to me that the subsection should be quite acceptable as it is. I can see very good reasons why the board should want to have the appointment of this secretary, but I cannot go as far as my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), that the salary should be under their control as well, when we have a Civil Service Commission adjusting salaries and maintaining an equality of salaries throughout the service.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no very pronounced view on the matter. I am as much opposed to patronage as anyone in this House, but I was simply endeavouring to state to the committee what in my judgment was the general opinion of the agricultural committee when the clause was under consideration.


Mr. WARNER:: I have taken some pains
to decide wha; view I should take regarding this matter. I do not want patronage any more than other hon. members who are opposing the proposition for the board to appoint their own secretary. Hon. gentlemen seem to fail to take into consideration the fact that this grain business is different from the ordinary work that the civil servan- does. The government does not pay for this business. The grain that is handled and managed by this board pays all the expenses; it h outside of the civil service and in a class by itself. I am quite well aware that some members in my own group do not agree with my ideas, but I have them just the same. I believe the board to be the best judge of who should do the secretarial work. I believe they should have a chance to appoint the man who they think is going to be the best man for the position without any hindrance from any other source outside of the management of the grain business. I am not very particular whe'her I go so far as to say that the secretary should be paid by the board, but I do not think it would be out of the way for the board to pay their own secretary, as they pay the other expenses of handling the grain. I am not anxious to see any encroachment on the prerogatives of the Civil Service Commission, but I do not believe the grain business was considered when the Civil Service Act was put into force. I believe it was the general position of civil servants throughout the country that was considered. I have confidence in the board, I think the board should appoint their own secretary, and if the House see fit, I would be perfectly agreeab'e 'hat they should pay for that service out of the grain business, the same as they pay the other expenses.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The hon. member
for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) stated that it was the general opinion of the committee that this change should be made. The committee was by no means unanimous in that regard. The bill as originally draf'ed did not provide for the appointment by the board, but by the Civil Service Commission. It is quite apparent that there has been a deliberate attempt on many occasions to belittle and undermine the influence of the Civil Service Commission. If this body is competent to do the work for which it was appointed, I do not see where any objection could be taken to the Civil Service Commission making the appointment of secretary to the commission, the position is a very important one, but with co-operation between the board and the com-
Canada Grain Act

mission, I do not think there is any occasion for the amendment that was made in the committee being inserted in the bill. A great deal of time was taken up in connection with the matter, and the committee were by no means unanimous in regard to this amendment.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: I agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that a mistake was made in amending the bill to place this secretary, who is not a technical officer in any sense, outside the Civil Service Commission, but I want to point out to the right hon. leader of the opposition that I think bis amendment is hardly appropriate. It does not provide for the appointment in any special way. The clause as it came to us in the agricultural committee read as follows:
There shall be a secretary of the board who shall be
appointed in the manner authorized by law.
That provided for his appointment and his salary, and I think the section should' read in that way.


Arthur Meighen: The section stated that
"there shall be a secretary," and of course the rest is implied. He has to be appointed by law, and the Civil Service Commission would provide for the appointment.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The special
provision in section 9 reads:
Such other officers,-
Which would include in this case the secretary.

may be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.
But exceptions are made, and when exceptions are made and an officer is named, and no provision made to cover his case, I think it is rather dangerous to leave it open.


Arthur Meighen: I think I am right, but I do not think that the point is worth contesting. I shall be glad to put it in the form suggested by the hon. member for Humboldt, so that it will read:
There shall be a secretary of the board who shall be appointed in the manner provided by law.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am quite willing.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) agreed to:
Yeas, 49; Nays, 47.
Subsection (8) as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section S-Salaries and expenses of board, how paid.
Arthur Meighen: Do the words "no change" mean no change from the original act or no

change from the bill as submitted to the committee on Agriculture?


Thomas Andrew Low: No change from the original act.


Charles Wallace Stewart: If the two drafts of the bill which I have in my hand are correct, the minister, I think, must be mistaken, because I see clauses marked "no change" which have a change in them. The changes were made in the agricultural committee.


Thomas Andrew Low: The changes made in the agricultural committee are underlined.


Charles Wallace Stewart: But the leader of the opposition was referring to the notations on the opposite page and they are confusing.


Mr. KAY:: The notations on the opposite page refer to the original act as introduced.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Head office.
Mr. LAPIERRE:: I wish to call the attention of the committee to the severe loss which the twin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William would suffer by the removal of the Board of Grain Commissioners from Fort William to Winnipeg. Members of the committee had an opportunity of listening to the delegates from the twin cities. They presented the situation clearly and showed that a failure to carry out the promises made to them by the government, would inflict a grave injustice upon the twin cities. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the reasons advanced by our friends from the west why the board should be moved to Winnipeg, but I believe the losses which will be incurred by Fort William are greater than the benefits which will accrue to our friends in the west. Under the promise from the government, the citizens of Fort William subscribed capital sufficient to erect buildings at a cost of half a million dollars for the purpose of housing the commission. To-day we are asked to move that commission to Winnipeg. The cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, as my friends know very well, are western in character, spirit and enterprise, and I am sure our western friends would not support any measure that would retard in any way the growth and development of those two cities. It seems unjust that the fluctuating opinion of any group in this House should be allowed to impose a hardship upon those two cities. In view of the representations made by that delegation I move:
That all the words after the words "shall be" m Clause 6 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

Canada Grain Act
"At such place as may be determined by the Governor in Council."


Mr. MANION:: "too full for inispeotion." Probably forty per cent of them in many seasons are in tlhis condition and therefore are not inspected at Winnipeg at all! except superficially, so that they must be passed on for fuller inspection at Port William or Pont Arthur.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What has the Board of
Grain Commissioners to do with that?


Robert James Manion: I shall undertake to show wihat relation it bears to the Board of Grain Commissioners. I do not think I shall convince my hon. friend, who has already made uip his mind.


John Livingstone Brown: As my hon. friend himself has done.


Robert James Manion: Absolutely. I am trying to show why the grain commission should be stationed at the point where the grain is handled and not where it is merely traded in. As I was pointing out, a greater percentage of the inspection is carried out at the head of the lakes than at Winnipeg, and my contention is that the Board of 'Grain Commissioners should be located at the point where the bulk of the inspection is done. The grain commission was established at the head of the lakes under the Grain Act of 1912 and it has been there ever since, except for the past few yeans when Mr. Snow, one of the commissioners, with the consent of the rest of the board, as, indeed, by general consent, has been stationed at Winnipeg. No one has ever complained, nor is anyone complaining now so far as that goeis, because no doubt the Board of Grain Commissioners knows best what should be done in carrying out the details of its work. And the grain commissioner who is in Winnipeg can deal with practically all, or at least a large' proportion, of the questions that come up in dispute between the farmers of the west and any of the grain dealers on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. So there is no reason why the whole board should be moved to any point outside the head of the lakes. I am not suggesting that there are no arguments to support the proposal to move the commission to Winnipeg, but the arguments certainly are very much stronger in favour of the Board of Grain Commissioners being located at the point where the grain is handled. Unless, therefore, some national! interest can be shown to be served by moving them from the point where the grain is handled to the point where it ns merely traded in. I certainly think, and I believe all hon. members will agree with me, that it would be a discrimination against the head of the lakes to move the board. As a matter of fact, Mr. Piper, a member of the

Winnipeg 'Grain Exchange, some years ago wrote a book, which I read at the time, on the Grain Trade of Western Canada, in which he pointed out that the logical place at which the whole Grain, Exchange should function was the head of the lakes, and not at Winnipeg. He pointed out that this was the only country where the grain exchange was several hundred miles-to foe exact, four hundred miles-distant from the point where the grain was handled through the elevators.
Let me point out another fact-I am trying to give the reasons why the grain commission can be of more service to the farmers of the west, situated at the head of the lakes than anywhere else. The screening all takes place at the head of the lakes except as regards that percentage of the grain that goes through the port of Vancouver; and the screenings are a very important matter for the farmers of the western provinces. When I mentioned this fact in the committee my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) rather pooh-poohed the idea of the screenings being of much importance. Well, in that regard he does not agree with many of the prairie farmers. For instance, I might cite the opinion of Mr. Maharg given in parliament in 1919, and reported in Hansard. At that time Mr. Maharg made the statement that sometimes the screenings were worth more than the original grain.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not say that the
screenings were of no importance to the farmers; I simply wanted to know what the question of screenings had to do with the location of the Board of Grain Commissioners at Winnipeg.


Robert James Manion: What I said was that the
hon. gentleman pooh-poohed the idea that the screenings had anything to do with the situation of the grain commission, and I cannot agree with him in that contention. Mr. Maharg stated:
There has been a tremendous revenue from screenings in the past few years.
And the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) made the statement in 1923:
No question causes more trouble in the administration of the act than this question of screenings.
A year or two ago my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) said that he had been paid the sum of one dollar per ton for screenings at Vancouver, and I think it is a matter of importance to the farmers of the west that they should receive the proper value of their screenings. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Marquette in this connection, because in my opinion the question

Canada Grain Act
of screenings has a most important bearing on the situation of the grain commission.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I agree that it is of
importance to the farmers of the west but I contend that it has nothing to do with the location of the board.


Robert James Manion: On the contrary, I submit
that anything that is of considerable importance to the farmers of the west in the handling of the grain constitutes one of the reasons for the board being located at the point where it can best protect the interests of the farmers. I hold here a pamphlet in connection with the Dominion experimental farms-


Mr. JELLIFF:: If I remember rightly the
member for Macleod, when he spoke on this question a year or two ago, referred to the low price he got for screenings, mostly cracked wheat, at Vancouver. But how could the board, located at Fort William, deal with a matter of that kind?


Robert James Manion: What I am pointing out
just now is the importance of the screenings to the farmers of the west; and as I have stated, most of the screenings are produced at the head of the lakes.


John Livingstone Brown: We are all agreed that the screenings are important.


Robert James Manion: I am trying to prove that fact, because I do not think that we do all agree on it. I hold here a pamphlet issued in connection with the Dominion Experimental Farms, pamphlet No. 18, in which the value of screenings to the farmer is pointed out. Various prices are given, together with other information, and the value of the screenings ranges from $45 to $60 a ton. That of course is for the best of the screenings.


Mr. KNOX:: What is the date of the
pamphlet?


Robert James Manion: The date does not appear on it; at least I cannot find any.


John Millar: Is it not possible that that was in the war years when prices would be high?


Robert James Manion: I do not know, but that
may be.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: It is a pity to grow wheat if you can grow screenings at that price.


Robert James Manion: The pity is that the hon.
member for Macleod should be paid only a dollar a ton for his screenings when they are worth eighteen dollars or perhaps much more.
Now I have before me, although I do not wish to take up time dealing with them, communications respecting the value of these screenings at the head of the lakes. Colonel Young, to whom I wrote, says that thousands of sheep and cattle are fed at the head of the lakes on these screenings.


John Livingstone Brown: We know all that.


Robert James Manion: Apparently my hon. friend does not want me to go on with my argument but there are other members besides himself who do not handle grain, whom I am trying to convince of the importance of the grain commissioners looking after these screenings at the head of the lakes. I may point out that the Price-Waterhouse report shows the immense amount that the elevator companies, including the company of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). have made on screenings alone. In 1916-17 his elevator company made a profit of $51,000 from this source.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is not
right in that statement, and I do not propose that it shall go uncorrected.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps my hon. friend
will correct it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will. That was the gros3 revenue from screenings. The elevator at Fort William has, under the law, to pay the farmer the value of his screenings.


Robert James Manion: The Price-Waterhouse report gives the earnings of the Grain Growers' Grain Association for 1916-17. I was not going to give these figures, but as my hon. friend disputes my word I must quote them. Their earnings for that year amounted to $446,000, made up of: elevator operations. $238,000; screenings, $51,000; overages, $157,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As to screenings, let me
explain to my hon. friend, because I do not think he wishes to be unfair-


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to be.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am quite sure of that;
but he is unfair in the impression he has left on the House. I repeat, for his information and that of the committee, that those figures represent the gross values received for screenings. As against that a return was made to every farmer who had screenings in his car.


Robert James Manion: How much a ton?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will explain for my hon.
friend's benefit. It is necessary to state that the practice at Fort William, under the approval of the Board of Grain Commissioners, has been that when a farmer's car is marked

4fi04
Canada Crain Act

by the inspection department in Winnipeg with a dockage of 3 per cent no charge is made for cleaning that car, but the elevator retains the screenings.


Robert James Manion: That is correct.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend agrees
with me. On cars containing over 3 per cent, a charge is made for cleaning and a separate return is rendered to the farmer for the amount of screenings, which are sold in the ordinary way.


Robert James Manion: I do not want to argue
the point with my hon. friend although I am quite prepared to do so. I am claiming that the elevator companies made a very good profit out of screenings at the expense of the farmer, and the Price-WateThouse report shows what those profits amounted to.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The return is not correct.


Robert James Manion: I think I know something about screenings too, but I do not wish to continue the argument with my hon. friend. I am trying to point out to this committee the importance of the screenings question, and as my hon. friend disagreed with me I had to differ with him; that is all. I think from the facts I have given it is manifest that the screenings question is of very great importance, and I submit that the head of the lakes is the point where it should be dealt with for the benefit of the farmers of the prairie provinces.


Mr. GOULD:: I could cite an instance where a certain farmer in western Canada had to pay a storage charge on screenings exceeding their value by $2.17.


Robert James Manion: I saw the statement, but
I do not think the elevator companies lost very much on the handling of screenings; the only people who suffered were the farmers of western Canada.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am simply pointing out
that to the farmer of western Canada the value of screenings is not of very much account when he has to pay more for storage than the screenings are worth.


Robert James Manion: I do not admit that screenings are worth so little as my hon. friend suggests. Another question is that of overages. I gave one example, and I could give many more, of the immense amount of money made by the various companies on overages, all of which takes place at the head of the lakes. The report shows that between 1911 and 1919 the overages amounted in value to ten million dollars, or a million dollars a year.

I am not criticizing the elevator companies at the head of the lakes, because these overages are a legitimate gain to them according to the handling of grain in this country under our law.
Mr". SALES: There are over four thousand country elevators west of Winnipeg, The hon. member says that all the overages take place at the head of the lakes; I would say they do not.


Robert James Manion: Certainly, there are some
now taking place at Vancouver, but the large proportion of the overages take place at the terminal elevators at the head of the lakes; so much so that, as I said, the elevator companies made ten million dollars between 1911 and 1919. I do not need to go into the reasons for the screenings being produced at the head of the lakes.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: All the overages at
the terminal elevators originate in the country elevators.


Robert James Manion: Yes, they originate with the farmer on the farm and therefore they should all go back to him.


Alfred Speakman: I am simply suggesting that all these overages take place in the first instance at the country elevators.


Robert James Manion: We cannot very well have the grain commissioners at every country elevator, but we can have them at the elevators at the head of the lakes where eighty-five per cent of the grain of western Canada is handled. I am pointing out that at the head of the lakes is where the Board of Grain Commissioners should be, the point where the screenings, overages, and all the other handling of grain takes place. I am trying to convince my hon. friends that in their own interest that is where the board should be stationed. Mr. Maharg said in the course of the same speech in 1919 that if a large overage is taken, it is just that much taken from the farmer.


Daniel Webster Warner: Does the hon. member
realize that the farmers of the west are awake to the importance of this screening business and are going to have cleaners on their threshing machines and keep the screenings at home?


Robert James Manion: I am very glad to hear that on behalf of the farmers. But I notice the Royal Grain Commission did not recommend that, and in the discussion before the committee many members did not agree that it could be done profitably at home. Many of the country elevators, and many of the

Canada Grain Act
threshing machines, have cleaners, but they are only used to the extent of five per cent, according to the report.


Daniel Webster Warner: It is not the elevators,
it is the threshing machines that thresh all the grain, and very shortly a farmer will not hire a thresher who does not have a machine to clean his wheat and so keep his screening at home.


Robert James Manion: I would recommend that that be done, especially if you are going to move the Board of Grain Commissioners from the head of the lakes to Winnipeg.
Then in regard to mixing, which will be done under this act-I have forgotten the particular section for the moment-it will be done at the head of the lakes.
4 p.m. Frankly, I am in favour of mixing, for I think it is in the interests of the prairie farmer, and I think the man who has a high-grade wheat and permits it to be mixed with a low-grade car and gets the higher value deserves that advantage Suppose you have two cars of wheat, one a go.; 1 No. 2 northern and the other a poor No. 2 northern, to-day the owner of the lower grade gets the same as the owner of the higher grade. So I believe mixing is a favourable thing for the western farmer. But all that mixing will take place at the head of the lakes where the Board of Grain Commissioners should be. In other words, I have tried to demonstrate to this committee that that is the point where the western farmer can get more use out of the Board of Grain Commissioners than at any other point in western Canada. If the Board of Grain Commissioners look after the interests of the western farmers, as I think they try to do, that is where they can do so to the best advantage.
According to the report of one of the commissioners, ninety per cent of the disputes take place west of Winnipeg. Perhaps that is so; I do not dispute his honesty, but I doubt if his estimate is correct. I admit that if you take into account all the letters dealing with little disputes at the small country elevators perhaps the estimate is correct, but I submit that many a question arising at the head of the lakes is as important as five hundred disputes at the country elevators.
Then, there may be disputes at country elevators; disputes as to leaks in cars, but these are mostly dealt with at the head of the lakes, and the report of the gram commissioners for 1924 shows that for that year there were 31,3S2 leaking cars to be investigated, and 14,112 cars with defective seals had to be investigated. Practically all of this had 294.i
to be dealt with at the head of the lakes. As to shortages on cars going into the elevators, Mr. Searle, the chief weighmaster, says, "We still have a large number." Then shortages on the outturn cargoes off boats are of the utmost importance, and Mr. Searle says that "a number of serious individual shortages were reported". And on page 13 it is stated *that one case was settled for 4,170 bushels of wheat, which is a rather large amount.
Bad grading has also to be corrected at the head of the lakes. The commission must not only visit the farmers of the prairie provinces, but visit also Ottawa and the other elevators which have been placed under their supervision-the elevators of Quebec, Montreal, St. John and Halifax, all of which have been put under the supervision of the board. That is all the more reason for keeping the board where they can reach the elevators more easily than they can from Winnipeg.
I should also like to quote from an independent paper, one at all events that cannot be accused of being favourable to the head of the lakes, the Calgary Herald, and I hope my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) will pay attention to this, and follow the advice of the Calgary Herald.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am afraid that I cannot
take much stock in it.


Robert James Manion: This is a paper published in the city of my hon. friend. I did not know its politics, but apparently I do now. The Calgary Herald is firmly opposed to the removal of the commission from Fort William. Commenting upon the vote of the committee on Agriculture, the Herald says:
Parliament should not hastily accept the recommendation of the agricultural committee concerning the transfer of the board of grain commissioners from Fort William to Winnipeg.
At Fort William the commissioners are at the scene of the largest terminal elevating work in the world and they can exert a direct and beneficial influence there. They would live too much in the atmosphere of the grain exchange at Winnipeg.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I point out that the Calgary Herald is owned by a Montreal firm?


Robert James Manion: That does not make it favourable to Fort William as opposed to Winnipeg.


Milton Neil Campbell: The ownership is vested in a concern in Montreal.


Robert James Manion: I do not know anything about who owns the paper. I do not see that has anything to do with the question, as long as this is not a paper owned by somebody in Fort William.

Canada Grain Act
The mixing of our wheat, and the vicious mixing of it with grains of lower grades, can take place anywhere from the head of the lakes right down to the point where the grain leaves New York and other American ports. That is an important question from the standpoint of the reputation of our Canadian grain, and a question that should be considered from the standpoint of the grain handler, not of the grain seller.
It has been claimed that the Board of Grain Commissioners have not been visiting the farmers at all. That is up to the farmers. If they demand a visit of the board in connection with any dispute they may have, they have a right to have the Board of Grain Commissioners to visit them, and the board can visit them just as well from the head of the lakes as from Winnipeg.
In 1912, when the Grain Act was originally drawn up, the Board of Grain Commissioners was placed at the head of the lakes, after due consideration had been given to the question by the Department of Trade and Commerce and by the then chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The board has been located there for thirteen years, and during those thirteen years no real move has ever been made to change its location. If there had been any dissatisfaction with the present location of the board, surely some move would have been made before now. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is of the opinion that the board should be moved to Winnipeg. He has been in this House as long as I have, eight years, and if there was any dissatisfaction it was open to him to move an amendment to the Canada Grain Act at any session of parliament foi the purpose of having the board removed from the head of the lakes to Winnipeg. In 1919, when amendments to the Canada Grain Act were brought into this House, no amendment was proposed at that time to change the location of the commission, so that if the farmers have not been getting justice, it ia a strange thing that no move has been made in all that time, to move the Board of Grain Commissioners from the head of the lakes.
Again, if this step is necessary, why did not the Royal Grain Commission, which sat on this question and held meetings throughout Canada for nearly two years, recommend that the board should be moved to Winnipeg? All they had to recommend on this point was that the board should be an itinerant or travelling board. Two or more of the commissioners can be in Winnipeg at any time. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) when he was arguing against me in the

committee, spoke about inspection; he dragged inspection in by the neck, as it were, * for it has nothing to do with moving the board from the head of the lakes to Winnipeg. He argued as if I was trying to move the Inspection department from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes. No such proposal has ever been made. The inspection would remain where it is at the present time.
Then there is also the question of economy. To move the board, you would have to move something over one hundred people. I do Dot mean the employees but the families, and at present costs that expense would be a heavy one upon the government -of this country.
Now I wish to give a moral reason. In 1912 when this board was placed at the head of the lakes, it was placed there after Sir George Foster, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, had consulted with the mayor and people of the city of Fort William and had asked them to erect a building for a sample market and for the Board of Grain Commissioners. The proper accommodation was discussed with Mr. Magill, the dhairman of the board, and the building was put up by individual subscriptions of the people of the city to Fort William to the amount of $500.000. That was subscribed in 1912, when conditions were pretty bad. And despite the fact that they did that, no sample market was ever placed there, though the building was cut up for it. As a consequence, these individuals who subscribed have received no dividends on their money until the last two or three years, when they have been receiving dividends of only 2 or 2i per cent. There is a spirit of British fair play in this country which should see to it that a government which had an understanding of that kind with the city of Fort William should not be able to ignore it as the Germans ignored their treaties with Belgium and other countries, regarding them as no more than scraps of paper.
Then, in regard to the revenue of the board. The board took in in 1924, according to their own report, $1,787,000, and of that, $1,095,000 was taken in at-the head of the lakes; that is, two-thirds of the whole revenue in 1924 was taken in at the head of the lakes, the balance was taken in all the way from Vancouver to Montreal. Even the inspection fees, the report shows, were more at the head of the lakes than at Winnipeg, The weighing fees were $668,000. Weighing is a very important thing to the farmers of western Canada. Weighing, of course, is done at the country elevators also, but the weighing

Canada Grain Act
into the terminal elevators is naturally done at the head of the lakes. In other words, practically every branch of the work of handling grain is done at that point.
I have tried to show that Fort William, at the head of the lakes, is the link, and an important link, in the chain of the handling of grain in Canada. I do not believe the farmers of the prairie provinces who have taken this attitude in favour of Winnipeg are working in their own interests. Even in the committee ther'e was not a set decision upon it. There were two amendments which I hold in my hand. One was that the board be moved to Winnipeg. That was wiped out by the committee itself, and the following substituted therefor:
The head office of the board shall be at the city of Winnipeg. The Governor in Council may upon the recommendation of the board from time to time establish offices of the board at other places.
So there was doubt in the committee as to the advisability of the move.
I just wish to say, in closing, that the people of my city are too broad-minded to take any attitude which would be detrimental to Canada as a whole. I have never made it my duty to take parochial views in this House. Take, for example, the question of the shipment of grain west to the port of Vancouver. Of course, the more grain goes west, the greater the injury to Fort William, but I have never made any attempt in this House to interfere with that movement in any way, either on the question of railway rates or anything else. The same is true with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. Although I have grave doubts as to the wisdom of building that road, I have never spoken in oppositon to it because I did not wish to be accused of taking an attitude opposed to the west simply on behalf of my own city. I think this question should be approached in the spirit in which I have endeavoured to approach questions in this House. It should be approached from the standpoint of the prairie provinces, and from the standpoint of justice and fair play. I appeal particularly to my friends in the Progressive group to look at this question in a fair-minded way, and to leave the board at the head of the lakes at least for another year, and then if there is any dissatisfaction they can bring in an amendment next session to move the board from the head of the lakes. I appeal to them and the House generally to give fair and just consideration to this question, and to leave the board at the head of the lakes, where I think they are most. useful not only to the grain trade but to Canada as a whole.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let me draw the attention of the committee to the form of this amendment. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has moved an amendment to section 6, that all the words after the words "shall be" be struck out and the following substituted therefor, "and that such place may be determined by order in council." The honourable member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) moves an amendment to the amendment reading as follows:
The commissioners and secretary shall reside in the city of Fort William or Port Arthur, in the province of Ontario.
I am strongly inclined to the view that
the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is an amendment to subsection six, and not an amendment to ithe amendment that has been submitted by tihe hon. member for Nipissing, also that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nipissing must be dealt by the committee firsft before the other will be in ordeT. In addition to that I draw the attention of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River to the fact that he does not say that the head office shall be in Winnipeg; what he says is "the commissioners and secretary shall reside at the city of Fort William". It may not be any part of my duties, but perhaps I might suggest to him that residence in Fort William or Port Arthur does not necessarily mean the board sitting there.


Robert James Manion: May I explain that the
amendment that I moved is simply the original clause in the Grain Act, and that being so I took it to be the most suitable amendment. That is what I wish continued. If the chairman looks at the Grain Act he will find it to be the original clause. Speaking to the point raised by the Chairman, may I say that I do not know how I could have moved my amendment in any other way. I rose at the same time as my hon. friend from Nipissing but unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, he caught your eye. I was going to move my amendment first, but the procedure being as I have stated I was compelled to move it when I did.


George Newcombe Gordon: If it is a fact that the effecit of the amendment, of the hon. member for Fort William and1 Rainy Riveir is as I have read it would be to strike out the whole of clause 6, and substitute for it the words:
The commissioners shall reside in the city of Fort W'dliam or Port Arthur.

Canada Grain Act


Robert James Manion: My amendment really
means that the original clause in the bill be left in.


George Newcombe Gordon: As no other gentleman desires to speak to the point of order I would be inclined to say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is not an amendment to the amendment, but is an amendment to the original clause itself.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it makes
very much difference but as I view it any amendment that is an amendment to the original clause is an amendment also to the original clause as amended. One amendment fixes the place of residence at Fort William. The other says it shall be where the Governor in Council may desire. Whichever may be held to be the amendment one of these is an amendment to the other.


George Newcombe Gordon: I call the right hon.
gentleman's attention to this fact:	Ilf the
amendment of the hon. member for Nipis-sing is carried and the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is also carried, one is an absolute contradiction of the other.


Arthur Meighen: No, because the subamendment must be moved first which destroys the other amendment. However, one is as good as the other.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment of
the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River does not say that the amendment of the hon. member for Nipissing be struck out in any particular, but that the whole of subsection 6 be struck out. I will first submit Mr. Lapierre's amendment, and then submit Mr. Manion's if there is no objection.


Arthur Meighen: If the question is on the amendment of Mr. Lapierre, wherever I may want the office of the Board of Grain Commissioners put I certainly do not want that amendment. I can think of scarcely anything more vicious than that the Governor in Council should have power to move the office of the Board of Grain Commissioners just as it may desire. It will be a very nice thing for the government to have a club over both Winnipeg and Fort William or to have a price to offer each of them. I cannot understand the reasoning which says, "It is very unjust, it is very wrong, to move these offices from Fort William to Winnipeg, but I am ready to leave to the government that is ready to commit that wrong, the power to do so if it will". What kind of reasoning is
[Tha Chairman.]
that. It does not get much of a lodgement in my mind.


Thomas Andrew Low: If I might make a suggestion at this stage I would propose that the mover withdraw the amendment to the amendment and that the hon. member for Nipissing substitute in amendment that in the section the words "city of Fort William" replace the words "city of Winnipeg".


Robert James Manion: That would be satisfactory to me. If that is accepted I withdraw my amendment. That is all I wish him to do.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been suggested
that both amendments, with the consent of the committee, be dropped and that a new amendment be submitted, that section 6 be amended by striking out the word "Winnipeg" in the twenty-second line thereof, and substituting the word "Fort William", so that it will read Fort William or Port Arthur. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the two amendments be dropped?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on this amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now that the storm cloud has cleared-


William Irvine: Louder.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that sittings up to one or two o'clock in the morning, perhaps are not conducive to clear enunciation in the chamber. I shall endeavour, however, to make my hon. friend at the far end hear my voice. I repeat that after the storm cloud has cleared, by the hon. member for Nipissing adopting the proposal of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River we can probably get a fair discussion on the question. I approach the consideration of this matter entirely from the point of view of where the Grain Commissioners can best and most effectively discharge their duties, and in doing that I desire to place before the committee a few reasons why I think the proposal that came from the committee on Agriculture to the House on this point should be adopted. When the board were first created in 1912, the reason, if I recall aright, that was given why they should be located at the head of the lakes was that they would be removed from any possibility of temptation from the organized grain trade at Winnipeg. I do not think there was any virtue in that reason, because if you had a board composed of honest and honourable

Canada Grain Act
men who were sworn to discharge their duty they could scarcely be influenced by the organized grain trade. If there was any virtue in the suggestion I submit it does not hold to-day.


Arthur Meighen: This is another generation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, the world is making
progress, and I can tell my hon. friend he will see it one of these days. Everyone will admit that the grain business of this country is one of the great businesses of the Dominion. In its growth and development it has been found, in the public interest, not only in the interests of the producers of grain, but in the national interests as well, that we should have certain legislative sanctions for the governing and control of the trade. In order that those legislative sane ions might be carried out as effectively as possible in the interests of the producers, and in the national interests as well, the Board of Grain Commissioners was created for the purpose of administering the law. The fundamental principle of the Grain Act is the regulation of the trade. The character of the grain business is such that abuses and losses to primary producers can very well creep into its administration, and consequently one of the fundamental princioles of the grain legislation that we are considering in this committee to-day is that before any person engages in the handling of grain, he must 'be licensed and appointed according to law. There are also other regulations in the interests of producers and in the interests, I submit, of the country as a whole. The function of the Board of Grain Commissioners is a judicial function and not an administrative function. It is a judicial function to see that the provisions of the law in respect to licensing, bonding and all the other matters that relate to the conduct of that great business in the Dominion, may be lived up to.


Robert James Manion: Is it not correct that the
Board of Grain Commissioners overlooks entirely the whole administration-every part of it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The board exists for he
purpose of seeing that the provisions of the law are carried out.


Arthur Meighen: That is administration.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not administration
in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood, as I shall point out to my hon. friend. The law is there and those engaged in the business have to conform to the law. If they violate the law a ready means is provided for
the person aggrieved to appear before the board and the board has power to redress that grievance. In that sense it is a judicial body.


Robert James Manion: But the Board of Grain
Commissioners sees to the appointment even of the inspectors, the weighmasters and the stickers of grain, as the expression is.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, my hon. friend is
wrong. The stickers of grain or samplers are not appointed by the board.


Robert James Manion: Not directly it is true, but under their supervision.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The board lay down certain rules and regulations governing a variety of things, but once the regulations are laid down by the law they are a part of the law until they are changed, and the function of the board is a judicial function essentially. It is not an administrative function, and there is where my hon. friend from Fort William, if I may say so to the committee, fell down entirely in the argument he advanced, because he argued that it was vital and necessary that the Board of Grain Commissioners should be located in Fort William. And why? Because the screenings are cleaned out of the grain at Fort William.	[DOT]


Robert James Manion: That is one reason.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Therefore the argument
is that you should have the Board of Grain Commissioners located at Fort William because the screenings are cleaned out of the grain at that point. What has the Board of Grain Commissioners to do will cleaning the screenings out of the grain? They do not go up in the elevators, watch the cleaners and see that the operators take out a certain percentage of screenings. They have no more to do with the separation of screenings from grain than my hon. friend from Fort William or any other member of the House has.


Robert James Manion: They have to see it is done fairly and within the law.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They have to perform
their duties, but I shall endeavour to pome out to my hon. friend in a moment that ninety per cent of the work of the Board of Grain Commissioners in the discharge of their duties under the law is concerned with Winnipeg and points west of Winnipeg. Take the matter of bonding for instance and the licensing of every person engaged in the business, and take the complaints of the individual farmers who may be aggrieved on account of some treatment they have received at the hands of an elevator company-can that be handled belter at Fort William than at Winnipeg?
Canada Grain Act


Robert James Manion: Just as well.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, because the Board of
Grain Commissioners themselves, in the discharge of their duties, have found it necessary to violate the law as it has existed in the past, and they violated the law by having one of -their members resident in Winnipeg all the time.


Robert James Manion: For many years they did
not find it necessary to violate the law. It is just -recently they found it necessary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, that has existed for
a considerable period. They -found it was in the public interest that one of their members at least should reside in Winnipeg.


Robert James Manion: Nobody is questioning
that, and no one objects to it.


Thomas Andrew Low: It will be corrected b-y the
amendment.


Mr. BRISTOL:: In the section as it has
been drawn it is left to the Board of Grain Commissioners to reside in Winnipeg or Saskatoon or anywhere else they chose, and I should think that would cover just what you want, to h-ave them reside where it would be most useful to the farmers to have them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The old clause which I
understand my hon. friend has put in by way of an amendment-


William Alves Boys: No, it was withdrawn.


George Newcombe Gordon: The only amendment
is that the word "Winnipeg" be struck out in the second line of paragraph three and the words "Fort William or Port Arthur" substituted.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It might be possible under that clause to legalize what has been an illegal -practice in the past, as to the residence of one of the commissioners. That may be done, I admit., but I still maintain that the work of the commission is at Winnipeg and west of that. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River pointed to the fact that in certain respects the elevators in Montreal, Halifax and bay ports are brought under the Board of Grain Commissioners. But so are the elevators at Prince Rupert and Vancouver.


Robert James Manion: The Prince Rupert elevator will not handle much grain.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be, but it is
being brought under the Board oft Grain. Commissioners. Then we have the elevators at Edmonton and Calgary, and I submit to the committee that if this question is decided

on the basis of where the best service to the trade and the producer can be rendered by the Board of Grain Commissionerst, -th-eir residence should be in Winnipeg. If the Board of Grain Commissioners were an administrative body, if it was their function to come in and see the grain cleaned, and to discharge all those obligations or responsibilities that are now the function of the chief weighmaster and the chief grain inspector, there might be some force to my hon. friend's contention, but w-ith the board situated as it is, with the responsibilities it has under the law, I submit those responsibilities can be better discharged in Winnipeg than they can in Fort William.


Robert James Manion: If the farmers were really suffering under this system for the past thirteen years, how is it no proposition was ever put up by anybody in this House while I have been here, or while the hon. member for Marquette has been here, to make a change in that regard? Apparently the service has been satisfactory. Why w-as no move made?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it was suggested
although no actual motion to that effect was made. But as a matter of fact, it has been a matter of complaint on the part of the farmers and on the part of the grain trade generally. For instance, if a farmer is aggrieved, he can go into the city of Winnipeg, if the board is there, explain all the circumstances of his difficulty to the board and get a ruling upon it.


Robert James Manion: That is true. Of course, as the board is a travelling board it has to travel around the same as the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Board of Grain Commissioners do not travel around in the sense that the Board of Railway Commissioners do.


Donald Sutherland: About a year ago, I think it was at the last session of parliament, a Royal Grain Inquiry -Commission was appointed by this House to inquire into the grain trade and report to the minister I hold in my hand the report of this commission. They were given wide powers to report on anything connected with the grain trade which they deemed to be of sufficient importance. A bill has been drafted, I presume, in accordance with their report. That the commission went very fully into the matter is borne out by the fact that the cost of the commission was in the neighbourhood of $180,000. The bill that was drafted and placed before the committee on Agriculture made no reference whatever to changing the

Canada Grain Act
location of the board from Fort William to Winnipeg. This matter developed in the agricultural committee. A great deal of valuable time was taken up in that committee discussing the matter to such an extent that many members who had to be on other committees could not attend, and consequently the time arrived when it may be that many who were opposed to any change were not present. I know I was not present myself when this happened; but I am quite satisfied that if there was occasion for making a change in the act in this regard, the commission would have so reported. Otherwise they did not do their duty in carrying out their instructions from parliament in connection with the work which was delegated to them.


Daniel Webster Warner: I was the first that I
know of to suggest that the grain board be located where they could best carry out their business. I did not name any place in the beginning, but I became convinced with the rest of the committee later on that Winnipeg was the place where they could best carry out the work they are supposed to do.


Mr. DAVIES:: I just want to refer to the few remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and I hope he will bear them in mind and carry out the same conclusion when we come to some of the other clauses of the bill, especially clause 141.
Amendment agreed to: Yeas, 56, Nays, 40.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Other officers, et cetera, may be appointed-compensation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I desire to
direct the attention of the hon. members to subclause (2) of this clause which reads:
Notwithstanding anything in any other act contained, inspectors, inspecting officers, weighmasters and their assistants shall be paid such compensation as is determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the board.
I object to the change that has been made. This is in addition to the original draft and * its intent is quite clear. It is for the purpose of placing again under patronage the salaries of the specific officers mentioned in the clause. I was interested in this because it had come to my attention that many complaints were being levelled at the Civil Service Commission because of difficulties that had arisen with regard to salaries. It had been charged that they could not get the increases necessary in the business; that they were losing money because they were not able to pay these men enough, and so on. I took this matter up with the Civil Service Commission and I find that no increase of salary has ever been refused by the commission. If that be the case, there is	no	justification or	necessityfor this clause.	Not only	has no	increaseever been refused by the commission, but on every occasion that the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Civil Service Commission have got together, every recommendation of the board has been carried out to the complete satisfaction of the board. In order to make this perfectly clear to the committee, I took the trouble the other day of communicating with	the	Civil	Service	Commission, and I have in my hand a letter from the Secretary of	the	Civil	Service	Commission signed by Mr. William Foran. The questions that I put to the commission and the replies are as follows:(1)	"Have any requests from the Board of Grain Commissioners for increases of salary for inspectors or weighmasters, or assistant weighmasters, been refused in the past?"
No; a considerable number of changes in rates of pay have been made in respect to these classes of positions in the past five years and rates w'ere approved which were satisfactory to the Beard of Grain Commissioners.
(2)	"If so, to what extent has this occurred and how many officials have been affected?"
Not applicable; see answer to question 1.
(3)	"Also, if this is the case, what reasons have been advanced for such refusal?"
Not applicable; see answer to question 1.
(4)	"To what extent have increases been granted in the past?"
Attached, and marked "Schedule A" is a statement prepared from the commission's records, showing the current rates of pay at various dates for the three
classes of positions:
Deputy grain inspector, grain weighman, and assistant grain weighman, the classes mentioned in your letter. Ic will be noted that the existing rates which were approved in the year 1922 for the inspectors, and in 1923 for the weighman, are more than double 1914-15 rates of pay and are an advance of, from 40 to 60 per cent, over pre-classification rates of 1919. For other classes of positions on the weighing and inspecting staff the increases are in approximately the same proportion as the classes shown.
I am instructed to add that the secretary of the Civil Service Commission went to Fort William and Winnipeg to confer with the Board of Grain Commissioners in September. 1920, and as a result of such conference with the Board of Grain Commissioners and its officers, arrangements were made to facilitate obtaining employees during the rush season. The salary rates proposed by the Board of Grain Commissioners were discussed and subsequently, in the following month, October, 1920, salary rates were approved by order in council which had been mutually agreed upon between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Civil Service Commission.
In October, 1922, members of the Board of Grain Commissioners, when in Ottawa, brought forward a recommendation for further increased salary rates for the inspection service. The department submitted to the commission a schedule of the salary rates requested by
Canada Grain Act

the Board of Grain Commissioners. Attached, and marked "Schedule B" is a statement of the salaries requested by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the rates finally approved. In April, 1923, the Board of Grain Commissioners requested increases for the weighing staff to conform with the changes for the inspection staff.
Attached, and marked "Schedule C" is a statement of salaries requested and salary rates approved. The evidence submitted by the Board of Grain Commissioners as to the need of the higher rates proposed was considered satisfactory by this commission and the rates were approved on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission as shown in Schedules B and
C by orders-in-council P.C. 121/172 dated 31st January, 1923, and P.C. 275/1028 dated June 5, 1923.
Yours truly,
W. Foran,
Secretary.
I have here the various schedules showing the increases granted; and in order to impress on the committee the fact that the increases have been granted as requested by the Board of Grain Commissioners I will quote the following figures:
"Schedule A"
Statement of current rates of pay of classes shown, comparing previous rates of pay with those now authorized
Current rate	Current rate
1914-1915 in in 1919 before some case not	classification
Class	on C.S.C. records under C.S. Act
Deputy grain inspector $960-1,140	$1,320-1,800
plus 10% War Bonus
Grain weighman..	..	$720- 900	$1,140-1,260
Assistant grain weighman		$1,080
Original
classification 1919 $1,380-2,100

Rate App'd. Sept. 1st, 1920 $1,620-2,220

Present rate authorized $1,800-2,520

In every other case the request for increases was granted. This is true of such officials as chief grain inspector, grain inspector grade 2, chief deputy grain inspector, deputy grain inspector, general grain sampler foreman, grain sampler foreman, assistant grain sampler foreman and grain sampler. I submit that the result of this clause would be the increasing of the salaries of friends who had an influence upon the administration. It is dangerous to leave the clause in. I do not suggest that anything of the kind would be done, but the possibility is there. No responsible body other than the department would have any supervision over the salaries to be granted, and the principle I think is wrong. I therefore move that subsection (2) of section 9 be struck out.


Charles A. Stewart: Do I understand tba.t this subsection was added to the bill by tihe committee?


Edward Joseph Garland: I was present in the committee on the occasion of this provision being discussed, but as I was not a member of the committee I did not caTe to interject any remarks into the proceedings. I would point out however that the information I have just given was not brought out before the committee.. The committee was not aware of the fact that there had never been any refusal to comply with a request for increases in salaries. I do not think that this subsection can be justified.


Thomas Andrew Low: This danse was suggested by the committee on Agriculture, to which the bill was referred, and the government is prepared to accept the recommendation.


Arthur Meighen: If there is a motion to strike out this subsection I am decidedly in its favour. I do not know what in the world can be said for this subsection, which declares that inspectors and so on shall be paid such compensation as is determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the board. If there is to be a different system of determining the right compensation for officials of this kind some real reason should be shown. I do not care where you go, in any department or in any service, you will find that everyone thinks that his particular service is in a olass by itself with duties that are different from those of any other. Well, it is true that each one does differ from the other. The duty of ,t)he civil service is not to copy a lot of names in a book or to add figures; all have special tasks for which they must be fitted. These officials are the same as any others in that respect. One hon. member says that the money is to be paid by the farmers. I do not see what difference that makes. What we are deciding is the question as to how best we may determine the value of the service. Why should there be a different rule in this case because money is to be collected from the farmers to balance the money that goes out from the treasury? It does not affect the case at all. We ought to have on,e sensible principle of determining the value of services, and what is sensible and reasonable for other classes of work ought to be sensible and reasonable in relation to this. There is no reason why the Civil Service Commission should not be in a position to determine the value of this work as well as the value of a forester, or a mining engineer,

Canada Grain Act
or a surveyor, or of any other official in, any branch of the service throughout the country. It seems strange to me that one should have to keep wide awake for fear of having something introduced every half 'hour or so for the purpose of lopping off this tbran-ch or the other branch of the Civil Service Act. Of course, this does not affect appointments. If it did it would be worse still. It seams to me that every argument in defence of the Civil Service Act, which makes for giving to that commission the powers which it was intended it should exercise, applies here as forcibly as anywhere else; and the practice, as shown by the words of 'the 'hon. (member (Mr. Garland), certainly fails to indicate any cause for change. There has been no complaint from either the Civil Service Commission or the Board of Grain Commissioners, and we (Certainly should not destroy a system that is working satisfactorily. I am opposed to the subsection.


John Millar: I do not intend to argue either for or against this clause but I want to refer to the information that was brought out before the committee. The hon. member for Bow River says that certain information was not submitted to the committee, but I think he is mistaken, at least in part. The information 'that no request for an increase had been refused by the Civil Service Commission was brought to the attention of the committee and was admitted; but it was also pointed out, in answer to a question put to the chief inspector, that in many cases the increase had been so small as to be utterly useless and ineffective.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was it the
fault of the Civil Service Commission or of the Board of Grain Commissioners that had power to recommend the increases?


John Millar: It was not clear whether
they made it on the recommendation of the board or not. It was also stated by a member of the committee in the presence of the chief inspector, and not contradicted by him, that in some cases he had been so anxious to retain the services of efficient servants that he had, from his own pocket, added to their salaries. That is a state of affairs that the committee did not wish to continue. Those were some of the reasons why this change was made. The impression left on my mind was that there had been perhaps friction between the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Grain Commissioners in the past; certainly they did not seem to be pulling very well together. There were difficulties in the way, and it seemed necessary, if the work was to be well done, to make the board the proper
body to choose the servants they required. It was also brought up in that connection that in some cases those doing clerical work had made errors in the grades in copying out lists of cars of grain that had been inspected, and settlement had been made on the basis of these errors.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Do mistakes of this kind not occur under the patronage system?


John Millar: I am quite convinced that
if the salaries were fixed by the Board of Grain Commissioners, and even if the appointments were made on the recommendation of that board, servants would not be appointed who would make such errors. This change does not necessarily mean a return to patronage. The Board of Grain Commissioners have my confidence to the extent that I feel that anyone they chose to fill an office, if he were found to be unworthy and inefficient, would very soon be removed if in the power of the board to remove him.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there are reasons why the committee on Agriculture saw fit to add this subsection. I am just as jealous of the act governing our civil service as any other member in this House, and I would not willingly do anything that would destroy its effect, but I think that those who see in this subsection any danger in that respect are looking too far afield. It will be noted that only two classes of officers are exempted from the full operation of the regulations of the Civil Service Commission, and those are men who must have considerable technical knowledge and skill. A vast number of complaints come forward annually from the farmers who ship their grain and have it inspected at Winnipeg that that inspection is not fair and just. Of course, many of these complaints are not well founded; on the other hand, a great number are, and the chief inspector who has been in charge of the work for many years admits that in many cases the charges are only too well founded in that the inspection was faulty. When he was pressed as to the reason why his inspectors are not more perfect in their work, he informed us that under the present system it is impossible for him to keep the best trained and most skilled men in that work He also told us that the salary fixed by the Civil Service Commission apparently does not attract the best class of men for the work, and from those he has to choose from he is unable to find any 5 p.m. as fully qualified and as highly trained as they should be for the proper discharge of their duties. It is there-
Canada Grain Act

fore with the intention of attracting men who are skilful in the grading of grain and the handling of scales, where an error means much to the producer, and sometimes it is almost impossible to secure an adjustment, that this subsection is proposed.


Arthur Meighen: How does the hon. member account for the fact that no applications from the board for increases have been refused?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I have not
any knowledge as to what applications have been made or what difficulties have been encountered by the board in this respect. It may be that the Civil Service Commission have attempted to make adjustments for the board, but the fact remains that in the adjustments that have been made the salaries have not been raised to the point where it is possible to retain the services of the best men.


Edward Joseph Garland: In this
letter which is signed by Mr. Foran, it is stated that the salaries were approved by order in council which had been mutually agreed upon between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Civil Service Commission.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I do not
know the facts of the situation. If the board saw fit to approve of the salaries, those salaries are not high enough, and we are of opinion that the board should have a free hand. After all, the farmers are the parties really concerned, for they have to pay for these services, and their claim has been for years that they are paying on a basis that should give them a thorough inspection, but they have not been getting value for their money. They are perfectly willing to be charged a little more if it is_ absolutely necessary, although they do not admit it is necessary, because they say they have been paying more than the worth of services, but they are willing to pay what the services are worth. Our grain inspection department has, like some other departments, been subject to competition by the grain trade. When a man has proved himself capable of giving to the farmers good service in the way of inspection, along come people interested in the trade who have a place for that man, and they offer him remuneration beyond anything that the board can pay. I say the board should be free to retain the services of such men. If they are worth a higher salary to private concerns than the commission is paying them, they are certainly worth that 
higher salary to the farmers in the inspection and weighing of grain, and they should receive fully as much as they can get elsewhere.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member
apply that to the other services of the country?


Charles Wallace Stewart: If private concerns are willing to pay beyond what the services are being paid for by the civil service they of course would get the man, not otherwise.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is not technical skill and
knowledge required in other departments besides the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I am simply pointing out what is required. The evidence of the committee and the information we secured from our inquiries through the board led us to believe that men who have acquired a very high degree of technical knowledge are invariably taken away by private concerns, and the board lose their services because they cannot offer them the remuneration they are able to secure outside.


James Dew Chaplin: The same thing applies
elsewhere?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I know, and if the circumstances are such as these they should be remedied.


James Dew Chaplin: Would you take them
all out of the control of the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Wallace Stewart: This is not
doing so, for the hon. gentleman will see that the appointment is still through the Civil Service Commission, and therefore patronage cannot apply to any extent.


Arthur Meighen: Is not patronage as
much in the payment of the salary as in the appointment? Does not the hon. member see that the opportunity offered for favouritism and reward amounts to the very same thing?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Does the
right hon. gentleman suggest that men who find their way into the service through the proper channels will make friendis for themselves and will get greater rewards?


Arthur Meighen: That has been the
practice and the evil.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think if
the men are appointed after proper examination two-thirds of the danger is eliminated, and if afterwards they show themselves worthy of greater reward they should receive it. If these men are not giving service

Canada Grain Act
thousands of our farmers back in the country are going to bring complaints to show that they are not efficient, and it will be very difficult for the men to justify their salaries if they are not qualified to fill the positions.


Milton Neil Campbell: I consider that this subsection would create an anomaly, because we would have these men appointed by one body and their salaries fixed by another body. I maintain that the body that sets the salary automatically controls the appointment; I do not think we can get away from that. The chief inspector has been quoted in this connection. He objected in the committee to this very subsection, and his objection was borne out by the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Both these gentlemen pointed out that this would create jealousies or at all events trouble within the staff, if one section of the staff was under the control of the Civil Service Commission and had their salaries fixed by statute, and another section of the staff had their salaries fixed by the chief inspector or the Board of Grain Commissioners. I think that ought to be taken into consideration.


John Millar: Were not those objections afterwards withdrawn by these officials?


Milton Neil Campbell: They distinctly objected to this subsection.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not only amazed at the advocacy of such views by representatives from western Canada, but likewise at. the frailty of the reasons that have been advanced in support of this return to patronage. Two reasons were given why a change in our law should be made so far as the classification of employees in the grain business is concerned. The first was that they are skilled and technical officers, and cannot properly be chosen by the Civil Service Commission. I venture to dispute that basis for the argument that has been advanced.


Charles Wallace Stewart: They have
to be chosen by the Civil Service Commission under this Clause.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite realize that under the clause they must be appointed in the manner provided, but the hon. gentleman went on to argue that they were inefficient, and consequently I would think his argument should have led him to the conclusion that they should be removed from under the Civil Service Act.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I did not
argue that they were all inefficient. I argued that provision should be made to retain the efficient ones.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The suggestion, as I understand it, from some hon. members, perhaps not entirely from the hon. member for Humboldt, was that the skilled and technical officers required for this business could more efficiently be chosen by the Board of Grain Commissioners. From that view I entirely dissent. My understanding of the situation is that under the law now these technical and trained officials are appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but in no case are the recommendations of the Board of Grain Commissioners wholly ignored, the commissioners have the fullest opportunity of presenting their views as to the proper and most efficient officials to be appointed. Besides, I would like to say, I do not believe that the grain officials appointed under the patronage system prior to 1918 were a particle more efficient than the officials appointed by the grain commission since that year.
It is suggested that another reason for this change rests in the fact that salaries are not advanced rapidly enough by the Civil Service Commission. The argument in that connection has been wholly demolished by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), for he pointed out that the salaries are raised on the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and in no case have the Civil Service Commission refused to accept such recommendation. If the Board of Grain Commissioners now do not recommend adequate salaries to the Civil Service Commission, what reason; has this committee to thipk that freed from the restrictions of the Civil Service Act, the Board of Grain Commissioners would pay adequate salaries? It seems to me the argument is wholly unsound, and I am surprised that hon. gentlemen should lend themselves to the argument at all.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Will the
hon. member not admit that if this responsibility is placed upon the Board of Grain Commissioners we can expect that they will at least make some attempt to retain the most efficient by advancing their salaries, instead of taking the Toundabout course of acting through the Civil Service Commission?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: There is nothing roundabout in the course they have to pursue. They are at perfect liberty to recommend to the Civil Service Commission salary increases for any individual or for a whole classification, and the evidence shows conclusively that their recommendations in this respect have never been ignored. Why should we want to change
Canada Grain Act

the situation? There is nothing to be gained by it, and there is distinct danger in the recommendation made by the committee.


James Dew Chaplin: One of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) for this change was that there was friction between the board and the Civil Service Commission. It seems to me that any department that wanted to do away with the act or to go behind it, or to escape the control of the Civil Service Commission, might very easily stir up a little friction. It seems to me this is simply putting a premium upon friction, and if we are going to abandon the Civil Service Commission first for one commission and then for another, we had better abandon it altogether and wipe it oil the slate entirely.


John Millar: If the hon. gentleman
wished to be entirely fair, I think he would remember that I said perhaps I should not call it friction, but that they did not appear to be working together as fully as they should.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not going to quarrel over the word. But if they are not pulling together, there must certainly be friction, and the hon. member did use the word himself.


Claudius Charles Davies: I do not see how this section would be workable at all. This section was thoroughly discussed in the Agriculture committee, and I agree with my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) that the officers of the Board of Grain Commissioners agreed before the committee that this would not be workable. What would be the position of the other employees under this section? It proposes to take certain offices from under the act and allow the Board of Grain Commissioners to pay them any salaries they see fit, and once they do that, immediately the rest of the employees of the board are going to ask for exactly the same privileges. I think the whole thing is vicious. It is just opening the way to patronage in an underhand manner. I came in here promising my people that I would oppose patronage in every form, and I am going to do it by voting against this section.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I am going to vote
against this section, and in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River. During the election campaign I took a stand against patronage, a stand that was taken, I think, generally by members in this comer of the House, and I for one have not changed my views since that time. Every argument that has been advanced so far in favour of this clause has been advanced by

every other department that wanted to get rid of the Civil Service Commission. There was a move not long ago to have the Penitentiaries branch taken out from under the Civil Service Commission, and identically the same arguments were advanced on that occasion as have been put forward here this afternoon. I cannot see how we can consistently ask that this branch of the civil service be removed from under the Civil Service Commission unless you are going to allow any branch that puts up this argument to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the commission also.


Oliver Robert Gould: Possibly it may be suggested that I am inclined to limit the powers of the Civil Service Commission, but it is not so. I think I stand as loyally for the principle of maintaining the Civil Service Commission as any individual in this House, and yet as I see this particular matter, the trade is supplying the money to pay these officers. It seems to me, therefore, that they should not come wholly under the Civil Service Commission.


Leland Payson Bancroft: It has been suggested in this House this session that the penitentiaries should be made self-supfiorting by providing work for the inmates at various trades. If that were done, would the hon. member recommend taking the penitentiaries away from the Civil Service Commission and restoring patronage in that branch?


Oliver Robert Gould: We will face these problems when we meet them. There is no use anticipating such matters, let us deal with them when they arise. In the meantime there is this problem before us to consider.


Arthur Meighen: There are numerous services now that are self-supporting besides this. Does the hon. member want to extend it to the Post Office department for example?


Oliver Robert Gould: If my right hon. friend will permit me I will continue with my statement.


Mr. WARD:: What problem is the hon.
member speaking about?


Oliver Robert Gould: The problem is this:	In
the past we have had a number of gentlemen in the service who were recognized throughout Canada for their ability. As the grain trade developed and prospered it has induced these men to leave the service and has been indifferent to the question of salary-the fact that a hundred or even a thousand dollars more was involved seemed to be immaterial. In my opinion the Civil Service Commission has not kept abreast of the times or we would not have lost the very efficient officers to the

Canada Grain Act
extent that we have lost them in the past. In order to attract these efficient officers the trade willingly offered them much larger salaries than they were receiving in the government service. As an example of this let me state that a former member of the Board of Grain Commissioners is now receiving $1,500 per year more from a private company than he received when he was on the board. In conclusion may I say that in speaking as I have done I have not retraced my steps in the matter of government appointments. I still hold the views that I have always held on the question of patronage.


Arthur John Lewis: I wish to say that I am
opposed to this section entirely; it is simply making a wagon track through the Civil Service Act. Every argument that was advanced here could be applied with equal force to many other cases in the Civil Service. There are hundreds of men in the Civil Service to-day, patriotic and self-sacrificing enough to give their services to the country at the present time, who would receive probably twice the remuneration they now get if they were working for a private corporation. To argue that the illustration only applies to this particular instance is an absurdity to say the least. We have the evidence that not in one instance have the Board of Grain Commissioners applied in vain to the Civil Service Commission where an increase in salary was considered necessary; and we hav6 not had one instance brought before us this afternoon showing that any one man has relinquished his position because his salary was inadequate. I can readily understand the position we are going to get into if what is proposed here is carried out. A minister will say he is responsible and ought to have the right to make appointments. I was at the sittings of the special committee that inquired into the civil service and I never heard of a single case where a department did not set up that claim. Such being the case we, the members in this corner of the House ought to come out and show where we stand on this question. There seems to be no manner of doubt that any recommendations on the part of the Board of Grain Commissioners to the Civil Service Commission intended to raise the standard of efficiency have been accepted by that body. If the standard of efficiency is not high enough, who is to blame? The standard should be raised in order to see if we cannot get more efficient men. If we do get competent men, I am quite sure the salary paid will be commensurate with their ability.


John Millar: Did not my hon. friend,
at the time he speaks of hear a complaint from the Board of Grain Commissioners on the score of inefficiency?


Arthur John Lewis: As far as the inefficiency is concerned you can appoint men who have passed examinations successfully and yet may prove inefficient in practical work. I think that is quite true of every department of the government. However, if the Board of Grain Commissioners had inefficient men in their employ it was always open to them to appeal to the Civil Service Commission and they could have got rid of them in some way


George Gibson Coote: The complaint I have heard to-day is largely that the Inspection department has been losing its best men because the grain trade offers them better salaries. I think there is only one real remedy in this case and that is for the farmers to get together and, through co-operation, grade their own grain, hire their own inspectors, and pay them what salaries they like. Then we will not have to be bothered with the Governor in Council, the Civil Service Commission, or a Canada Grain Act. I wish the farmers of western Canada could have been here this afternoon and heard all the trouble we have in connection with the employment of inspectors and the salaries they are paid. I do not think we will ever get away from that trouble-regardless of whether the rates of pay are set by the Governor in Council or by the Civil Service Commission-until we organize a co-operative organization where the farmers can employ their own inspectors. As far as I am concerned, after listening to all the arguments here this afternoon in regard to this particular section, I intend to vote for the amendment offered by the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think most of
us will admit that this branch of the government service is quite different from the others, in that it is entirely commercial.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: The less some hon. members know about the subject the more they seem to laugh and cackle. Mr. Chairman, this is purely a commercial service, in that respect resembling the National Railway Board. The grain trade is administered by a board and the services rendered are paid for by the farmers through weighing, inspection, and grading tariff at so much per car. The greatest objection that I have to these appointments being made by the Civil Service Commission here in the Hunter block
Canada Grain Act

is this. You first have to convince them that an appointment must be made. It takes a month to do that, and it relates to a matter about which the members of the commission themselves know nothing. As to getting rid of an inefficient inspector he has the right to enter an appeal and all sorts of delay is involved. In the meantime an incompetent officer may be doing work that will involve hundreds and thousands of dollars' loss to the farmers. And yet we are to be told the situation is one that cannot be rectified.


Arthur Meighen: If the government wanted to dismiss an official, under what law has that official the right to appeal?


William Richard Motherwell: Under the Civil
Service Act he is allowed the right to appeal.


Arthur Meighen: It is time for the minister to " cackle " because he does not know anything about it.


William Richard Motherwell: I do know about
it. However, that is neither here nor there. It takes a long while to bring about reclassification and to increase a salary. That is the point I want to get at.


Arthur Meighen: That is another thing.


William Richard Motherwell: If we wished to deal with an employee and give him a raise, we will say, it ought to be possible to do it in a very short time. As it is now in dealing with the Civil Service Commission it is a matter of weeks. Evidence taken by the government which preceded the present administration showed that it took ninety days on an average to make appointments in the civil service, especially in the higher grades, and my own experience bears out that statement. It is the same with regard to classification and increases of salary. Sometimes it takes a year and even longer to make a reclassification.


Donald Sutherland: It did not take that ong to have Duncan Marshall appointed without reference to the Civil Service Commission.


William Richard Motherwell: No.
Mr.' MEIGHEN:	What appeal did the
government give to Dr. Torrance when they dismissed him?


William Richard Motherwell: He resigned and
had no right of appeal. I find there has been a good deal of complaint during the last year or two regarding incompetent inspectors and small salaries. In some cases the matter would drag along for weeks and months, to such an extent that before a proper scale of wages could be arranged for a man, he had

gone elsewhere. Thus the efficiency of the staff was impaired. This was the result of poor salaries and delay in adjusting salaries or providing increases. That is no dream; I know it to be the case. We should make no more complaints about inefficient grading if we are going to hand over the appointment of inspectors and the raising of salaries to an extraneous body thousands of miles away from the work. It is absurd, undemocratic and ridiculous. You might as well go further and provide to have the threshermen for this grain appointed by the Civil Service Commission, or deal with the harvest hands in a similar manner and increase their salaries from the Hunter Block, the seat of operations, as to adopt the suggestion which is now proposed. If you carry the proposition to a logical conclusion, that is where you will land. I am not criticizing adversely the Civil Service Commission. It has to obey the act. But that act is one of those fool measures passed by the Union government which should never have been placed on the statutes.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would like to make it clear
. to the House that this clause is a matter of indifference to the department. The Agriculture committee have added to the bill, and we were prepared to accept their recommendations. If this committee decide to reject it we have no objection.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I find myself at variance
with some of my hon. friends behind me, particularly the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), in respect to the position they have taken. I think it requires a very great stretch of the imagination indeed to argue successfully that the passing of this clause is the introduction of patronage into the service. In the first place, this clause does not govern the appointment. Every appointment to this inspection staff enters through the gateway of the Civil Service Commission, as it has done in past years. There is not the slightest shadow of a claim that patronage enters into the appointment in any sense whatever. If the argument that this clause is the restoration of patronage is sound, it means nothing more than this: that some of these inspectors, after they get into the service, may be able to influence either the Board of Grain Commissioners or the Governor in Council to grant tnem special favours in salaries. The Governor in Council or the Board of Grain Commissioners have had nothing whatever to do with their appointment or wi:h their entering the service, but if the argument holds true, as far as the Board of Grain Commissioners who make the recommendation are concerned, it is just

Canada Grain Act
as reasonable to argue that it would apply with equal force to the Civil Service Commission. In the working out of this thing I think it is necessary to apply some common sense. What is the actual position to-day? I submit that a grain inspector is not a technical officer in the ordinary sense in which that term is understood. A grain inspector does not become a grain inspector because he has certain university qualifications, or, because he has certain qualifications or educational standards in other respects. Some of the most efficient grain inspectors in the past, I venture to say, have been men with very little education, because the work they are called upon to do is not a work the efficiency of which can be measured by educational standards. As a matter of fact the majority of these inspectors, in actual practice, come up from samplers. The samplers are engaged to take the samples of grain out of the cars standing on the railway -tracks, and after they have worked for years at that employment they acquire a knowledge themselves, by further studies of the different types of grain, so that in due time they can pass the practical tests that are necessary for inspecting grain.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That is the practical test.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As far as that is concerned I am not quarrelling with that. I am not suggesting to the committee that that method of appointment be changed. But how does it wcrk out in actual practice? At times, as everyone knows, the pressure of grain coming down increases in volume very greatly. There have been times when the inspectors have been working ten, twelve and fourteen hours a day, and the chief grain inspector has been unable to give them the additional compensation they were entitled to for the extra work they were performing. My hon. friend from West York laughs, but I may tell him I am credibly informed that a year ago last fall the chief grain inspector who has rendered the highest kind of service to the grain business of the country had his resignation in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce because of the shackles that were put upon him in maintaining his staff.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will bear me out in that statement. What is sought here? It is not the introduction of patronage. It is simply that the Board of Grain Commissioners, who are on the spot and cognizant of conditions, may have authority to recom-295
mend, by telegram if necessary or by letter, to the Governor in Council that so-and-so's salary be increased. What my hon. friend from Humboldt said is perfectly true. The most efficient men in the grain inspection staff have left the service in past years to go with private firms. I ask my hon. friends who see the bogey of patronage in this reasonable proposal to maintain the efficiency of service, is it to the interests of the farmers of western Canada that they should have an efficient staff? It means everything to them. They are more interested in it than anyone else. It is essential that these men be paid proper remuneration. As far as the general scale of salaries for inspectors is concerned, I submit that cannot be judged by the scale of salaries paid in any other department of the service. I make the assertion to this committee that the general scale of salaries of the inspection staff should be increased fifty per cent. The grain trade and the grain producers of Canada will benefit by that, because they would have a more efficient staff doing this very important work. Grading grain is an important work. If an inspector is an inefficient man and lowers a grade, if in his judgment a car of wheat should go into a No. 3 northern instead of No. 2 northern, the grain grower loses eight or ten cents a bushel by virtue of that act. It is of the highest importance, not only that you have the highest efficiency, but that you have these employees well paid and the Civil Service Commission are not as good as the Board of Grain Commissioners to recommend in that respect. As regards the letter which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) read to the committee, we had the chairman of the Civil Service Commission and one or two of his officials before the Agriculture committee for several hours discussing this question, and the decision of the committee to add this subclause (2) to clause 9 was taken after all that conversation-shall I say?-had been had with the Civil Service Commission officials.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some days
after.


Daniel Webster Warner: And the Civil Service
Commission agreed to it.


Arthur Meighen: It is wonderful to know
all those who are strongly in favour of not only getting rid but keeping rid of patronage so long as it is merely a matter of profession and principle; but when it comes to the application, there is a great falling away. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) argues that patronage is eliminated as long as the Civil Service Commission appoints, and



Canada Grain Act
it is all right for the government after that to increase or even diminish salaries. So long as those who get in the door get in with the imprimatur of the Civil Service Commission, then patronage is not there. Will he follow me just for a minute when I seek to prove, as it appears to my mind, that the power to increase or to diminish salaries is the whole thing? The board could have a very small salary, a trifling one for those who commence, so that practically there would be no applicants, but, of course, they would have to have such a salary that somebody would apply. If the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the board is to be permitted to take Mr. "A" and to add $100 to his salary today and in a month from now another $100, and to keep on doing that at its will, the Governor in Council determines who stays there. If it determines who stays there, that is the very same thing as determining who is admitted,-in the end iit would be the Governor in Council who would appoint them. One may argue that this is worth while in order to get the direct appointment. It may be that special circumstances would demand that; but once you give the control of salary to the Governor in Council, you give the control of appointment to the Governor in Council because it can weed out at will, it can confer favours at will; and I venture to say that, with that powqr, however greatly it may be necessary-and nobody would put more stress on it than I would in connection with .the inspection of grain-you are not going to get in the end as efficient a service as you have now. You are going to get men in the service for all sorts of reasons as well as because they are good inspectors. It is said that you cannot reward a man in time; that you cannot get enough salary for him. How is it, in the face of that, that the board has not recommended classifications above in order that promotion might be possible to those posts? We have before us evidence irrefutable that the board have been thoroughly satisfied with the scale of salaries; that they have never applied for a higher scale.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not quite understand the right hon. gentleman's reference to classification of inspectors.


Arthur Meighen: The board could recommend a salary classification above what there is if it wished. The board have themselves accepted the, .classification as it stands. They could recommend a classification above, giving another name for i.t, and then if the Civil Service Commission refused it, it might be
FMr. Meighen.]
worth while inquiring which was right. But that has never occurred. The Civil Service Commission has granted all applications of that kind after consultation with the Board of Grain Commissioners. Here we stand without a single complaint. The hon. member says that somebody had his resignation in the hands of the minister because of difficulty. How is it .that no word of that reached the Civil Service Commission?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It did.


Arthur Meighen: The records show that it did not. I know every official always wants to have the say as to who is under him. There is something to be said for that. In private business it is the right thing, but in government business it is impossible because of other elements that enter into the situation that cannot enter into private business where profit is the object. The hon. member says that we lose men who are almost indispensable to the grain, trade. That is the case throughout the whole service, and it is bound to be so as long as government service exists. If the hon,. member thinks that any board that is .paying out public money is to be allowed to pay out just as high salaries as are necessary to keep the men it wants to keep, my eyes weep for the taxpayers of Canada. That is impossible; if the hon. member had charge of a department for a short time, he would soon see the impossibility of it. You cannot keep the best by .paying them salaries equal to those which a private business will pay. We have a certain structure built up. We have already started nibbling at it in various ways, and if we keep on we shall find more and more .precedents to follow until the whole structure falls down. We builit n.p this great structure under cover of professions of desire to abandon patronage for good, and now we are pleading for it after knowing what it has performed.


Mr. MACLEAN (Prince):: In the Agriculture committee we were given to understand that the Grain Act was self-sustaining. If that is the case. I think it would be rather far-fetched to say that tjie Civil Service Commission should control the appointments.


Arthur Meighen: The whole Weights and Measures service is self-sustaining; the Post Office Department is self-sustaining; the Department of Customs and Excise is selfsustaining; the Income Tax branch is seAf-sus-taining. That is the 'case, not in every part of the service, but instances can .be found all through the service. The .principle that has been advocated would destroy all that has been done.

Canada Grain Act


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There is a difference in that. In many of these, technical or educational training or special training along certain lines is required, but in this case possibly a farmer who would be handling grain would be better for the work than a technical man. Therefore, it looks to the outside observer as if it would not be necessary to have competitive examinations; but I think, when this is purely a farmers' organization and they are paying for the work, it would be quite within their rights to have the Board of Grain Commissioners appoint the men to do the work.
Amendment (Mr. Garland, Bow River)
negatived: Yeas, 36; Nays, 43.


Mr. GARDINER:: I have another amendment to move to subsection (2) of section 9. I move that the words "Governor in Council" in the twelfth line be struck out and the words "Civil Service Commission" be substituted therefor so that the subsection will read:
Notwithstanding anything in any other act contained, inspectors, .inspecting officers, weighmasters and their ass 'slants shall be paid such compensation as is determined by the Civil Service Commission upon the recommendation of the board.
I attended the sessions of the agricultural committee on many occasions and I did hear evidence with regard to the question of salaries for technical men under the board. But I never heard any member of the board or even the chief inspector make the statement that they had not been able to obtain from the Civil Service Commission all increases they had asked for. That being the case, I see no reason why the Civil Service Commission should not have control in this matter. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further and I now move the amendment I propose.
Amendment negatived on division:	Yeas,
38; Nays, 44.
Subsection (2) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Appointment of persons having technical knowledge.
Arthur Meighen: What is the necessity
for this section? It declares that certain technical officers may be appointed "in the manner authorized by law." Unless there is something in this section that does not appear on the surface it is pure surplusage.


George Perry Graham: There is no change.
295i


Arthur Meighen: The note of explanation to section 9 states that that section-
-corresponds to section 8 of the act of 1912, but is drafted to conform to the requirements of the Civil Service Act.
And the note that explains this section, 12 declares that the section corresponds to section 11 of the act of 1912 but is drafted in accordance with the Civil Service Act. Unless this section is meant to get around the Civil Service Act it has no meaning because the same matters would come under section 9. What has the minister to say in explanation of it?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think I can add anything to the explanatory note. Section 11 of the act of 1912 provides that the board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint any person having special or technical knowledge of the subject in question to assist in an advisory capacity on any matter before the board. That is substantially the same as the clause now before us.


Oliver Robert Gould: I can conceive the necessity
arising for the board to send to any of the terminal elevators in any part of the country some man having technical knowledge of his subject, and in that case I should think this provision would be necessary.


Arthur Meighen: If that is what it means, it is covered under section 9.


Ernest Lapointe: This is merely to conform to the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Official standards. Samples of grain.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the real effect of the change?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was a specific date before, and it was found impossible sometimes to collect the samples promptly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
On section 34-After dark or in wet weather. Inspecting officer to be present. Issue of certificate.
Arthur Meighen: I must congratulate the draftsman on his very illuminating comments at the side.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 35 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
40J2
Canada Grain Act
[Stage Direction]
On section. 39-Commercial grades established.
George Gibson Coote: With regard to the concluding sentence of this section, "and such special grades shall continue to be the commercial grades until changed," would the minister explain just what is meant?


Thomas Andrew Low: The grades established last fall hold good until they are again established next fall.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 40-Standards established by grain standards board. Selection to be permanent. Standards. Samples. Inspectors to be governed by the act.
Arthur Meighen: The explanation says
that the section is drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Act. What is the difference between this section and the old section; who selected this board before?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It looks as if the note was entirely misleading.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Section 48 of the act of 1912 reads as follows:
Grain Standards Board
48. The board may appoint, for any division or district, as a grain standards board, such number of fit and skilful persons as it deems necessary, for the purpose of establishing such commercial grades and of choosing samples of such grades to be the standards therefor; and the appointment of such persons by the beard shall be held to be permanent and effective until superseded and replaced by other appointments by the board for that purpose.
2. The persons so apointed shall select and establish only the standards found necessary, to be designated as commercial standards; and in the inspection of all grain other than that subject to be graded as commercial grade, the inspectors shall be governed by the .grades established by this act.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation is nonsense.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I quite agree with my right hon. friend; the explanation at the side is entirely unnecessary.


George Gibson Coote: From what I understand, it seems that we follow a rather peculiar pro-;edure here. I think under section 32 the chief inspector is supposed each year to select samples of the different grades of grain, to be known as the official standards. When we come to the commercial grades we have a board composed of about fifteen persons, some of whom, I suppose, have a knowledge of the grain trade, others possibly are growing grain, but so far as I know there are no technical men on this standards board. If all the commercial grades are to be set by

this grain standards board it is certainly one of the most important questions we have to take care of in the act. How are these persons to be appointed?


Thomas Andrew Low: The members are appointed by the Board of Grain Commissioners for their special knowledge in the grain trade. Most of them are grain growers; some are millers.


George Gibson Coote: Is the< chief inspector a member of this grain standards board?


Thomas Andrew Low: He may be. He prepares the samples and is always present.


George Gibson Coote: Is the deputy inspector, for instance, from Calgary at that meeting of the grain standards board as a member?


Thomas Andrew Low: He is not a member of the board, but he has been present.


George Gibson Coote: I would suggest that the inspectors at Calgary, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, or any of the other points, should 6 p.m. be members of this grain standards board, for I think they know more about the building up of proper samples on which the grain for the season should be graded than many of the present members of that board.
Progress reported.
On motion of MV. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, June 22, 1925